1991 Legislative Session: 5Fth Session, 34th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12883 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12883

Ministerial Statement

Dismissal of Attorney-General's executive assistant. Hon. Mr. Fraser ––

Mr. Sihota

Oral Questions

Okanagan representation on Agricultural Land Commission. Mr. Barlee –– 12885

Increase in gasoline tax. Mr. Loenen –– 12886

Mr. Barlee

Government rental of office space. Ms. Marzari –– 12886

B.C. lottery advertisement. Ms. Cull –– 12887

Range Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 5). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 12887

Mr. Barlee –– 12887

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 12887

Mr. Miller –– 12888

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 12888

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 12888

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Miller

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Jones

Mr. De Jong

Mr. Perry

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1991

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's my pleasure today to welcome three

guests to the members' gallery: first of all, my wife; my executive

assistant Marg Robertson; and the young lady who is our receptionist.

It's her first time observing the House. Would you welcome Lisa

Sorenson.

MS. PULLINGER: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce

someone who's very special to me and who is known to a number of people

on both sides of the House, and that's my brother Don Pullinger, in the

members' gallery. With him today is my son Brett Ferguson and my

brother's son Wally Pullinger. Will the House please help me make them

welcome.

MR. LOENEN: The Victoria Health Project is a real success

story for the Minister of Health and for the communities associated

with it. The executive coordinator is in the gallery today, and I would

ask the House to please welcome Susan Iles.

HON. J. JANSEN: We have visitors from the best constituency

in the province today. We have here some grade 5 and 6 students from

Chilliwack Central Elementary School. Would you please make them

welcome.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Crown Lands for the period April 1, 1989, to March 31, 1990.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the financial statements for B.C. Rail for the fiscal period ended December 31, 1990.

Ministerial Statement

DISMISSAL OF ATTORNEY-GENERALS

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

HON. MR. FRASER: Yesterday in the House the hon. member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew raised the matter of the dismissal of my

executive assistant. I responded that the matter was a personnel issue,

and that is still my belief. Nonetheless, in response to questions and

reports in the media, I would like to provide the House with the

following information. In 1988 a lengthy letter by private investigator

George Peden, which contained numerous allegations against a number of

individuals, was received by Grace McCarthy, then the Minister of

Economic Development. The member from Little Mountain in turn referred

this document to the then Attorney-General Brian Smith. Ministry of

Attorney-General officials confirmed at this time that the matter was

under police consideration.

By September 1988, members of the RCMP and the Vancouver police department

determined that the allegations were groundless. This conclusion was confirmed

today by Assistant Commissioner Palmer of the RCMP. In late 1990 the same letter

— or a letter containing similar allegations — was brought to my attention by

my executive assistant, Bob Walsh. In reviewing the document, I decided that

the allegations appeared to be without substance. Following my discussion with

Mr. Walsh, he on his own initiative turned the document over to Peter Engstad,

the director of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit. Mr. Engstad referred the

document to the RCMP, who advised Mr. Engstad that they had already reviewed

these allegations. The document delivered by Mr. Walsh did not disclose any

new allegations, and in the opinion of the police the allegations were without

substance. This fact was also confirmed with Assistant Commissioner Palmer today.

On May 21, Deputy Attorney-General Bob Edwards was confidentially

advised that this document was inappropriately disclosed by Mr. Walsh

to a person outside the ministry or any police agency. Mr. Edwards then

conducted an investigation concerning this allegation of inappropriate

disclosure, and last Thursday advised me of this matter. This was the

first time I became aware of this inappropriate disclosure.

The deputy and I agreed that the proper course of conduct was for

Mr. Edwards to speak to Mr. Walsh directly, which he did immediately.

During this meeting Mr. Walsh confirmed that he had made the alleged

disclosure. Following discussions with my deputy, I came to the

conclusion that Mr. Walsh's conduct was unacceptable and required his

dismissal. I advised Mr. Walsh of my decision on Friday, June 14, 1991.

Mr. Walsh requested an extensive severance payment of some three

months, or until he had time to find a job. This request was refused,

and he was advised that he would get exactly what was coming to him,

not a penny more and not a penny less. Mr. Walsh was not satisfied and

indicated he would make the matter public in some fashion. I have no

information, other than just stated, as to any other persons who may

have access to Mr. Peden's letter.

Mr. Walsh did not resign. He was dismissed for inappropriately

releasing confidential information to a person outside the ministry or

any police agency. This disclosure did not compromise an ongoing police

investigation or a criminal prosecution. The circumstances of this

disclosure demonstrate a lack of judgment concerning material he had

obtained in his capacity as my executive assistant, and any future

disclosures of this nature would produce a similar result. I am not

aware of any other inappropriate disclosures of confidential

information by Mr. Walsh — certainly not anything that would jeopardize

an ongoing police investigation or criminal prosecution.

The dismissal of Mr. Walsh is in no way connected to the alleged

disclosure of information from the Ministry of Attorney-General

concerning the legal opinions dealing with the departure of Mr.

Couvelier as Minister of Finance in April.

The 1988 letter by George Peden appears to have been made available

to members of the media. As the allegations contained in it were

determined by the police to be without substance, in my view it is not

[ Page 12884 ]

appropriate for me to discuss the details in a

public forum. I refer members to the Owen report, which clearly

addressed the issue of public disclosure of police investigations. As

the allegations were investigated by the police in 1988 and as I have

taken appropriate steps to deal with the problem in my office, a

further inquiry is not required.

While it is the tradition of the Attorney-General to be provided the

assistance of an executive assistant, this incident is of such concern

to me that I have requested the Deputy Attorney-General to prepare a

report and recommendations on the appropriate role of an executive

assistant to the Attorney-General. It is my intention to act upon these

recommendations provided, and I welcome any of you to provide me with

any recommendations you may also have.

I might add that according to the Sun newspaper this morning, it has been suggested that Mr. Peden made allegations in 1975 that the CIA had infiltrated the NDP.

When allegations such as the ones raised by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew come to light, there is an appropriate procedure

to follow to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done.

Allegations of this nature are not to be dealt with in a public forum.

The conduct of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was severely

called into question in the Owen report. It appears that the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has again proceeded down the same path. That

brings into question his role as the justice critic, and that of the

Leader of the Opposition in leaving him in that post.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before recognizing the next

member to speak.... I did not interrupt the minister in the procedure

of making his statement, but when people read statements that are

prepared by people unfamiliar with the rules of this House, it would be

the preferred course of action that members who are still members of

this House be referred to by their constituencies and not by their

names. There were several violations of that fundamental rule in your

statement.

[2:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree with you more. It

went far beyond the bounds of a ministerial statement, which has to do

with administration....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Are you finished? You guys learned to harrumph when you were about 15.

Mr. Speaker, it went well beyond the policy and administration

guidelines assigned to ministerial statements. We didn't interrupt

because it was an extremely important matter. Occasionally we like to

get the truth from this government.

This case is a very serious matter. It involves a public servant,

his termination, his personal life, his future and his whole

reputation, and we on this side of the House don't.... Since we didn't

receive any kind of notice about this.... We didn't receive the

courtesy of a copy of the ministerial statement. We're prepared to

respond to the minister, but we would like to ask leave to have our

response delayed and deferred until we can make a very responsible,

accurate and thoughtful response to the minister's statement. To

proceed right now, I think, would be unfair not only to the minister

and my colleague, but also Mr. Walsh.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Leave has been requested. The

normal procedure is that when a ministerial statement is made, there is

an opportunity for response at that time. Of course, our rules can be

waived with unanimous consent. So I'm going to ask: is such leave

granted? There are several noes.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

listened very carefully to the opposition House Leader, and he did not

rise on a point of order. Therefore I submit to you that they have had

their response to the ministerial statement.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this

agony, but I don't know where in the rules it says there can be only

one response to a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Under the

circumstances.... There are times when members rise to bring matters as

points of order and don't actually articulate the fact that it's a

point of order. For the purpose of this

interpretation, the Chair is

going to make the arbitrary decision that the remarks made by the

opposition House Leader were in fact a point of order to seek leave.

Such leave is not granted.

I will now allow the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to make a reply to the ministerial statement.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made a statement to

the House. My colleague the opposition House Leader has pointed out

that there was no advance notice given of that, as is usually the

courtesy in these matters. The minister made....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: I would request that you ask the members on that

side to refrain from their pathetic ramblings. If you wish a formal

request to withdraw, I'd be happy to oblige.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has been

recognized, and he stood in his place. If he wishes to begin speaking

he can do so; otherwise I'm afraid the Chair is powerless to stop

interjections. I'm not going to comment on the editorializing or the

quality of the objections.

MR. SIHOTA: As I said, it is customary to receive notice, and

in this case that courtesy has not been extended to this side of the

House. If that is the

[ Page

12885 ]

decision the Attorney-General has made, he has to live with the consequences of it.

At this point I have a lot of questions to ask the Attorney-General.

A number of issues, in my mind, remain unanswered in the statement that

he so carefully prepared and presented to this House. I would prefer,

rather than dealing now with the comments he made in the House today,

to review his comments in the Blues later on today and refer to this

issue again later. I can assure the Attorney-General that I have a set

of questions that I will be putting to him tomorrow in relation to this

matter, because it seems to me that a number of issues have not been

attended to. But at this point, Mr. Speaker, given the sensitivity of

the issue and the absence of courtesy from the opposite side, I have no

intention of responding in detail to the minister's statement.

Oral Questions

OKANAGAN REPRESENTATION ON

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

MR. BARLEE: This is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Food. I understand that at yesterday's meeting of the Agricultural

Land Commission much of the business dealt with lands in the Okanagan —

and that's not unusual, Mr. Speaker. There is considerable interest in

the ALR lands in the Okanagan. That area, by the way, has had an

agricultural land commissioner for 18 years. Can the minister confirm

that there was no commissioner from the Okanagan at that meeting?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: I have no idea who was at that meeting. It's the first time I was aware that they'd even had a meeting.

MR. BARLEE: Supplementary to the minister. I would presume

that as Minister of Agriculture, you would have some interest in the

agricultural land reserve, which is the greenbelt of British Columbia.

The incumbent commissioner from the Okanagan was a Mr. Rod King. His

term expired on May 10. He's a longtime farmer. Can the minister, who

has some connection with the Agricultural Land Commission, explain why

his term was not extended?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: I can assure the member that I have a

great deal of concern about all matters related to the agricultural

land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. As far as

appointments to that board are concerned, when they become vacant they

are considered, and reappointments or new appointments are made in due

course. I don't think that it has been the practice of any previous

minister in any previous government or this government to have

consultation with members opposite in the Legislature I'm not about to

begin it now.

MR. BARLEE: If the minister is so concerned about the agricultural lands

in the Okanagan, I wonder why Kelowna has been so wildly successful in getting

lands out of the ALR.

