[ Page 1605 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Health estimates

On vote 75.

Mrs. Jordan — 1605

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1611

Mr. Gardom — 1612

Mr. Curtis — 1612

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1613

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1613

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1614

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1615

Mr. Wallace — 1616

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1618

Mr. Phillips — 1618

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1619

Mr. Phillips — 1619

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1620

Mr. Phillips — 1620

Mr. Smith — 1620

Mr. Gardom — 1622

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1623

Mr. Gardom — 1623

Mr. McClelland — 1624

Mr. Curtis — 1627

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1627

Ms. Sanford — 1627

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1628

Motions No. 22.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1629

Mr. Chabot — 1629

MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
(continued)

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I certainly listened with great interest to the Hon. Minister of Health today, and I'd like to just compliment him on his health programmes for, hopefully, healthy people. I did hear a rumour that once he'd taken his test he'd given up jogging. I didn't know whether that was the result of the test or the result of the jogging.

I did also listen with interest to his figures on the motorcycle accidents in British Columbia, and his reasons for defending the high insurance rates of ICBC. Unfortunately, I didn't copy them all down and Hansard isn't ready, but I thought he might also like to be made aware of what the bicycle accident rate is in British Columbia.

In 1971, there were 17 people killed in bicycle accidents and in 1972, 18 cyclists killed. There was only one property damage. The non-fatal rate was 680 cyclists, making a total, including the deaths, in 1972 of 699; in 1971, 706. So there is certainly a rising incidence of bicycle accidents in British Columbia.

It might interest the Premier, who is nodding with great wisdom, to know that of this total of 710 injured in 1972, 179 were female and 531 were male, so perhaps he might want to look at that. The age incidence is quite interesting: in the zero to four years of age, seven accidents; in the 5 to 14 years of age, 416; 15 to 19, 166; and 20 to 29, 81; 30 to 39, 15 accidents; 40 to 49, 8 accidents; 50 to 64, 7 accidents; and 65 years and older, 10. I would like to know, along with these figures which parallel quite closely the motorcycle accidents, if the Minister of Health is going to persuade these cyclists off the road by high insurance rates. Perhaps he would comment.

My suggestion would be — and it's not exactly under this Minister's vote but I'm sure a strong opinion from him would be helpful — that in light of the increasing accident rate for cyclists, rather than rule them off the road with high insurance rates, we'd be far better to consider cyclists' routes on all our major areas where people tend to cycle.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: We'll go into those under the Minister of Transport's estimates, for obvious reasons. (Laughter.)

But of a more serious nature — although I do feel seriously about this; I recognize the problem in providing cyclists' paths because I myself was very keen on this when on the other side of the House, and did a study. It is going to cost something like $50 million to build them just in the major areas of inter-communities, such as between Nelson and Trail, from Vernon to Penticton, down the Fraser Canyon, in areas where it would be more obvious to put them, and on Vancouver Island. But I do believe it's something that should be considered in preference to high insurance rates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks to the Health Minister's responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman; I just hope you'll put in a positive voice rather than high insurance rates. It's time we faced this problem and did something about it.

What is of considerable concern to me as well, Mr. Chairman, is the matter of the registered nurses and B.C. Hospital Association stalemate that's happened in British Columbia. The Minister said this afternoon "my group," and I want to make it very clear that I resigned a long time ago from the Registered Nurses' Association, in 1966 to be exact, when I first went into government.

I have steadfastly resisted discussing this subject in this House, but in all those years, Mr. Chairman, regardless of situations in Which the RNs have found themselves — and I have long maintained that the nurses of British Columbia have carried the bed pans of British Columbia in relation to other professions — but never have they been in such a difficult plight as they are now. This situation is different because, in fact, it's not the result of natural bargaining processes; it's the result of unprecedented interference by a Minister of the Crown.

I'd also like to make it very clear that in interceding on behalf of the licensed practical nurse, his objectives, I'm sure, were most worthy, and the results of bringing them up to a reasonable level of pay is commendable. I'm sure, and I can speak with confidence for the registered nurses in British Columbia, that there is no way in the current negotiations, or in their current attitude which is very strong, that they wish to detract from the licensed practical nurse and their position and their salary increase. Registered nurses fully support this.