When that decision was made, was the minister aware of Mr. King's

long-term interest in the Okanagan — as a bona fide orchardist — and of

his wish to stay on the commission to represent the people of the

Okanagan, who are not presently represented on that commission?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly very aware of

not only Mr. Rod King's involvement in the agricultural community in

the Okanagan, but also his father Avery. The whole family has been

very, very active in the industry and very concerned that it is going

to continue to survive and thrive in the Okanagan. They are also very

concerned about land matters. But that has nothing whatsoever to do

with the fact that the appointment has not been made. I'm not about to

comment today exactly when it will be made.

MR. BARLEE: I again go back to the question. Does the

minister not find it most unusual, with about half of the requests for

removal from the ALR coming from the Okanagan, that there's no

representative of the Okanagan to act as a watchdog?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARLEE: I'll repeat that question again. The government

benches don't seem to be very interested in that type of question, but

I think it's very important.

I would think that the minister would be very concerned that there

is no watchdog on the Agricultural Land Commission from the Okanagan.

This is under a great deal of pressure, and the greenbelts have been

disappearing extremely rapidly. What is the minister prepared to do

about it?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: First of all, I would certainly not agree

with the member's assertion that land is being removed with great haste

anywhere in the province, let alone the Okanagan.

Any decision made by the Agricultural Land Commission is for them to

make, and I certainly have not tried in the past — nor will I try in

the future — to influence the decisions that the Agricultural Land

Commission makes. That's a decision that the), are to make.

As far as the matter of having someone from the Okanagan is

concerned, that will be dealt with in due course. I'm sure you will be

able to read about it in the Vancouver Sun when it happens.

MR. BARLEE: The minister suggested that the Okanagan was not

being affected by the removal of land from the agricultural land

reserve. Since 1988 there have been 15 golf courses removed in Kelowna

alone, which is the minister's own back yard — some of them up to 200

acres. Would the minister like to reply to that? I've got the figures

right here.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear a question.

[ Page 12886 ]

HON. MR. CHALMERS: I didn't hear his question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There wasn't a question; there were statements. The second member for Richmond.

MR. LOENEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Read Standing Orders .

For members who are not aware of the procedure, the member stood. If

there are two members standing at one time, the Chair has the

prerogative of choosing whichever member it wants. There have been so

many members standing today, I've recognized two ministers who just

turned out to be going for a walk. But I am aware that the member

wanted a question. Can I have the second member for Richmond.

INCREASE IN GASOLINE TAX

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not about to go for a walk. I

have a question for the minister responsible for transit. We know that

Mayor Campbell of Vancouver wants to add a very onerous tax levy on

gasoline. Will the minister reassure the consumers that this government

does not agree with the Vancouver mayor's request for that additional

increase in gasoline tax?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, the recommendation from the

city of Vancouver will go before the transit board before it arrives at

the government level as a request. It's my suspicion that it will not

go further than that.

We have a very difficult time in British Columbia with the erosion

of our economy because of cross-border shopping and so on. We also have

great concerns about how the fuel tax reflects on the cost of goods in

British Columbia and our competitiveness with our neighbours to the

south. I can assure the member that in the ministry's opinion it is not

in our interest that we would even consider that sort of an increase.

MR. BARLEE: I find that answer absolutely startling, and I'll

tell you why: because he mentioned the onerous effect of taxes. Listen,

the question is this: is the minister aware that in Washington the

average price of our low-grade fuel is 30 cents a litre in Canadian

funds? Their taxes are 10 cents. That leaves the oil companies with a

20 cent profit in the state of Washington. Is the minister also aware

that in British Columbia our average low-priced gas is 54.9 cents and

our taxes are 22.4 cents? The oil companies....

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: I'll get to the question. The oil companies in

British Columbia are making 32.5 cents per litre –– 65 percent more

than their counterparts in Washington. Is the minister prepared to do

something about that?

[2:30]

HON. L. HANSON: The question asked was to do with B.C.

Transit and the tax applied to fuel as a result of that. I suggest the

member go back and do some arithmetic and research his figures, because

they're not correct.

GOVERNMENT RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the minister of management

services and women. On March 14, when addressing a sorry record of

government waste, the minister offered the House a platitude. She said:

"I want to acknowledge that empty office space, whether it's in the

private sector or in government, is not desirable." Taxpayers don't

swallow that. Can the minister confirm that her government is currently

spending over $1 million a year on empty office space?

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, I would really appreciate it if

the opposition would put Women's Programs first; it's important for

women to come first.

I recognize the sensitivity the NDP opposition has to the

incompetence in Ontario; I recognize very clearly why you're talking

about empty office space. In British Columbia the government —

regardless of who the government is — is the biggest employer. We have

22 million square feet of space in 3,500 different buildings in this

province. Less than 2 percent...

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, I'm just playing it safe, Madam Member.

...is vacant, usable office space.

I want to end by reminding the members opposite about the years

between 1972 and 1975 — and I know you don't want to hear this. First

of all, nine questions were asked in this Legislature of the minister

responsible for office space, and none was answered. The increase in

office space in that short, dark period of time in the history of this

province was 278 percent in three years. The increase in cost was 207

percent. I think — I know — we do a good job.

MS. MARZARI: We're making progress. Last week we had a

vacancy rate of less than 1 percent. That was the quote. And now we

have 2 percent. One million dollars of wasted space is $1 million too

many.

In March, Women's Programs vacated a Hornby Street office nine

months after signing a five-year lease with expensive renovations —

$100,000 is the number that we've been told. At that time the minister

said: "I don't have any hesitation in saying or admitting that it was

the wrong thing to do." Well, is she ready to admit today that the

$100,000-a-year space that is still sitting empty on Hornby is a result

of her mistake?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the policy across the way would be to fill up every bit of empty space you have.

Women's Programs did move out of that office space, but at the time

— and it's still the case — the office space was vacated not to another

space, but to

[ Page

12887 ]

share an office that was already being paid for in order to downsize government and to save money to spend on women's programs.

B.C. LOTTERY ADVERTISEMENT

MS. CULL: I have a question to the minister responsible for

B.C. Lottery. We know that air pollution is one of the major

environmental issues facing our urban areas, and that emissions from

cars are the major contributor to the pollution. Yet B.C. Lottery is

running TV and radio ads downgrading public transit and promoting the

use of private automobiles. Since this government claims to be

concerned about the environment, has the minister now decided to cancel

this ad program?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. All members should pay attention to the question that was cleverly crafted to be correct, for a change.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I will be just as correct in the answer. The ad was cancelled on June 9.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Bill 5 amends the Range Act

to enable the government to better manage and protect the Crown range

resource. The bill will encourage investment in Crown range by the

ranching industry.

The bill contains a provision to enable the government to maintain

the relationship between a tenure and the private land associated with

a tenure, by ensuring that a tenure remains with a base ranch property

in the event of a lease or sale of the property expiring or not

completing, or where the property is foreclosed on. This provision

complements the current tenure transfer provisions and enables the

Ministry of Forests to maintain economically viable and stable ranching

operations.

The power to change tenure boundaries has been vested in the

regional manager instead of the ministers. This will promote greater

administrative efficiency. The bill also clarifies the manner in which

the notice of boundary change must be given to a tenure-holder, to

align the boundary change process with other provisions in the Range

Act which require service of notice. The bill provides for an appeal

from a regional manager's decision to change a boundary, to ensure that

a tenure-holder has the opportunity to have reviewed any

boundary-change decision which may significantly affect the

tenure-holder. The appeal will be heard by the minister or the

minister's designate.

The amount of compensation payable by government for improvements lost by a

tenure-holder because of a tenure boundary change has been clarified and increased.

A tenure-holder will now be compensated for the remaining value of the improvement,

based on the improvement's life expectancy if not maintained. In addition,

the government will pay a tenure-holder reasonable costs for improvements that

the holder must construct because of a tenure boundary change. These changes

recognize that boundary changes are made in the public interest by more fairly

distributing the cost of a boundary change between a tenure-holder and the public.

The bill will encourage tenure-holders to make appropriate improvements to Crown

range, thereby enhancing and protecting the Crown range resource.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARLEE: We've looked over the bill quite closely, Mr.

Speaker, and generally we are inclined to concur with it. It is a bit

of a patchwork bill, in that we think that the existing Range Act is

not adequate — that's why this bill is here. We know there has been

some consultation between the government and the cattlemen. We believe

the existing act needs almost a complete revision. The current Range

Act was essentially not working that well. We've had a number of

amendments to the Range Act in the last few months, and this is another.

We agree, however, that the substitution of the regional managers

for the minister is welcome. It's certainly welcome to the people in

the area, because I think it's a generally accepted theory that the

regional managers are much more aware of what is happening on the

ground in their local areas. So that transfer of administrative powers

to the regional managers is very welcome.

There are some significant changes, and the new formula for

compensation is probably one of the better ones. It appears to be

cumbersome; it is actually a significant improvement, and I think it

will work reasonably well.

The appeal process is also reasonable and seems to provide a simple

method to appeal a decision — again a step in the right direction. We

do wonder whether there is a proper checks-and-balances system

incorporated into this bill and whether the agricultural community has

a reasonable input into decisions, which are essentially under the

Ministry of Forests.

This is not a major bill, but it is a necessary one. It is not

without some misgivings, but we tend to concur with the bill in its

general principles.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to pick up the debate where the second

member for Boundary-Similkameen left off, but there's really not much

point in debating if there's nobody to debate with.

I would like to make the point that the changes here are welcomed,

particularly in respect of giving more authority to the regional

manager to be able to reassign leases so they can stay with the land

upon the default of an agreement for sale. I think that principle is

welcomed.

I also think that the point needs to made that the agriculture

community out there that needs range would like to see a major overhaul

of the Range Act. I'd like to know from the minister why this is a

piecemeal

[ Page 12888 ]

bill rather than a comprehensive amendment to the Range Act. Would he care to answer that now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: This is second reading.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to continue, then, and make the point

that the principle of developing a compensation formula is probably a

good idea in that it will protect investments in the range. But I am

interested in the fact that this bill has missing from it multiple-use

planning; in other words, if you're going to encourage a user of a

resource to invest, that person ought to be able to go through a land

use planning process so that he knows that the investments made in the

resource are going to be protected. This bill doesn't provide for that.

Because the government in this bill is accepting liability and is

setting forth a compensation formula, we need to know that built into

here is a procedure to ensure that there is a guarantee that the

planning has been done well — for example, if a range user invests in

fencing and so on to concentrate or direct the movement of cattle in an

area that might be subject to recreation, there won't then be

recreation pressures which force the government, by changing the

management plan, to change and alter the use and thereby encourage a

cost to the Crown. That's not provided for in this act, and should be.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I bow to the expertise of my

colleagues from Boundary-Similkameen and the Cariboo; living in the

region, they obviously know more about the range than I do from the

cattle country of Prince Rupert. In fact, I should tell you that the

last letter I received about the interaction between people and cows —

and I'm sure the Minister of Forests would appreciate this — is from an

individual who happened to be on his motorcycle on an undesignated

highway and ran into a cow, and he killed the cow. He wrote to me

because he thought that there really should be fences up to keep the

cows off the road. I couldn't disagree.