What they do condemn is that in trying to correct one discrimination, the Minister has created another.

[ Page 1606 ]

In creating this other discrimination, he's really made no effort to follow through with the precedent that he set in trying to assist this group that have been grossly discriminated against. He had every opportunity when he was interceding on behalf of the LPN to make it very clear to the hospital boards that he was aware of the increased cost to the Treasury of British Columbia, and in making his recommendation that he was aware this would not only be reflected within the LPN salaries but also would be reflected in other salaries coming up for negotiation. That includes the registered nurses, but it also includes the administrative staff in hospitals, who by tradition have their salary increases set by the precedent that has been set in the union negotiation area and the professional negotiating area.

What one asks is whether in fact the Minister, as he stated today, interceded really not on the basis of a full understanding of what he was doing and the cost involved, but if he succumbed to pressure.

As he said, there have been a lot of letters to the Human Rights Commission, and I'm sure this is true. But, Mr. Minister, does this mean that every time you are pressured by a group in relation to human rights, you will use this as a means of upsetting the balance of other people's rights, and in fact that you will create a series of discriminatory actions and a series of discriminatory results?

There's some considerable concern that by backing the registered nurses into the corner as the Minister has, there may well be a serious question if, in fact, there is a strong desire on the part of this government to see that they are officially and formally unionized.

The government is in a difficult position with their fair employment practices Act where they've made it very clear that anyone working and receiving public moneys should in fact be a member of a union. The professional nurses have stayed away from union organizations since 1952. They have tried extremely hard to maintain a professional attitude in their work and in their position in the public's mind, and they should be commended for this.

Is the government in an embarrassing position where they have a group of professional people within the health sector who are not unionized and who are creating embarrassment for them? And rather than come out and enforce the Public Works Fair Employment Act, trying to take the back-step in forcing the nurses to unionize.

There used to be in the Vancouver General Hospital a member of the union — this was a matter which I experienced myself, when I was a member of the association when it fought very hard to regain a professional status. They have lived up to this not only in their conduct within their work, but perhaps also as an outstanding example of a professional group who have done more than their share to promote professionalism within the health world by making actual cash grants to the University of British Columbia for extra studies in the area of the nursing field.

They have one of the most active post-graduate in-service and extra-service training programmes in the country. And they have always been looked upon as individuals who are true to their ideals, and who carry their traditional role with great seriousness and almost a heavy mantle.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the situation they find themselves in is intolerable. For your information, they feel that the interference by the Minister in the specific instances of the LPN in relation to the arbitration awards — particularly four that were made in British Columbia: in Penticton, Trail, Kimberley and Royal Jubilee Hospital — were such that in light of the decision that was forced by the Minister they are in a position where the LPN, worthy as she is of this increase, has a minimum requirement of 10 years of training in the high school, grade 10, and a 10-month training programme. And they can meet parity within two years of service within the hospital.

It's a fact that registered nurses are required by law, within the legislation of this province, to supervise all LPN activities and orderly activities, and, by tradition, this is their role. By the nature of the work that's outlined in the hospitals, this is their role. They must be in a position which is supervisory to the LPN.

Yet today in British Columbia they find...the registered nurse finds herself in a position where she is, as I mention, by law, responsibility and training, required to supervise those who are receiving more money than she is.

They rightfully resent this, Mr. Chairman.

I think that it was well documented in the Sun the other day by George Dobey where he said, "RNs Face a Practical Problem." I'll read just a little bit for your information. He says:

"The facts are the RNs are militant and determined. They've had two widely approved strike votes at Royal Jubilee in Victoria and Royal Columbia in New Westminster and expect to get similar results next Wednesday and Thursday in voting at Vancouver General Hospital."