That deviates somewhat from this bill. First of all, we will be

supporting the bill. Clearly there are some changes here that are

required and, as my colleagues have indicated, appear to be beneficial.

[2:45]

I really think a point needs to be made, though, with respect to a

complete overhaul of the Range Act. I haven't done a count, but it

seems to me in the time I've been here we have dealt with a significant

number of Range Amendment Acts. We continually bring in these

amendments to try to fix problems, but perhaps we should be looking at

a complete and comprehensive overhaul of the Range Act itself which

would not only incorporate the amendments but would deal with some of

the issues that are still outstanding.

I am aware, for example — I know my colleague the second member for

Cariboo brought this up in estimates last year — that there still are

conflicts between the competing users, principally forestry and cattle.

From what I heard in my latest trip to the Cariboo, people are looking

for a little better mechanism to work out some of those problems, some

of those competing interests.

We support the bill. We think, as I've said, that there have been a

lot of amendments to the Range Act; perhaps it is time that we get on

to do a comprehensive change of the whole act itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I appreciate the comments from opposite,

and I'm pleased that they will be supporting the bill. There is some

validity to the statement that the Range Act probably needs an

overhaul. We have done an extensive review of range policy, and no

doubt in the very near future we will be doing a complete rewrite of

the bill. In the meantime, we had extensive consultation with the

ranching community on this, and they're in agreement with the changes

we're making. I think they are changes that will enhance the

interaction between all the users of the land — the forest, the range,

the recreational and the wilderness users, whatever. So I appreciate

the fact that the opposition will be supporting these moves, and I know

that this bill will be well received in the ranching community.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Range Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $360,045 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wanted to rise briefly and quickly to

discuss further the death of Mr. Stan Roberts. The other day in

estimates I indicated that I had not been fully apprised of this issue.

I find out now that I was incorrect, which is why I want to correct an

incorrect impression left yesterday.

I had responded to Vince Cain, the chief coroner on this issue, and

I want the committee to be aware of that. I'm not going to say much

more about this situation, because I didn't think it was appropriate

yesterday, nor do I think it appropriate now. But the response had gone

to Mr. Cain from my office, and I want that on the record so that the

committee is not misinformed of my action on this issue.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to revisit something we talked to the

minister about yesterday, which is the program for assistance for

travel. Yesterday the minister advised us that there was no program

established; there were no regulations and no process for determin-

[ Page

12889 ]

ing who received travel subsidies or any such thing as that.

I'm bringing this up again because on last night's news I saw that a

young baby received assistance for travel to receive an operation. As

someone who has tried to get some assistance for others in my area —

and I know many of my colleagues have also tried in their regions — I

want to ask the minister what process is available to people to receive

such assistance as was given to that child, who traveled in the air

ambulance. Is there an avenue one can go to for assistance for travel

when one has been turned down by the usual powers that be? In many

cases it's just as much an emergency as was the case with the baby

transported down to the States for an emergency operation. How do you

determine who receives that assistance, and how does one get it? I

guess basically I want to know how we get that kind of assistance for

others in our areas who are equally as deserving as these people here.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, with respect to the

announcement made in the budget speech, let me tell the committee again

— for about the fifth time now — that this item is being developed by

deputies and will be coming to cabinet shortly. As we indicated in the

throne speech and also the budget speech, it will be a program we will

implement this year.

In terms of other travel arrangements, for some years now the

government has assisted in providing travel arrangements for critical

care that has to be provided out of the province because it's not

available here. The at-home program, as we've described it, provides

funding for both local and non-local medical transportation for

children with severe disabilities. This program covers actual

transportation costs for children and escorts, economical accommodation

and other extraordinary costs. As I said, that's a program that's been

in place since 1989.

If the member would simply write to the ministry to discuss

questions that she may have had in times past with respect to patients

in her riding, then the answer would have been given.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like the minister to repeat that program for me, if he can, and to advise us how to go about it.

Just a short time ago assistance was turned down for a 12-year-old

girl to receive critical assistance for an operation. I'm not sure what

process is involved here or how it's determined. Do you go by a medical

referral? Who determines this? Is it a ministerial decision as to

whether there's an exception made? Is this a program that is determined

for everybody, that's open to every young person who requires

assistance for travel? Frankly, I've approached the ministry at various

times over the years and have never been able to find assistance for

travel.

I see the minister's assistant is nodding, indicating that there hasn't

been assistance for travel. Is this a new program, or is there readily available

assistance for travel for young people in this province to receive medical assistance?

Is this assistance available only for those that go outside the province, or

is it available for people who are traveling down to Vancouver for treatment

or to other areas?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's not much more that I can say to

the member except to repeat what I did say. This is currently a program

for children with severe disabilities. The rest of the program, as

discussed in the budget and throne speech, will be presented soon to

the people of British Columbia.

MRS. BOONE: Would the minister then please advise me what the

name of this program is, how one goes about tapping into this program?

Can you do it through your local hospital? Is it necessary to go to the

minister's office? Who makes the final decision as to who qualifies for

this? What is a severe disability? Would the minister please advise me

if a severe disability is going for chemotherapy at the Children's

Hospital? Is that a severe disability? I see your assistants are

shaking their heads indicating that's not a severe disability. What is

a severe disability for a young child?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The health unit — where you used to work,

I understand — would be the people to apply to. The children have to be

severely disabled where they need special assistance; therefore

leukemic children — as tragic as that condition is — would not qualify

under this program.

MRS. BOONE: By disabled you mean mentally and physically

disabled in some manner, not people who are ill. Can you tell me under

what program this baby was transported to the States for treatment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Could the member identify the baby?

MRS. BOONE: I wish I could. It was on the news last night.

There was a baby transported to Vancouver. They showed the B.C. Jet —

the air ambulance — being loaded up with oxygen, and this baby was

transported to somewhere in the U.S. for an operation that was

unavailable here in British Columbia.

There are other cases of individuals going to Toronto, Seattle, Los

Angeles or any number of different places for operations. I've never

been able to receive assistance for travel for them in the past. Is

there assistance available for individuals who have to go outside the

province for medical treatment that has never been available before? Is

that assistance available now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's common that we do this. We provide

for out-of-province hospital and medical care when that medical and

hospital care is not available in-province. We do not provide the

transportation. In the case of Caleb O'Connor, the child referred to in

the television program last night, he has a very serious heart defect,

and he will have remedial surgery — heart build-up surgery. We are

providing for the

[ Page 12890 ]

hospital and medical care but not the transportation. That's standard policy.

MRS. BOONE: I'll accept the minister's explanation on that

because the information given on television indicated the

transportation was provided by the province, but if you say that's not

the case, then obviously that's not going to be available for others.

I would like to get onto a different case. This is a case that is

known to your office. I'm not going to mention this gentleman's name,

because I haven't contacted him to find out if he wants his name used.

It's a serious case. This gentleman waited from March 27 for open-heart

surgery; it was postponed. He was told there was a bed available on May

14, but on May 14 he had severe problems with his heart. He phoned the

air ambulance — he was in hospital in Prince George — at 11:30 a.m.,

and that air ambulance never arrived until 9:30 that night.

[3:00]

As a result of that this gentleman missed the angiogram test he was

supposed to be getting in Vancouver, and he had a severe heart attack

on May 15 immediately upon arriving in Vancouver. This gentleman feels

very strongly that he could have avoided that heart attack, had he

gotten down to Vancouver earlier. He wants some answers with regard to

why he was postponed for so long, why this happened, and more

importantly, why the air ambulance took from 11:30 in the morning until

9:30 at night to reach this gentleman so that he could be transported

to Vancouver.

I know that he has been to your office in Prince George, so you

should be aware of this situation. I would like you to respond to me as

to what possibly could have held up that air ambulance for that length

of time and placed this person's life in jeopardy basically.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, there are many things that could

have held up the air ambulance, and I don't have the details: air

traffic control in Vancouver, weather anywhere and the fact that our

air ambulances could have been on other calls. We have a charter

arrangement as well. As has been explained, a lot of the Medivac work

is done by airplanes other than government air. I don't have an

explanation as to the delay of the ambulance.

MRS. BOONE: If this had been in the fall with severe fog and

all of those things, I could have taken the weather. Air traffic

control: I've sat on a tarmac maybe for a half hour at the most, which

is nowhere near the nine or ten hours that was required here.

Obviously the minister has not been advised by his staff in Prince

George about this case. Would you take it upon yourself to investigate

why there was this incredible delay from 11:30 to 9:30 at night? Would

you please find out why that was the case? If your staff would like to

know the name of this gentleman, I would be happy to send the name

across to you. I will not broadcast this over the air, but I will send

it across to you so you can investigate this. Would you do that for me?

MR. MILLER: There were a couple of other issues I wanted to

pursue with the minister and never had a chance yesterday. I apologize

if some of this material has been covered in a general or broader sense

by my colleague the Health critic, but we all like to discuss the

impact of health policies and some of the issues that we face in our

constituencies.

The extended care is a particular problem in some parts of my

constituency in a couple of respects. First of all, in the smaller

areas there really aren't the facilities available. I know that on the

Charlottes there is an ongoing struggle with respect to location of

facilities. In the last newspaper I read from the Charlottes, one of

the aldermen from Masset was complaining about why we always talk about

Queen Charlotte City, and why Queen Charlotte City always appears to

get facilities. I'm also mindful of the fact that you simply can't

duplicate every type of facility in every single community. There is

going to have to be some dealing with costs and all the rest.

But with respect to the smaller communities particularly, and the

need for extended care facilities, perhaps the minister might like to

outline what approach is being taken by the ministry to try to deliver

some space to the smaller communities, so that you don't have to send

relatives off a great distance where it's very difficult for people to

visit relatives in extendedcare facilities. Perhaps I'll leave it at

that, then continue with the other aspect of the problem, and that's

the rate — extended care, long-term care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, hon. members. Might the Chair have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the Chair's pleasure today to welcome, and

to ask the House to welcome, 25 grades 4 to 8 students from the New

Life Christian School in North Vancouver on Mountain Highway. They're

under the guidance of their teacher Mrs. McCulloch. They're in the

gallery, and I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my greetings

go as well to the children, teachers and chaperones from North

Vancouver. Welcome to Victoria. We hope you're having a nice day.

There's been a thread of the concern that you've mentioned coming to

me since I've been in this ministry, and I'm seeing it myself in the

two smaller communities that I serve in the riding of Prince George

South — Valemount and McBride. I'm going to give you a philosophic

answer first, Mr. Member, if you don't mind, and then provide you with

some technical detail — though it's kind of skimpy. It's something that

you and I are going to have to wrestle with as politicians and as

people, as we watch ourselves and our neighbours grow older in the

smaller communities.

[ Page

12891 ]

They don't want to leave those communities — we know that.

The member from the Okanagan sitting next to you presented a

scenario to me last week which really illustrated that we are seeing

this concern from all over the province — people growing old in

McBride, Valemount, Keremeos or Sandspit want to stay there. They've

lived there all their lives. They have a very comfortable living and

they have friends there. Their standard of living is extremely high

because the accommodation expenses are very reasonable when you compare

them to Vancouver or Victoria standards. There's just no way that they

want to leave those communities. Of course, as we have a healthier

older population that's growing older, we're going to be facing these

concerns more and more every day. All of us in this room are going to

face those concerns — at least all of us in this room who are in small

communities that don't really have the economy of scale that the

Ministry of Health would like to see.

I agree with you. You and I have that problem, a lot of us in the

Legislative Assembly have that concern, and we are concerned about

those seniors who are staying healthy, living longer, but are going to

be requiring more and more extended care in their own communities. And

that brings into the economy of scale a question. What we are trying to

do is establish multi-stage facilities in the smaller communities,

where we may attach facilities for extended care to a D and T centre or

a small hospital. That's sort of the technical exercise we're looking

at, and it will proceed as money becomes available and as the various

societies — hospital and long-term-care societies — present plans to us.

The member from Terrace — the Minister of Lands and Parks — was

discussing a housing initiative in his riding the other day that we're

looking at. In my investigation of that request, I found that there are

80 such proposals from throughout the province. It's clearly an issue

that we have to address, and one that we are addressing. I guess we're

going to have to realize as a government, and as members of a

Legislative Assembly, that this is going to be an increasing cost to

the health care system as we try to provide more and more residential

care units in the smaller communities.

I can tell you that the residential care budget has been increased

this year by $50.9 million — going from $339 million to $390 million —

so we are recognizing that expense. But on a philosophical basis, I

really do understand and appreciate your concern about long-term care

in the smaller communities.

MR. MILLER: It might be advisable, in terms of bringing the communities

into that discussion and formulating policy. For example, it doesn't make

a lot of sense, let's say, in the Queen Charlotte Islands to have communities

fighting among themselves — I don't want to exaggerate that; they're

not pitched battles — or competing if the policy or the way you're developing

in terms of the economics in an area that size.... It would be ill-advised or

impossible to have two facilities. In other words, they should know this at

the earliest opportunity so that they can come to grips with the issue, resolve

their differences, and then fix on a location and get on with the job of putting

their plans together and making the requests for capital money to get a facility

in place. So I'll leave that and move on.

In dealing with a facility in Prince Rupert, Acropolis Manor.... It

shows you how you progress. I was on the hospital board when we

conceived this intermediate care facility. At the time that we put this

project together, it was ideal. We thought we did everything right. It

was attached to the hospital. There were common facilities for the food

services. There were emergency services available. The population base

— people waiting who would require that kind of intermediate-care

facility — were clearly there and identified. We did everything right,

I thought.

Now we have a situation — and not long ago I was at a meeting of

concerned parents and relatives of patients in the intermediate-care

facility — that instead of what we started with, which was people who,

because of some impairment or handicap, simply weren't able to live on

their own — it may have been a physical handicap or a medical

condition, but all of them required some assistance, either in meal

preparation or making sure that medication was taken at the right

times.... But as I recall, those people — and some of them I knew very

well — were all pretty sharp people in terms of their mental state. The

facility worked, and people really liked it. They liked the attractive

setting. Some people who had been living alone in rather run-down rooms

were put into a facility like this. It really served its purpose well.

The tenth anniversary of that facility, which I'm unable to attend,

is this week. Now that same facility has a minority of patients in the

category I have just described and a majority of patients who are

classed in the psychogeriatric terminology. That has caused a great

deal of discomfort for those few remaining patients for whom this

facility was originally intended. They fear in some cases because of

what can happen.... I hope that you and I never fall into that

category; it's pretty tragic sometimes to witness the ravages of

Alzheimer's and other diseases. But those people who are not suffering

feel some fear. They are older people. They don't feel comfortable.

They feel sometimes that they may be attacked. Of course, that fear is

pretty widespread.

With the best of intentions ten years ago in terms of building a

facility, we now have one that seems to me is quite inappropriate for

the mix of patients. Perhaps we have to be looking at a further

gradient, if you like; in other words, classifying people into more

categories — as much as I hate to classify anybody in a category — and

designing facilities that are appropriate and unique for each of those

categories.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

At the same time that we have this situation, we have a very good

hospital, a very good physical plant, which is attached to Acropolis

Manor and has vacant beds. Yet we can't take the patients who, from my

layman's point of view, might be better suited for a

[ Page 12892 ]

more extended-care facility. There's a great deal

of fear in the hospital that if they convert some of their acute-care

beds, you will simply downgrade them, and they'll never be able to get

them back. If the notion that we talked about yesterday of having a

truly regional hospital, with patients referred from all over the

region, is one we accept and want to encourage, the hospital fears that

by converting acute-care beds to extended care, they'll never get them

back.

[3:15]

It seems to me that we again have a situation where it is very

difficult for local people to try to plan what kind of facilities

should be put in place. People have generally complained about this

situation to me for the last couple of years. But there seems to be an

inability to come to terms with it, grasp it on a local basis and

develop some plans to deal with it, so much so that the real

initiatives taken have been done in an ad hoc manner by people who have

relatives in the facility calling on people in the community.

For years Mr. Poffenroth was chairman of the hospital board, when I

was a member of the board as well. They called on him because he has

had some expertise, and in a sort of an ad hoc way said: "How can we

get together and formulate some plans to deal with the situation."

I guess it ties into the previous issue of how local people come to

grips with some of these problems. There seems to be a lack of

direction and support for these people when it comes to trying to plan

these facilities in those communities. I'll leave it at that, Mr.

Minister. You may care to respond to that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first thing I want to do is correct a

comment I made earlier about transport for Caleb O'Connor. As I said,

as is usual we are paying medical and hospital care when the treatment

is not available in British Columbia. I also understand that we are

charging the family the $240 air ambulance charge, which is common. But

we are looking after the rest of the transportation costs, because the

child is going on the Challenger to Philadelphia, and that, of course,

would cost far more than $248. The Challenger expenses are being looked

after by MSP and care services. That is not all that common, but this

is a life-and-death situation. So we have recognized the urgency of

that transportation and have agreed to pay for it.

I'll get to Acropolis shortly. With respect to the Queen Charlottes,

we are providing $30,000 to the Queen Charlottes comprehensive health

organization to fund an initial study to help build consensus in the

area, and to resolve some of the concerns that you have expressed and

that, as I told you the other day, have been expressed to me by

residents of the Queen Charlottes. We recognize their concern. We have

advanced $30,000 so they can begin some planning to sort out those

differences and come together with a comprehensive plan. I suspect that

it will be successful.

With respect to Acropolis, there are lots of things I could say

about that, but as you indicated in your comments, tomorrow night is

their tenth anniversary, and one of my staff, Paul Pallan, will be

there. I'm not going. I'll have Paul send your best wishes as well,

okay? I'll ask for a briefing. We'll look at your comments. I can't

respond to you now in terms of what our decision is going to be, but as

I said, we'll have staff there tomorrow night at the anniversary

celebration and get the details sorted out as quickly as we can, You'll

be provided with an answer as soon as I have one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In terms of plans for Acropolis.

MR. MILLER: I wanted to say, first of all, with respect to

the young child being flown to Philadelphia, that I think all of us

respond. Our hearts go out immediately when we see that kind of

situation, certainly anybody who has been a parent. I'm sure that the

parents appreciate any support, and we offer our prayers that this

young child will indeed do better as a result of the medical treatment

that he will receive in Philadelphia.

Just very briefly, is there a general issue with regard to the mix

of patients that I talked about? Is that happening in other locations?

And what plans do you really have to deal with that? Really, it's an

inappropriate mix. It's inappropriate for the patients; it makes it

difficult for the staff. We have very minor problems: you can't lock

the door; there's got to be a fire exit; yet some patients are prone to

taking a walk. It's very difficult to deal with. I didn't hear you

really respond to that issue.

I want to move on and cover all of the remaining points while I'm on

my feet. I wanted to talk about the diagnostic and treatment centre in

the Nass Valley. I don't know how familiar the minister is with the

situation there, but essentially the Nisga'as have taken over — as they

have in other fields like education, where the Nisga'a Valley is a

school district — responsibility for health care. They have a

diagnostic and treatment centre — it's not a hospital — in which they

try to offer a range of services, as there is not a hospital. This is a

unique situation. As I understand it, the province globally bears about

20 percent of the cost, and the rest is borne by the federal

government. I had a long meeting with the board earlier this year, and

it appears to me that it has the potential — if it hasn't already got

to that point — to develop into one of those situations, where you get

the federal-provincial ping-pong game. The federal government says:

"No, it's not my responsibility; it's the province's." And the province

says: "No, it's not our responsibility; it's a federal responsibility."

The clients in the middle really aren't satisfied. I really see a

potential for that developing. The federal commitment to health care,

as I've been advised, was frozen in 1984. A series of issues needs to

be addressed, not the least of which is that the treatment centre is

located on an Indian reserve. In a constitutional sense, perhaps the

province doesn't feel it has responsibility there and feels it is a

federal responsibility. But there are some deficiencies, and I think

they need to be covered off.

[ Page

12893 ]

I think you have to deal, first of all, with the issue of federal —

provincial ping-pong, because if it keeps going, it can only get worse.

Perhaps that's something the federal and provincial governments have to

sit down and iron out, because it's really unfair to the clients if

that continues. But at the same time there are some anomalies in terms

of the federal-provincial overlap which need to be addressed.

There can't be a physiotherapist. The province won't fund a

physiotherapist in the village, although there are four villages —

three really, because Kincolith is at the mouth of the Nass. Yet you

find that the budget for transporting people to Terrace for

physiotherapy is about $40,000. From a layman's point of view it

doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. You would think it would make more

sense to have somebody established in the Nass Valley, if it were

possible to recruit one, rather than spend what appears to be almost

the amount of money that it would cost to transport patients down to

Terrace. That seems to me, from a practical point of view, to be

something that should be dealt with.

The ambulance crews. Again, some of your colleagues have driven the

road — and I know there are efforts to improve the road down to

Terrace. But currently the ambulance is staffed by volunteers. I talked

to the young woman in charge of that. She appeared to be a very

competent woman and quite dedicated to what she was doing — but she's

on her own. There need to be — and they've requested — two full-time

paid unit chiefs for the ambulance crew. I don't know what you've done

with regard to that request, but certainly it would appear that a

reasonable case has been made for full-time assistance in staffing the

ambulance — really, the lifeline into Terrace — and making sure it is

available.

I really appreciate the work that volunteers do in dedicating so

much of their time to maintaining this service which is so critical. At

the same time, the ambulance they have is two-wheel-drive. In the

wintertime, which can be a long time, that's not acceptable. They need

a four-wheel-drive ambulance in the Nass. It's bad enough, Mr.