I don't recall in my lifetime in British Columbia ever hearing registered nurses described as being militant. Yet today they find themselves backed into a situation where they must adopt a militant stand or succumb to Ministerially imposed discrimination. Mr. Dobey goes on to say:

"The issue that has riled the RNs is the disruption of what they say is their rightful differential between rates of RNs and registered practical nurses. Deeply involved is what the RNs describe as the unusual interference of the

[ Page 1607 ]

provincial government through Health Minister Dennis Cocke in the collective bargaining in the industry.

"The interference came in the form of an agreement between the government and the hospital employees' union giving special adjustments to practical nurses to end discrimination against them in relation to male orderlies doing similar work."

Mr. Chairman, the Minister said this afternoon that he encouraged the hospital boards to enter into this agreement. And if his words in the contract that were signed are encouragement, I'd hate to see what he has to say when he's forcing his powers upon them. Along with the 58 per cent increase that he awarded the LPNs and other dictums he says right on page 1of the agreement under 1 (C):

"The parties agreed that all such discrimination of wage rates, job description, promotions and any other shall have ended by January 1, 1976. If progress towards this goal is deemed unsatisfactory, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance shall undertake suitable measures to ensure that that goal is achieved."

That, Mr. Chairman, is what the Minister of Health describes as gentle persuasion to the hospital association of British Columbia. Gentle persuasion, Mr. Chairman.

I thought perhaps in his thoughts of gentle persuasion the Minister might like to know some of the other discrepancies that he's brought about in trying to correct one discrimination and creating so many others.

Maids in miscellaneous services at the YMCA, doing ostensibly the same work as the maids in the hospital, only get $3.85 an hour, Mr. Chairman. We don't hear the Minister standing up and speaking about this discriminatory action or this differential.

A truck driver, Mr. Chairman, for Indalex Ltd. gets $5.60 an hour, and the registered nurse is asking only for $5.61 an hour. Surely, Mr. Chairman, a registered nurse, with her training, her responsibility and the law under which she must operate, is entitled to the same wage as a truck driver.

But even more interesting is the first-aid attendant working for Kaiser Resources — that terrible, terrible enterprise corporation. A first-aid attendant as of January 1, 1975, will get $5.50 an hour. Surely, in light of the discriminatory situation that the Minister has created, and in light of the traditional differential that the registered nurse has had, their request for $5.60 an hour as a base rate is not unreasonable. Surely they are worth a little bit more in terms of responsibility and training than a first-aid attendant. And surely they are worth as much as a truck driver for a small company.

It is interesting that there is some considerable concern on the part of the B.C. Hospital Association, who have traditionally had a very good relationship with the in-staff at the hospitals. And their relationship with the registered nurses has always been one of the best. The bargaining climate has generally been carried out in the best of humour and the best of intent — for fairness to the hospital and fairness to the registered nurses and, above all, fairness to the patient.

Mr. Minister, we have precedent in this province by your government when it campaigned in the last election campaign and decided that the ills of education fell on the fact that the teachers needed a much greater salary increase than what was a matter of judgment on the part of the former administration. The government, to its credit, carried this out. But then they turned around and smacked down the school boards and told them they had to cut back their budgets.

What we ask here is whether this isn't, in fact, a repeat of that pattern, that the Minister of Health has, in fact, interfered and arbitrarily ordered the hospital boards to take action which has created this discriminatory situation, and if, in fact, now he isn't turning around and interfering with the hospital boards and letting the message get through to them that they must cut their costs. Is this, Mr. Minister, a parallel to what's happened in education? Is this the practice that you're starting in the health field now?

Mr. Minister, there has been a philosophy imposed by your government that there should be an effort to cut down on salaries in certain areas. I don't quibble with this if the salaries are unreasonable. But I think if that is your intention, then you, through you, Mr. Chairman, should come out publicly and say so — not use the hospital association negotiating units and not use the registered nurses as whipping boys because of your interference and the precedence you set and for an objective that you're not ready to bring out to the public notice.