Minister, driving a four-wheel drive vehicle up there sometimes. The

roads are prone to flooding. The snowfall is pretty high. The logging

trucks go back and forth on the gravel portion. It is not an easy road

to drive at the best of times. It would seem to be just a bottom-line

position that there should be a four-wheel-drive ambulance allocated to

the Nass.

Moving on in terms of that ambulance service, there is the need for

helipads. There is a study.... I'm not certain how much of the Nass it

incorporated or whether the Nass has, in fact, been covered off in a

study, but I know we've done that on the north coast with funding from

ATAP to identify a network of helipads. I can't commend you, Mr.

Minister, because you had nothing to do with it, but I did commend your

predecessor in this House for the work he did in locating a twin-engine

helicopter in Prince Rupert. It's a very effective service, and it

seems to me that we have to get on with developing that helipad system.

Again, even with a four-wheel-drive vehicle in the wintertime, when you have

to move somebody quickly, clearly the best, quickest and most efficient way

is an ambulance.

There are a number of other issues. We'd probably have to sit down

and talk in detail for a couple of hours to get through them, so I

won't here. I know my colleagues have important issues they want to

raise with the minister as well. I've covered a number of topics here

and concluded with issues that were raised to me by the Nisga'a Valley

Health Board — very serious issues. When I talked to the board you

could tell that they felt these issues had to be resolved. I ask you to

give me your comments. Hopefully we can follow up on any outstanding

issues outside this chamber.

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In response to the member for Prince

Rupert, first of all, we are addressing dementia care, the care of

people who have Alzheimer's and other serious and disturbing conditions

in the long-term-care facilities. We are being quite aggressive. In my

riding of Prince George we have approved the construction of a 25-bed

addition at a facility.

MR. MILLER: What about my riding? I don't want to hear about your riding.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know. Yours is next, okay? Actually, it's not in my riding; it's in the riding of the member for Prince George North.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it's soon going to be my riding.

In any event, we have a 25-bed addition that is designed

specifically to look after patients with what we characterize as

dementia — typically Alzheimer's. Although it is the same facility,

there is some separation there. There is a recognition that a different

type of care is required. We are aware of the concern you expressed —

as, I guess, the whole world is, the whole western world at least. This

condition continues to present itself as people live longer. Their

bodies stay healthy but their minds begin to suffer with increasing

age. That's a situation we have to address and we are addressing it.

In terms of the D and T centre, I can appreciate the problems the

Nisga'a would have, and I can appreciate the federal push-pull that

would go on. I can see it happening there more than anywhere else. As I

know, and as you know, the Nisga'a are extremely aggressive people in

terms of looking after themselves. They have their own school district;

they have a lot of reading material in their own language. They are

very aggressive, and I'm sure Ottawa just doesn't know how to handle a

community that is that aggressive in terms of looking after their own

socio-economic conditions and being responsible for their own social

and economic determination. But we recognize that.

I don't know why they don't have a four-wheel drive ambulance up there. It would seem logical that

[ Page 12894 ]

they should have, and we'll discuss that. That certainly is a concern of ours, and I'll look into that question.

In terms of the volunteer ambulance people, we have a formula for

the ambulance system that's based on call volume. It may sound kind of

hard-hearted; nevertheless, that's the way we operate that service.

It's performance-driven or call-volume-driven. We fund and staff on the

basis of volume.

Finally, you said you'd like to discuss a lot of issues in detail,

and my brave assistant deputy minister, Chris Lovelace, has volunteered

to go north and visit. We'll send you when the snow flies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will he eat oolichan grease when he's there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I don't know. Will he eat oolichan

grease? Sure. I think that's a feature more of.... I certainly wouldn't

eat oolichan grease if I were there. Some of the best salmon-fishing in

the world is in that area, and lots of other things are far better and

tastier to eat.

Yes, I will commit to have staff visit and discuss, and if I get a

chance to go there myself, I will. So you can assure your constituents

in the Nisga'a that we will do whatever we can to address their

concerns and to see whatever services we can provide them in terms of

better health care provisions.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I'm standing to raise a couple of

issues that weren't thoroughly canvassed in my previous interventions.

The first item has to do with something I raised when we first

discussed the possibility of a special commission or an opening of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons inquiry into sexual abuse of

patients.

At that first meeting a few weeks ago the minister committed himself

to writing a letter to the chair of that committee, Dr. Patricia

Rebbeck, requesting that she think about putting a couple of laypeople

on the committee to give it a broader framework in its terms of

reference.

Last week, the second time this issue was raised, my colleague the

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey asked the minister how far along

he had come on this issue. The minister replied that he had a letter in

the works that was being prepared for him. At that point I was going to

raise the question but didn't get the opportunity. The question here is

about how open this whole exercise will be. Simply putting a couple of

laypeople onto this committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons

still makes the report that comes back the property of the College of

Physicians and Surgeons.

Today, actually, I received a call from a news broadcaster who had

phoned the hotline that the college established, and he found a

recorded message at the other end saying: "Please leave your name and

phone number. We don't want to discuss this case over the phone with

you. That would not be appropriate. We will get back to you." The news

story, if it's going out right now, is that this is an insensitive way

to deal with the issue of sexual abuse of patients.

1 responded to the news reporter that it was obviously a low-budget

operation, that the committee was operating with the best intentions

and doing the best it could with probably no additional staff to sit

and staff a hotline, and that the work of the committee was probably

going to be very credible because the people on the committee are

credible and well respected in the community In fact, it was the

college itself that suggested the route of setting up the committee.

However — here's my "however" — you sending a letter asking for a

few laypeople on the board, or even suggesting that it be slightly more

open, might not be enough, Mr. Minister. My request to you is: could

you think through the possibility of setting up a public forum — a

public commission or committee — that would work with the College of

Physicians and Surgeons and would in fact own the information that

comes from public hearings and individual interviews, so that we as a

group of legislators might be able to deal with this issue in an open

and public way. Our terms of reference would therefore be slightly

different than those of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, whose

main concern, obviously, is to provide a decent, reliable service and

to discipline members who do not conform to medical ethics.

Our terms of reference would be much broader, I think. They would

have to do with information and education of the public, allowing the

public to speak to us on mechanisms and infractions and giving us as a

group of legislators something broader than an internal document to

work with. Could you speak to that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, as discussed last week, a

letter will be going to the college, and the letter is being prepared

now. Just to clarify: the addressee will be Dr. Tom Handley, Registrar

— not Dr. Rebbeck. That's protocol; he's registrar of the college, so

the letter will go to him.

I will request laypeople. How open one wants this committee to be is

another question, and I haven't really got my head around that, Madam

Member, nor has the college. Inasmuch as it's their committee, it is

difficult for me to give them specific directions. They have a

responsibility under the Medical Service Act to carry out a variety of

disciplinary and other functions, and I certainly wouldn't want to

abuse that legislation by telling them how to operate.

But I do accept your concern. Let me just say this: having heard

that you would maybe see another committee discussing other issues and

how we might make the public more aware of what you are concerned with,

that's a possibility, and I will certainly consider it.

One would want to have some privacy to this, because if females who

feel they have been sexually abused by physicians want to discuss their

case, they certainly don't want to discuss it in a public forum. They

would want to discuss it with responsible members of the college and

responsible lay members of this committee, but certainly not in public.

They would want some assurance that the evidence they are giving

[ Page

12895 ]

is going to remain confidential, because of the very nature of the evidence they're giving.

But there's still the question of another segment of the committee,

or another committee, that would have more of a public process. I don't

have any problem with that. Let me think about it, and first of all, we

will see what response we get from Dr. Handley of the college. Then we

will consider other renditions of this public committee that we want to

put in place.

MS. MARZARI: I think we're getting somewhere. I was very

careful — you will notice, or you might have noticed — not to even

suggest that we instruct the college to do anything or even advocate

strongly for our position. I simply think we should be talking to them

about the possibility of expanding their membership or doing something

together, in which the information would ultimately be owned by the

public. I've read in the papers too many times recently — even letters

to the College of Physicians and Surgeons — recommendations from a

minister or from a member of the Legislature that telling a

disciplinary body how to discipline is not what to do. Obviously we

have to work in a spirit of cooperation. But it strikes me as entirely

possible that the committee itself, when it deliberates, might come up

with a recommendation that we go the Ontario route and suggest perhaps

a public commission, so that public education and private discipline of

doctors will meet somewhere in the middle, and so that people — women —

can be better served and feel more secure when they go for medical

treatment. I think we should move one step at a time along this route.

It was the Prince George case a few months ago that was brought

against Dr. Clark that raised this whole issue in British Columbia. I'm

sure complaints have been raised before, but due to the fact that this

case was so graphic and the decision — or at least words used in that

decision — was so volatile, 150 people gathered in Prince George last

Wednesday evening to express their displeasure. Many of the victims —

those who had brought the case against Dr. Clark — were at that rally

to speak to the fact that they felt they had been silenced by the case.

In fact, there seems to be — I don't know what the correct terminology

is — a gag order placed on the transcripts of the case. As I said

before in this House, it's possible for any one of us, including

legislators and perhaps ministers, to receive a copy of the judge's

judgment as well as the full transcript of the case. I think that also

might be worth looking at as a part of this overall picture of women

being silenced when they speak out against a person — a doctor — who is

in a position of real power over them when they try to bring their

complaints to the public.

For the purposes of this discussion this issue began in Prince

George. So I would hope the minister would have a particular interest

in it.

The second area I wanted to raise today has to do with the child care situation

in British Columbia. It might seem odd that we would raise child care in the

Health estimates, but I'm sure there are enough people in the province now

who understand that child care is hopelessly entwined among three ministries:

Health, Education and Social Services and Housing.

Whereas Social Services and

Housing seems to spend the most dollars in terms of providing subsidies for

two parents for spaces, the Health ministry is involved in working with local

medical health officers in the 22 health units around British Columbia to ensure

that licensed spaces that exist are properly monitored, that standards are kept

up to par, that the day care teachers are properly supported and that the physical

premises are not unsafe. It's very important that this inspection routine,

mandated through the Ministry of Health, be properly planned and organized and

respond to the real numbers of spaces that exist out there, so that we as parents

and as legislators can know that those spaces are properly dealt with and properly

licensed and evaluated.

A recent story in the Vancouver Sun dated May 3, 1991, points

to a study done that looked like an instant canvass done by the

reporter herself. Fourteen of the province's 22 health units were

phoned and 14 responded. Those 14 units were quite forthright in their

comments about the ability of the existing health professionals

mandated through the provincial government under the Community Care

Facility Act. They said that they are completely unable to provide the

service required. They do not make any bones about it. They are willing

to talk about it openly and publicly.

[3:45]

Les Potter, director of health protection for the Victoria area, said:

"No one should have any illusions that there is any

reasonable level of monitoring in these facilities. The unofficial

standard is that one inspector is required for every 70 facilities to

allow for one inspection a year. But in some areas of the province the

ratio is as high as one for 175 adult and child care facilities."