I would ask the Minister, in light of the fact that when he appointed the mediator for the UNs he appointed Mr. Blair, who is a very fine mediator, I'm sure, but who also is known to be very strong on this side of labour and that's fine.... But I would hope that the mediator that he appoints in this situation will be as favourably disposed to remove the discriminatory situation that the nurses find themselves in now, and which has been created by the government, and that the Minister in turn will give the hospital association....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just request that the Hon. Member not stray too far into the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am

[ Page 1608 ]

trying to relate this to an order that I have here — an agreement which was dictated by the Minister of Health and is signed by Mr. W.J. Lyle, Deputy Minister of Hospital Insurance, on behalf of the Minister of Health…

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order....

MRS. JORDAN: ...and Mr. Clay Perry, his Executive Assistant. I would feel that if you would like to examine this you'll recognize it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the Hon. Member may discuss the past action of the Minister in this regard and things pertaining to it, but rather not to stray into other possible things that are now the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your point of view and I suspect you've had strong indication, which I'm sure you would ignore, from the Minister of Health to get the heat off him because he has no intention of assuming the responsibilities that he should. Mr. Minister, you stabbed those nurses in the drawsheet. You're relying on the fact that they are idealistic people, that they have carried the lamp of health in this province and within the North American continent in spite of any of their personal concerns or feelings. I assure you, Mr. Minister, that they'll carry that lamp. They recognize they must have a basic wage increase with annual adjustments based on responsibility, training and loss. It is your action that has interfered with their legitimate right to achieve this.

I hope the Minister will stand up and suggest that he recognizes that at the core of all health service is the nurse and the patient, the patient and the nurse. Everything else radiates from there: the specialist in terms of doctors, general practice and specialists, the laboratory, the LPN, the orderly, the administrative staff in the hospitals, the people who keep the hospitals clean, the voluntary areas. Everything, Mr. Minister, must plug into the patient. Beside the patient is the nurse because she is the one who most directly has to be responsible for that patient's daily care and who most directly must practise the art of medicine that comes only through their own particular personality and sensitivity and the type of training they take, which is not only academic but is in itself a sensitivity programme; to be able to differentiate between the norm and the abnorm; to be able to use a sixth sense that indicates for some reason or another that this patient is in need, needs special attention or needs the physician.

As the Minister of Education said about education, "If the teacher is unhappy about his or her salary, the children are going to get a poor education." Those are her comments. I would just say to the Minister of Health that for the first time in history really, the registered nurse in British Columbia is unhappy about her salary position, not on the basis of greed for money or perhaps even need for money, but by the law, her or his responsibilities, training and the role they play in the health picture. Will the Minister bring together these parties and assure the B.C. Hospitals Association that the government is willing to meet the commitments financially that will be necessary if the proper wage settlement is to be made?

There's another matter I'd like to go on in relation to nurses: B.C. has experienced the continuing shortage of registered nurses this year. Usually by the fall, the seasonal summer shortage has eased but this year the shortage of RN staff in B.C. hospitals, public health and schools of nursing which began developing in early spring has continued into the winter. In late fall, with more than 300 vacancies still listed with the RNABC placement service, the RNABC on its own began preparing recruitment advertisements. The ads were published in eight newspapers in eastern Canada in January. They only drew 32 responses from RNs who made inquiries.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: With respect, this particular item I think is more appropriate for vote 92. I think the Member is quite right in pursuing it, but if you'll check vote 91 — training in the expanded role of nurses — it will be appropriate, I think, for a good discussion at that time.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll be pleased to bring it up then, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to speak in principle now because I'm most interested to know how the Minister can equate his position in the present dispute with the nursing situation in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! I just want to comment on this....

MRS. JORDAN: It's his administrative ability, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to comment on the point of order, Hon. Member. The point is well taken in this respect: a general discussion is in order for the Minister's salary but if a detailed discussion is going to take place which is more appropriate to a particular vote, that is the time to do it. It's up to the Minister, though, whether he wishes to discuss it at that point or under the vote. The Hon. Member may proceed.