Mr. Minister, I'm only speaking of the licensed facilities. When I

talk about child care facilities, I'm referring to group care — with 25

children in church basements or small portable buildings located

throughout the province — and I'm also referring to family care, in

which a woman, generally speaking, takes in up to five children in her

own home. Those are the licensed facilities.

There are literally thousands of unlicensed facilities in this

province right now. In fact the Ministry of Social Services and Housing

is engaged in programs to actually encourage more of these unlicensed

homes to open. They say that it's a way of getting welfare mothers off

welfare — by training them and putting them back in their own home to

provide a child care service. Most of these homes are not licensed.

Most of these mothers are not supervised, but more importantly, not

supported to provide a decent service. Consequently, we have a system

which is chronically under spaced. We have 30,000 licensed spaces in

the province. We have a need for about 300,000, but with those 30,000

licensed spaces we do not have an adequate supervisory system.

I would ask the minister to comment on the contracts we have with

the 22 health units. How often are they monitored by the ministry

itself? How many people are actually working in these 22 health units,

[ Page 12896 ]

and what contact does the ministry have with them to help support, supervise and train them?

Then I would ask the minister to comment on the unlicensed

facilities and his concern about unlicensed child care, because

ultimately, under community care facilities, your ministry must also

accept some responsibility for the fact that they exist in our

communities and are not supervised or monitored.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member indicates a concern that we are

well aware of. Just to give some background to the issue, there are

94,000 women in the B.C. labour force with children under the age of

six and a further 192,000 employed women with children under 16 years

of age.

The government provides a number of child care programs. The

Ministry of Social Services and Housing provides subsidies for

low-income parents and parents of special-needs children, grants for

non-profit societies and funding for child support service programs

which recruit, train and support informal child care providers.

As the member has indicated, the Ministry of Health, under the

Community Care Facility Act, is responsible for the licensing and

monitoring of child care facilities and the registration of early

childhood educators.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The Provincial Secretary assists non-profit societies with

up-to-one-third grants of capital costs. Of course, the Ministry of

Advanced Education provides funding to community colleges for early

childhood education courses. And we have a variety of interministry

committees, including the provincial Child Care Facilities Licensing

Board, the interministry working committee on child abuse and the

advisory committee on child care for public service employees.

We see the development of quality, accessible and affordable child

care in British Columbia as a priority. On January 29, 1991, the Task

Force on Child Care completed their study of child care in the province

and presented their recommendations to the minister and to cabinet. On

March 22, government approved a $55 million child care expansion

strategy. These funds are over and above the $63 million that we

currently spend annually on child care, of which about $50 million goes

to subsidize low-income families.

What we want to do in part with the $55 million, as well as

increasing subsidies, is establish a data base to support planned

expansion of facilities, increase subsidies to low-income parents,

expand capital funding of programs for child care, expand child care as

a home-based business, and increase participation by the business

sector, municipal governments, school districts and community groups.

In terms of answers to some of the member's questions.... First of

all, the health units: there are 22 of them. The majority of them

report to us, Madam Member, because they are our health units — the

ones that aren't are in the large centres. The others are city health

units, or regional district — GVRD, CRD.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're city, so we are very much involved with them.

Non-licensed facilities have three children or under, I'm advised. I

can't comment on the comment the member made about the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing wanting to expand that private sector, but

I can tell the member and the committee that we do see this as a

priority. The figures I've mentioned as having been committed are going

to be spent in a variety of ministries. I see increased child care as a

very serious concern and a priority of government.

In terms of the licensing of the community staff for the 16 health

units that we have, for 1989-90 we had 15 new positions, in 1990-1991

there were 21 new positions, and this fiscal year there are 31 new

positions. So I think we are adding staff at a most appropriate rate to

address some of the concerns the member has expressed in her comments

on this issue.

MS. MARZARI: So the minister is actually stating that over the last three years there have been 15 plus 21 plus 31 new people?

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: That's cumulative. Then in total over three

years we have had 31 new people. Each of these people is a licensing

inspector and has been put into one of the 22 health units located

throughout the province. Am I correct on that score?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is correct; it's cumulative.

They have been put into the 16 health units that are ours. The other

six are municipal health units, and I don't have figures on their

expansion.

MS. MARZARI: The question, then, becomes: have the contracts

with the municipalities increased to allow for the recognition that

there are increased numbers of licensed spaces in their regions, and

therefore they would have an expanded contract on that basis? Here's

another way of phrasing the question: does the minister have a formula

by which licensing inspectors are added to staff — both provincial and

municipal — depending on the number of licensed spaces on stream or

coming on stream? Is there a formula that the minister is working on or

has developed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In terms of the first question with

respect to contractual agreements with the cities, the answer is yes.

We are increasing their funding for these positions as well. None of us

here has that information. It is a population- driven and

service-driven formula, so one would suspect that.... I can advise the

committee that we have increased the funding there.

In terms of developing funding for these services, we don't have a

formula yet, but we are putting one in place. Hopefully that will

address on an equal basis the concerns the member has brought to the

committee. As the need for inspectors and other services is demon-

[ Page

12897 ]

strated by population increases and by more

children coming into the system, we will have a formula whereby we

respond with appropriate staffing and other resources.

MS. MARZARI: I wish we could all be lulled into a sense of

comfort here, as I ask these questions and am assured that there are

formulas coming on stream, and that there will be people to meet the

demand. But I'm faced with an

article here which basically says that

the whole system is in complete chaos. I'm not even dealing with the

fact that there are not enough spaces to meet the needs of children and

parents who need child care. I'm just talking about chaos within the

existing number of spaces — paltry as they are — which presently are

there to serve children, and we don't have the inspection staff to

properly support the spaces. And you're correct: the child care

inspection chaos seems to be worse in areas with rapid population

growth: Victoria, Nanaimo, central Fraser Valley, Surrey, Kelowna and,

not surprisingly, Prince George. They all seem to be suffering chronic

understaffing of licensing staff and the support of licensing staff to

child care centres, group care and family care.

Would the minister confirm that every child care licensing inspector

becomes responsible for up to 175 adult care and child care facilities?

These are generic inspectors, I suppose. They go out and investigate

nursing homes as well as child care homes. Is that the ratio that this

ministry works with in terms of caseload for a licensing worker? And

while we're talking about standards, is what I read in the newspaper

true — that we are looking at a mere one visit a year, if they're lucky?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, just let me reiterate the figures in

terms of new positions. The member quoted an

article written earlier

before our 1991-92 budget. There are increases by ten — from 21 to 31.

So ten new positions have been added. I can't comment on 147 facilities

to inspect per inspector, because I'm sure we wouldn't have formulas

like that. I don't have any further details on it. We will admit that

population pressures are causing us problems in all areas of service

delivery throughout the province, whether it be licensing positions,

such as we're talking about here, or a variety of other areas where we

need personnel — in just about every ministry. I guess that's a problem

of success, but as the member and the committee know, our budget has

increased considerably, and we will continue to fund as best we can, as

revenues become available to us.

MS. MARZARI: I don't like to paint a picture of armies of inspectors

marching into child care centres and adult care facilities with vast amounts

of overspending going into an inspection scheme. I am concerned, however, that

we are prepared in this province to set standards for community care licensing

and for what a child care facility should look like, and they happen to be some

of the best in the country. We set standards for what adult care should look

like, and we try to keep our nursing homes up to scratch by looking good and

being comfortable for their inhabitants.

[4:00]

There are probably two ways of making sure those standards are

properly kept. One is to have a rigid enforcement system where

licensing inspectors come in with a checklist and go down the list and

say: "Your walls are too grey this year. Paint them or you'll lose your

licence." The other is a system in which a licensing inspector could

work with groups of child care supervisors, child care non-profit

societies and child care facilities to help them monitor their own

standards, and assist them in coming up with ways in which they can

improve their own systems. There are all kinds of good models for how

this could come about, so that the licensing inspector is not just a

police enforcer of cold rules but somebody who's actually there to do

community development, assist new centres in developing and, if there

are problems, give the proper warnings and help the community rectify

them.

I think of the child care inspector that I've had for 20 years of my

child-rearing days — and I have raised children now for 20 years. It's

Elaine Kliner, and she's still doing the job there in the city of

Vancouver. She knows every child care facility that exists in the whole

city and now, I gather, New Westminster. She's always been the one

who's been there, who has showed up and who has been around for

everybody. I know she has assistance now, and I don't want to

romanticize her job — but, my God, what a tremendous load Elaine has

carried over these many years.

It's not enough just to say: "Okay, we'll go on with the way we've

got it." Nor is it enough to say: "We'll bring in armies of new

inspectors." What we've got to do, Mr. Minister, is make sure that at

the provincial level we set the formulas and make sure that we meet our

commitments so that properly trained and licensed inspectors can go out

to assist in the proper training and supporting of child care

facilities.

I know you've said that we're trying to do the best we can with the

money we've got. But what I'm asking you to do is take a special look

at the situation, especially after a damning report such as this one as

recently as May 3. Call together the medical health officers

municipally, perhaps through the GVRD and, if it's a similar

arrangement with contracts, through Victoria as well, and call together

your health and child — care licensing inspectors at the next available

opportunity. Talk to them and get their ideas about what's required and

what other models could be used to assist them in their work.

Is the minister prepared to do something as simple as pulling

together these workers to discuss possible alternatives if money isn't

available to assist in getting them into those centres more than once a

year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What the member is saying is constructive,

and the notion of just throwing this army of inspectors out in the

street certainly is not the way to go. We in the interministry

committee have, in the work we've done, identified that there is a

consumer resource there, a consumer responsibility. We want to involve

parents in helping us to better assess

[ Page 12898 ]

the facilities themselves, and there's a variety of

remedies that we are looking at in terms of answering some of the

questions that the member opposite has as a consumer herself — and some

of the questions that I and many other consumers would have.

I had an interesting note from the former Minister of Health — the

current Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology — who

advises me that he wanted to speak on this issue for a little while.

I'll be more than happy to take my place and let him advise us on

conditions in the Fraser Valley. Then we'll return to more debate on

the broader issues of this subject.

HON. MR. DUECK: It's mostly to give my colleague a chance to

powder his nose — it was getting kind of shiny — and to get out of here

for a moment.

I found it very interesting, since I was in this ministry for quite

a number of years, and I still feel some sort of strange attraction to

it, although it was a hectic three and a half years. Talking about

children is something that has always interested me, inasmuch as I was

always concerned about people who can't help themselves. Children, from

the time they're born up to the age of, let's say, ten or 12 are very

much dependent on adult people. When we're talking about day care

centres, I think we have to be very careful that we don't sort of brand

licensed day care centres one type, and informal centres of a lesser

type. I think we have to remember that it depends on that particular

centre and the people running it, whether it's an informal day care

centre or a licensed day care centre.

I know that in my community, for example, we have many informal day

care centres. They are absolutely excellent; I would send my children

to them any day of the week. They are excellent homes, where perhaps a

mother has raised children, and they are at school, and she's willing

to take in two or three. They provide a very good alternative. We also

have day care centres that look after many more at one time, and that

are licensed; and they also are good. But I do not want anyone to

misunderstand that just because they are licensed, suddenly they are a

better home. Far from it; they could be either. I've seen some

homes.... You members on the other side, I'm sure, all recognize that

there have been some homes closed that were in fact licensed and

supervised and checked, and found wanting after many years of being in

business. I've found many homes that have not been licensed, that are

informal, that are absolutely excellent.

We cannot depend on inspectors to do the work of the individual;

it's also up to the parents to make sure that they in turn know and are

responsible where their children go. I think we have gone too far, as

public and as government too, where we want to do everything for

everybody. There is such a thing as a parent being responsible for

children; but they are also responsible that those children are looked

after even if they are not in their own care.

I want to make the point that we cannot have an inspector running to

every day care centre every day to see whether everything is in order.

But we should be very firm when there is a home that's not looking

after the children properly, that they get taken out of that home, and

the home is closed pronto. I think we all agree on that.

The other thing I was going to bring up is that in the central

Fraser Valley there's so much talk that we haven't got enough day care

centres; we haven't got enough places for children to go. I want you to

know that in my community there are ads, ad nauseam, wanting children.

There are all kinds of day care places where children can go. I don't

know about other communities, but in the Abbotsford area there are many

places. I often talk about it to my wife and say: "Look here, one after

the other wanting children." They say from one to three, or whatever.

These are mostly informal homes, and I know they are good homes. Mind

you, not all communities are as good as the central Fraser Valley,

Abbotsford-Matsqui; I think we have better people living in that area.

Anyway, since my colleague is back and his nose is not as shiny as before, I'll let him continue.

MS. PULLINGER: I just have a comment and a question. The

member that was just speaking said that there were lots of child care

places in the central Fraser Valley area, but he doesn't know about

elsewhere in the province. I will inform the member that there are in

fact approximately 60,000 children in British Columbia that have no

care at all, because it doesn't exist or it's not affordable. Those are

children under 12. So now you know, Mr. Member, that there are 60,000

kids who have no child care. It’s a serious problem.

I would like to ask a question. The member was talking about

licensed versus unlicensed care, saying that some are good and some are

not so good. That may well be true; I don't dispute that fact. However,

the member made the point that through monitoring and supervision, some

licensed places have been shut down because they were inadequate and

weren't doing the job. I would like to offer that that is precisely the

point of licensing. When you license and have some supervision,

monitoring and requirements, then you know what's going on. When you

find a place not functioning to the standards all children ought to

have, then you can shut them down.

I would simply like to offer that point. You made it yourself, only

you didn't take it far enough and didn't seem to understand the

consequences of your comments. That's why we need licensed, accessible

and affordable child care for all the kids in the province. If you have

some other kind of logic that fits with that, be my guest. But that is

precisely the point that we on this side of the House are making: we

need licensed child care so we know what's going on.

HON. MR. DUECK: I can't resist the temptation to speak on

Health issues. The point I was trying to make is that there is much

weight put on licensing; in other words, that's the cure. You license

it, and from that point on you have no problems. That is not the case.

There is the responsibility the parents have to take on to find out

where their child is going. It's not always so. A lot of parents say

that because it's a day care centre, they'll just put their child in

there and whatever

[ Page

12899 ]

happens happens. There is a responsibility, and we

are somehow avoiding that responsibility as parents — or some people

are. There is a responsibility.

The other point I was going to make is that there is also a trend or

notion that informal day care is not as good as formal, licensed day

care. I want to make sure I'm on record that the informal day cares I

have visited are, in many cases, better than the licensed.

MS. MARZARI: There's a real problem here. The minister would not go out on the road in a car without a licence plate.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: No, I'm serious. We license cars; we license

dogs. We don't have licences to show you've paid money for a licence,

but to show that the car is fit and ready to go on the road and that it

meets some acceptable standards. The kindest

interpretation is that the

minister knows, as we all know, that women in communities — the good

neighbour down the street — takes in kids. She's allowed to take in up

to two kids on an unlicensed basis. We know that, because we've all

used them. They happen to be there because our kids couldn't get onto

the waiting-lists.

Back in the early seventies the waiting-lists were so long that the

chances of getting on at all.... They don't even keep waiting-lists

anymore, so there's no real way of tracking the desperate need in many

cities. When you look for the waiting-list, it's artificial, because

centres don't keep them anymore. They are just not there. The data base

is an excellent idea, Mr. Minister, and I strongly recommend that you

go with it.

But things are so bad in this licensing area that a few years ago

parents were given a list of things to check off — I'm not sure whether

it came from the Ministry of Health or Social Services — when they went

into a child care centre to help assure the parent that things were

okay. They ticked off adequate water, hot water, hot lunches or

whatever, and at the bottom was criminal record of the caregiver. The

parent was expected to ask the caregiver if they had a criminal record.

I believe that was the issue.

It was bizarre that these unlicensed, unsupervised places were in

such huge array — there were so many of them — that the system could

not even begin to keep track of them. They said to parents: "Here's a

checklist. And by the way, ask your caregiver if they have a criminal

record." This is not responsible behaviour on the part of a government

that cares about children. If we care enough about dogs and cars to

have them licensed, surely we should be providing parents with a sense

of safety and security that their children are being safely tended in a

licensed place.

More importantly, the good neighbour down the street who's running an unlicensed

facility needs the security, knowledge and support of a friendly local health

officer, licensing inspector, who's going to assist them in upgrading their

play equipment or facilities and inform them if there's a piece of play

equipment which is unsafe.

So under the guise of liking and respecting our local non-licensed

centre, let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater and say

licensing isn't required. Licensing is required. I'm bloody surprised

that we as a government — Social Services or Health — have not been

sued by parents over the years for not providing proper security and

inspections. If I was putting my mom in a nursing home, I'd want to

make sure that was properly tended and licensed. It's no different with

kids. It's perhaps more important with kids because of the worries and

fears that parents have just leaving their kid in a centre with

somebody else altogether. That's difficult enough as it is, let alone

knowing that the centre is not licensed.

I would ask the minister to take what he has heard with a certain,

shall we say, leavening agent and figure through that responsive,

supportive community licensing is the answer, not a problem.

[4:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the last time I leave this place.

Seriously, I think the point that my colleague was trying to make

was that there are very good unlicensed facilities. As a matter of

fact, some parents prefer an unlicensed facility. That's not to say

that everything is perfect, and I'm not going to take a Pollyanna

attitude about it, because there's a lot more that we can do.

There is a responsibility.... I wasn't aware of this questionnaire

that the member was referring to. In retrospect, it's not all that bad

an idea when one thinks of it. If I were a parent considering an

unlicensed facility — or even a licensed facility — I think I'd want to

have a checklist of things that I should look for, because there might

be some things ministry officials are aware of that a parent might not

think of, in terms of what to look for in a facility.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In terms of the criminal record, I wouldn't comment on that. But I

don't disagree that a checklist isn't a bad idea. As I've said earlier,

the notion of having the consumer have some responsibility with respect

to this is not a bad idea either.

Notwithstanding that, let me say that I do respect what both members

opposite have said. The second member for Nanaimo and the first member

for Vancouver-Point Grey have raised issues of parents that I agree

with. Both mv children attended a day care. As a matter of fact, I'm

probably the only one in this room who used to manage a day care. Would

you believe that? I was licensed. It was an indirect job. I was

employed by the College of New Caledonia at the time, and we operated a

day care for the benefit of ECE students and for children of students,

instructors and staff. One of my administrative responsibilities in the

division was for that day care centre — at least the operation of it,

not the teaching part. So I became quite interested in day care. Mind

you, that was years and years ago, and I'm sure things have changed,

although children haven't and I'm sure the regulations haven't.

[ Page 12900 ]

So I do have an interest in day care, and I certainly respect what the members have added to this debate.

With that said, I agree with the issues and the concerns, and I'll take my place and await further questioning.

MR. JONES: I rise to ask a question that I asked yesterday I

appreciate that the minister has been in the portfolio only a short

time and that it's a challenging portfolio. It was not that the

minister didn't give me an answer; he gave me so many different and

contradictory answers that I'm more confused than when I started.

Let me outline for the peanut gallery opposite the kinds of answers

the minister gave to a very simple question. The question is this: why,

in a large urban hospital like Burnaby Hospital, don't we have a small

out-patient chemotherapy clinic? It's a simple question.

The minister started out by implying that we didn't need such a

clinic and that there were other hospitals nearby. He even made the

case that Lions Gate in North Vancouver would be closer to residents of

Burnaby and that there was an excellent facility on Tenth Avenue in

Vancouver. The implication was that it really wasn't needed. So that

was answer number one: there are lots of other spaces available; we

don't really need on in Burnaby because there's a lot of other very

good facilities in the lower mainland and people only have to drive a

short time to get to those facilities.

This was the answer to number two: well, it's really up to the

hospitals themselves; what's it got to do with the provincial

government? "Hospitals are autonomous, legal entities, " quoted the

minister, "and they can decide these things for themselves." So that

was answer number two: don't ask me; it's up to them.

Answer number one: they can get service somewhere else; it's not needed.

Answer number two: it's up to the hospital; if they want to have it, they

can have it.

This is answer number three: if they want one, why don't they ask

for it? The minister said they had never asked for an out-patient

chemotherapy clinic at Burnaby Hospital. A simple question, and so far

three answers.

Answer number four was really related to answer number three. When I

asked if the minister was sure that they'd never asked for one, he

suggested that: "Well, I'm not aware of any request; nobody on this

side of the House — staff, etc. — is aware of any." Then the

information was updated for the minister, and that response was

changed. He said: "We received within the last couple of months a

proposal from two agencies — B.C. Cancer Agency and Burnaby Hospital."

So a proposal implies to me that something is being requested of the

ministry, that some action on the part of the ministry be taken, and

that the request for action was a joint request by two bodies: the B.C.

Cancer Agency and Burnaby Hospital.

I got very heartened at this point, because the minister said — and

I appreciated this response — that the request was likely to be

approved. I wish we had stopped there, but I guess the minister didn't

like answers one, two, three, four and five, and he went on further.

First of all, the time was changed, and the agency making the request

was changed. Then he said: "We received a proposal from the B.C. Cancer

Agency that was submitted a year ago." So it wasn't now or a couple of

months ago, and there hadn't been a definitive response by that time,

which would be understandable. It had been a year ago. And now it

wasn't a joint request from the Burnaby Hospital and the Cancer Agency;

it was from the Cancer Agency. It wasn't a couple of months ago but a

year ago.

Then that got changed again, and he said: "We received a revised

request in January." Okay. All of these things imply to me that it's

the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to respond to these

proposals, requests or suggestions that this kind of service be

provided in hospitals in British Columbia operating under legislation

of the Ministry of Health. "That request, " suggested the minister, "

required reworking before we would accept it as a ministry." Again,

that implied ministerial responsibility. Those are his words.