[ Page 1609 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am aware of where the vote is, but I'd like to speak in principle. If it's your wish that I do not, I would ask that I be given fair leeway when that vote comes up in order to pursue this. I think we have a schizophrenic position on registered nursing in this province which has been in part contributed to by the Minister of Health. I feel that one is at liberty to discuss anything under the Minister's salary that relates to his administration.

I would like to go on to prosthesis and a subject that came up this afternoon brought up by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in a manner which I don't approach it. He brought it up in terms of the Foulkes report where it was implied that a physician for the want of money would choose to do a radical mastectomy on a woman rather than a simple mastectomy or a biopsy.

Just on that point, I would suggest that in British Columbia there's never a radical mastectomy done without a frozen section or a biopsy examination of the offending problem which is usually a lump in the breast. Traditionally in most operating rooms they do a frozen section or biopsy of the lump and, if it is suggested to be malignant at the time, they then with consent of the patient proceed to do either a simple mastectomy or a radical mastectomy depending on the choice of the doctor.

For anyone to suggest that a doctor would undertake a mastectomy of any type for money, I think, is an utter disgrace. I frankly would stand by 99 per cent of the practitioners in British Columbia and believe that that's a cruel, vicious and unthought-out statement.

Just on the subject, I think every woman reads the pros and cons of a radical mastectomy and a simple mastectomy. For my money as a woman right now, with what little I know — and it isn't much — it may be mutilating but I'd gamble on the radical mastectomy because it appears that the results, though never terribly good, are certainly much better in that instance.

I would like to bring up the fact that this is a psychologically extremely difficult operation for women, regardless of their age. Unless the situation has changed, there are no funds available really for counseling for these women. There is a group of women in Vancouver who have got together and set up a counseling programme for women who have to have mastectomies. This is on a voluntary basis, and I wouldn't really suggest that they want to be paid or it's necessary that they be paid. But I would like to suggest to the Minister that he make funds available so that some of these women who have activated this programme and who have had a lot of experience in it on a voluntary basis would be allowed to go around the province to set up other such counseling services in smaller hospitals in British Columbia where they do this surgery. It really wouldn't be a massive undertaking because this type of surgery is not done in small hospitals; it's done basically in regional hospitals.

I'm sure all Members of this House have had an opportunity to speak to a woman, whether she's in her 70s or in her 20s, who has had a mastectomy. It doesn't matter whether they've been a nurse or a doctor or well-acquainted with the process; there are great psychological problems. This is a service which is badly needed. I hope, as I mentioned, the Minister would make funds available so that this type of counseling could be available around the province.

Also, under B.C. Hospital Insurance and the Medical Plan there is very limited provision for payment for cosmetic surgery.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I must bring to the attention of the House that there is a separate vote on Hospital Insurance and cosmetic surgery. I think if we get into all these details, we won't get on with the general debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I would rule that the Hon. Member may refer to the matters in general terms, providing she doesn't go into great detail on each one. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I accept your rule and I will continue. I would caution the Premier that my patience is being tried. If he's impatient to get out of the House, then go.

If he's not interested in debating the matter of health in British Columbia, then go. If you want to get on your bicycle or get in your sauna, then go. We are interested in staying here and discussing some of the problems of health care in British Columbia. Furthermore, Mr. Premier, if you don't tone down, I'll get into the Foulkes report and then you'll really be sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to return to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Health.

MRS. JORDAN: To continue...and this subject may be very uncomfortable for the Premier to listen to, I don't know. But there is minimal provision for cosmetic surgery and this has its merits; but also in that minimal provision is a lack of funds for cosmetic surgery for women who have had mastectomies. I would hope that the Minister of Health would consider inclusion of this, recognizing that it would

[ Page 1610 ]

have to be a medical decision whether it was in the best interest of the patient and whether the patient was in fact able to withstand this type of surgery. I would hope that it would apply right across the board, from simple biopsies to simple mastectomies to radical mastectomies.

I notice the Minister of Finance discussing it. Maybe we've already got the money for it, have we?