All this is to help the minister clarify, so let me finish, and then

I will provide the minister with an opportunity to give answer number

11 to the same simple question. But I'm sure he can clarify that, and I

will just finish up here and give him an opportunity to do that.

Then he said, after all those different, conflicting answers, that

it's currently being reviewed by the B.C. Cancer Agency. Now originally

he said that the request was a joint one from the Burnaby Hospital and

the Cancer Agency. Then he said the request came from the Cancer

Agency, and then he said it is being reviewed by the Cancer Agency.

This is a masterful display of ministerial dancing. I find it quite

incredible that the minister could take a simple question and dance 12

answers all around that question. Finally, he said: "It's not the

purview of the Ministry of Health to pursue these or to vet these. It's

really the responsibility of the Cancer Agency."

So we went from denial to almost acceptance. In answers one through

six, we almost had our chemotherapy unit there; then finally by the

time we got to answer number 12, it shuffled off into some Cancer

Agency which — I don't know — goes back a year. He said that the Cancer

Agency originally made the proposal. So we went through so many loops

on that one question that I really would like the minister to see if

there is any further update, and maybe answer number 13 will be the one

I'm hoping for.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is cute, as he always is in his

rendition and recounting of what really did take place. I noticed he

wasn't reading from the Blues, so he's obviously fabricating a lot of

the answers one to 14, or whatever they might be.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wish you would. You might get it right for once.

First of all, with respect to answer number one that was not in

response to your question, Mr. Member, but to a question from the

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Really, he dealt with the

nausea experi-

[ Page

12901 ]

enced by a patient who had to have chemotherapy at

Lions Gate. I expressed my concern for that and pointed out that one

had to drive. Although I didn't say it this way, we don't have a

chemotherapy unit on every block, so you're going to have to drive

somewhere. I also pointed out that, although my knowledge of the

geography of Vancouver–Burnaby–North Vancouver is limited, there are

many cases where in fact a resident in Burnaby might be closer to Lions

Gate than to another facility; similarly, someone living on the west

side of Burnaby could be closer to the Vancouver cancer clinic by VGH.

Then the member skirted around the Burnaby proposal. Burnaby applied

a year ago, but the B.C. Cancer Agency, which handles all of this for

us, asked them to rework their proposal — which they did. They

responded in January 1991. The B.C. Cancer Agency is looking at the

proposal now. I think it's going to be approved, and I don't think

there's much more to say. That's it; it sounds like a good proposal to

me.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few things in

this debate. I've listened to much of the debate. While I've heard a

number of letters which have been read into the record, as well as

other comments of a negative kind, I just want to say today that the

experiences we in our family have had — in particular a brother of my

wife and his wife, who both needed heart surgery last December.... It

was only a couple of weeks before Christmas.

[4:30]

They live in the village of Lumby, which is a considerable way from

Vancouver General Hospital. These folks received all of the care, not

only in terms of transportation with Government Air but also in terms

of transportation to and from the airport and to the hospital. In fact,

these folks were both operated on within a couple of days, because the

situation was urgent, and they were both back home by New Year's.

I don't think that this is the only success story. There are

undoubtedly hundreds, if not thousands, of success stories due to this

ministry and in particular due to the medical staff and the nursing

staff of the major hospitals, particularly those where delicate

operations are performed, and the care that is given. When we talk

about care given and responsibility accepted, I must say that our

medical profession — and in particular, the doctors and the specialists

— often goes far beyond the call of duty to help the people who really

need the help. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I do have a concern that I wish to canvass with the minister for a

bit now, though. It applies to health inspections, which were talked

about earlier. There are also a number of health inspections done on

septic fields in rural areas. Apparently, over the last little while,

Mr. Chairman, there have been some changes in the regulations regarding

those septic fields. I'm particularly concerned about this, because it

applies to many of the areas within the floodplains where from time to

time the groundwater level will exceed that maximum that's required for

septic tank fields.

It's my understanding, as I have been informed, that this level has been

raised to 18 inches from the ground surface. The water level must be below 18

inches year-round. We all know that from time to time we get heavy rains, sometimes

combined with snowmelt, where in some of the floodplain areas that minimum cannot

be achieved. As a result, while many of these areas have been farmed for 80

years and farmers have lived in their houses for 80 years and really no problem

has existed, all of a sudden — while we like to brag about the increase in agricultural

production and agricultural activity — these farmers now cannot build a new

home or rebuild an old one or start a new set of farm buildings, because they

cannot get the approval for a septic field.

I've discussed this with the local health officer, and he doesn't

seem to have any alternatives. In the past I served as mayor for many

years; when similar problems were brought up, there was usually an

alternative method that could be used in those cases.

I'm just wondering whether the minister has any thought about this

specific regulation, which I believe came into force only about two or

three weeks ago, and whether he intends to review that further so that

indeed those cases that not only are a problem in the

Abbotsford-Matsqui area but will be a problem, I'm sure, in Pitt

Meadows and many other good farming areas in the lower mainland.... I

believe that these farmers do deserve a house with a satisfactory

septic system.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset I'd like to thank the member

for his comments about the Medical Services Commission, and I'm happy

that his in-laws are feeling better and receiving the appropriate

treatment.

With respect to septic tanks, lagoons and other methods of looking

after the problem of residential sewage, I can tell you it's a problem,

Mr. Member, particularly in your area. Groundwater testing, which we do

regularly, shows us that we have an increasing presence of nitrates in

groundwater, caused by intensive agriculture — animals and intensive

fertilization — as well as by septic tanks and septic fields. It is a

concern.

We have a responsibility as the Ministry of Health to ensure that

people's health comes foremost. I can assure you that I've been at the

centre of many of these issues myself in Prince George with respect to

residential development, where a developer wants to put in either a

lagoon system or a septic tank and field system, and the Ministry of

Health has had to bring in stringent regulations, look at percolation,

groundwater testing and some of the other issues, and say no to the

applicant. That's a difficult thing for the applicant to accept, but a

person's health comes first in our opinion, and if the evidence of the

technicians we have employed tells us that the installation of a system

is not going to be conducive to good health and that the installation

of the system may contaminate groundwater, then we have no alternative

but to refuse that application.

I can sympathize with the member's concern, and I can certainly

sympathize with the people of the Fraser Valley, because they want to

develop; but nevertheless,

[ Page 12902 ]

the rules are there. I'm advised that 18 inches is

appropriate in terms of depth, because you cannot put sewage into

groundwater without contaminating neighbouring wells and nearby

ditches. This is essentially what I said earlier. But I'm also advised

that this is not a new regulation.

Each case is looked at individually, where necessary, to try and

find customized solutions. Let's hope we will. The ideal thing would be

to put in proper sewage collection and treatment and avoid ground

disposal of sewage, but that would be very expensive. In the meantime,

we have to maintain our regulations. We'll ensure we address your

concerns in the Fraser Valley as best we can and in as innovative a

fashion as we can, but one has to remember that the bottom line for us

is human health. If we have any condition, installation or application

that's going to take away from human health, then we have to react in a

manner that ensures we do have appropriate human health measures.

MR. DE JONG: Just to follow up a little bit more. As I

mentioned, these areas have been farmed for the last 80 years or more,

and residences have existed on many of these properties or on

surrounding properties for that same length of time. I do believe that

drainage projects have been installed in many of these areas in the

past 25 years, which undoubtedly has improved the drainage for those

areas and hence has brought the groundwater level down because of

better drainage. On occasion we do have these flash-floods. I take

exception to the inspector telling me that if it only happens once a

year.... He also told an applicant that he must wait for a year before

he can get approval for a septic tank to be installed next to his new

home. It seems to be a bit ridiculous, considering that it is essential

for a farmer to be living where his operation is.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll take the member's point as noted. We

do want to ensure — in percolation tests and all the other testing that

we do — the health of the residents of British Columbia. But the member

makes a good point. We'll revisit and look at the regulations and some

of the inspection processes.

MS. PULLINGER: I would just like to revisit the whole issue

of child-care spaces and licensing, because I don't feel that we've

quite completed the discussion The minister and a number of people on

the other side of this House have argued that we don't need to license

child care places — or child care spaces, child care givers — because

some of them are very good. There's no question, some of them are

excellent; I don't dispute that. However, what the minister doesn't

seem to understand is that there are also some horror stories about

children. For instance, in my riding a number of years ago, it was

discovered that at one place where children were left, kids were

routinely drugged through the use of cough syrup as a way of keeping

order and keeping them quiet. What I would like to suggest is that if

we have no licensing, no monitoring or no means of checking, then we

have no means of finding those problems. There are also, as I pointed

out a little bit earlier, some 60,000 children under the age of 12 in

British Columbia who have no child care at all — they are left alone.

The minister talks about the responsibility of parents, and I hope

the minister isn't suggesting that those people who leave their kids do

so because that's their first choice. That would be a very

irresponsible and uninformed position. This minister tends to be very

well informed, and I would hope he wouldn't suggest that. The reality

is that we do have unlicensed care, which is not doing the job, as well

as very good care. We also have 60,000 kids who have no care

whatsoever. Parents obviously have a significant amount of

responsibility. I would also argue that parents take that

responsibility to the very best of their ability and resources.

There's something going on here that I would like to talk about. I

would like to have it on the record, and I would like the minister to

consider it. The world that I hear the members on the other side

describing is an imaginary world that is a little bit out of touch with

reality for most people. It's a bit of an ivory tower when you're

describing the choices people have and the time they have to check out

child care. So let me just talk for a minute about what the reality is

for a number of women.

In 1961, the statistics show that 65 percent of families were

traditional families in which mother stayed home with the children and

father went out and earned a living and looked after the family. In

1961 that was the case, and that's fairly even over time. Women have

always had to work outside the home.

Today, the number of traditional breadwinner families is 16 percent

maximum. That's not very many. This means that in 84 percent of all

families both parents work. Before the other side jumps up and says,

"Well, that's their choice; therefore they have to look after the

consequences like child care; it's up to them to find it and check it

out" — which I don't disagree with as far as is possible — let's just

remember why those people are working. In 58 percent of those families,

both parents are working because if they didn't, the family income

would drop below the poverty line. Poverty in a family means children

living in poverty, and that's an issue I raised in the first session

here which has serious health implications. That has serious

implications for where we're going, so this is a critical issue. It

disturbs me to hear the other side dismissing it as if everyone had all

the choices they could have and that licensing didn't matter. So we

have 84 percent of the families where two parents are working, and

nearly two-thirds of those work because they must work — they need the

money.

On top of those statistics I would like to add that we have single

parents. Of course, single parents in the vast majority of cases cashes

out to mean single mothers. As we know, women earn 61.8 cents on the

dollar in British Columbia, and something like 70 percent of those

single mothers and their children live in poverty. Again the choi