I'd also like to bring to the Minister's attention the matter of the home-care service. This, as the Minster mentioned, was started as a pilot project in British Columbia some four to five years ago in the area of Kamloops, as one example, with a view to deciding whether or not this had a useful place in the medical programme in British Columbia. Quite obviously, by the response of those who received the care, by the releasing of some of the load on hospitals, and by the response of those involved in giving the care, it is a very useful programme and should in fact become very much a part of the medical-care programme in British Columbia.

But I hope the Minister doesn't look at this as solely a cost-cutting feature, because I would predict at this time that this type of home-care programme is going to prove very costly if it's gone into in an extensive way, and should be adjudicated on the basis of whether or not it serves the patient's needs, rather than whether or not it's cutting costs. Certainly there's a lot of evidence in British Columbia to suggest that the physicians are moving ever more carefully and cautiously but, hopefully, wisely into the area of day care or day surgery.

But let's not get carried away and start shunting patients in and out of the day care on the basis of numbers rather than on the basis of possible complication and the fact that they might well need to be in the hospital. I hope that in the programme of day care, day surgery, the Minister will leave enough latitude that the physician has the option to adjudicate the home situation. There may be a small amount of surgery needing to be done but, in fact, that mother may well need one or two days in the hospital in terms of adjusting to her surgery and adjusting to the home situation. I hope that that latitude would remain.

I also hope, Mr. Chairman, while it didn't take the Foulkes report to bring forth the need for the continual expansion of this programme, that the Minister won't become over-zealous in developing this programme and let it become academically top heavy. As we went around the province on the health committee — and it was an interesting committee from this point of view — it became very clear that the majority of women involved in this programme were working because of a desire to serve; they were working because they were having a learning situation. And much to the surprise of many of them, they had developed within themselves capabilities they never thought they would have.

One lady in Castlegar who had had a grade 10 education, who worked in a store before she was married, and married very young — she was in her late 20s — said, "If you had told me I would be sitting before you at this time in my life, telling you about this programme, and that I could look back and feel that I'd been the spearhead of it, I would have just laughed you right out of the room." This woman doesn't have any specific academic training, Mr. Chairman, but she has more sensitivity, more ability and more nursing expertise that is needed in this field than many with Master's degrees in some areas.

We began to see a tendency, as the programme became more successful and more popular, that with all due respect, the academics that came before us emphasized that it needed to expand, and in the expansion of service was more the expansion of the administration — that we needed at least baccalaureates at the head of it, or preferably Masters of Social Work or Masters of Nursing, with executive assistants and secretaries and all the paraphernalia that go with it.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that to structure too tightly the development of this home-care service in British Columbia would be a costly mistake in terms of patient care and in terms of dollars to the whole medical programme.

We have the Meals-on-Wheels programme, and while there's certainly a need in some areas for some financial assistance, again it's essentially run by volunteers. I would hope that we will continue to emphasize the work of the volunteer in the health programme rather than de-emphasize it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that vote 79 specifically deals with that area and I would ask her to keep her remarks brief and on general comments.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; when we get to vote 79 I'll go into it in great detail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In the general comments, I would ask the Hon. Member just to touch on subjects in general terms but not to deal with them in detail until we get to the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you might tell me what subject you consider acceptable under this vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The administrative responsibility and the actions of the Minister of Health.

MRS. JORDAN: That's precisely what I'm discussing, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1611 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it's a case of appropriateness — the most appropriate place to discuss things.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we'd better send you to nursing school because if you don't think that home care of patients is appropriate to the Minister's salary, you've got an awful lot to learn. Would you like to enrol?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It's the case, Hon. Member, that the whole programme may be discussed in detail under vote 79.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I'm a neophyte on this side of the House. I took six years of training on that side of the House watching the then Leader of the Opposition discuss this under the Minister's votes, and I'm sure it's in the archives....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Member, he did ask a question 76 times. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, I won't go over these subjects 76 times. In fact, I'm just touching on them once. So I hope that I will have your fair ruling on this matter.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, there is a very sensitive area in relation to volunteers in hospital, paid personnel of the professional nature and of the general staff, and the volunteer who's paid through LIP grants and other federal financing. You can go around British Columbia and find incident after incident where there has been a well-thought-out, useful, patient-oriented programme evolved by volunteers.

Someone gets the idea that they should get a LIP grant to organize this, and someone's friend who knows the beneficiary of the LIP grant tends to get their friends in, and we have a layer of paid volunteers coming in.

While the programmes are entered into with good intent, what is happening is that you're creating two levels of volunteers. The paid volunteer is getting to be a problem in relation to the voluntary volunteer, or the non-paid volunteer.

I would urge the Minister to not let this level creep in to any degree because I believe that in the long run the patient is going to suffer and that we will lose a lot of competent volunteer people in the health service in British Columbia because of very small friction which need never have been there over money.

I recognize that the Minister doesn't have too much control over what the feds do in terms of these grants, but I hope that this department would take the time to become familiar with some of the programmes in B.C. and that where it's more of a job creation for someone's friend, they would take a strong attitude against it and leave the programmes in the hands of the volunteers.

I don't wish to transgress, Mr. Chairman, but I hope that the Minister will raise his voice and offer his opinion when it comes to the efforts to accredit women with volunteer service and that there should be in British Columbia a certificate programme where a number of years of competent volunteer service would in fact be credited to a lady who might want to re-enter the work force. In fact, such a volunteer programme in certain areas might even be a benefit to them if in later years they chose to enter into registered nurses training or licensed practical nurses training. That same should apply to men should they wish to enter this field.

Well, I have a number of other things I'd like to bring up under the Minister's salary vote, but I'll just leave them for the moment and hope that he will answer some of these questions and give the House the benefit of his views.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I was delighted to hear the Member for North Okanagan discussing health care in her inimitable fashion, not taking sides, being fair.

MRS. JORDAN: No, I'm taking the nurse's side. I don't make any bones about it.

HON. MR. COCKE: Not a member of RNABC any longer. But, Madam Member, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that when there are negotiations going on, it's rather out of character for any of us to be discussing the negotiations that are going on right now, in fact, with a mediator.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): It's a negation of collective bargaining.

HON. MR. COCKE: It is a negation of collective bargaining. That Member indicated, as did her colleague the member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), that I interfered earlier in another set of negotiations.

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

HON. MR. COCKE: There weren't negotiations! How many times do I have to say that to this House?

MRS. JORDAN: Stop playing with semantics.

HON. MR. COCKE: They just don't want to know, and that's unfortunate. Let me suggest again that that was part of a settlement that came down from the old Social Credit mediation commission which said that anomalies could be questioned during

[ Page 1612 ]

the life of a contract, and that's what happened.

Then do you know what happened? We brought about orderly change as opposed to chaos. Yes, that's right, because as the hospitals were going to arbitration one by one, and the human rights applications were coming in hundreds by hundreds, there was nothing but chaos. But once we asked both sides.... And you will notice that this is a proposed agreement, not signed by me. It's a suggestion to me, a recommendation from my staff and from the hospital employees.

But that brought about an opportunity for everybody to sit back and say, "Okay, now how do we get there, and let's stage it." It is being staged, Mr. Chairman. What is being staged in the whole picture is that ultimate parity, male and female wage parity, will be brought about by 1975-76. Reasonable objectives. How that Member across the way can suggest that this parity should have been maintained.... For an example, in 1973 the orderlies were only making $3 less than an RN. There were no questions asked over there at that point. Now they're going to be getting $65 less.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, you're skating all around!

HON. MR. COCKE: You see, under our recommendation....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: So you just don't want to listen, Madam Member! That's it. I've dealt with the subject as far as I'm concerned. It's finished. I don't think we should be discussing any longer a question that is now being mediated and a question that's now being negotiated.

Mr. Chairman, one other word just before I sit down, and that is: day-care surgery is at the physician's request, as it has always been and as always will be.

MRS. JORDAN: What about home care?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to draw one topic to the attention of the Hon. Minister and that is dealing with the situation of emergency wards. I think we all appreciate that they have to be clinical and precise and indeed, hopefully, quick. But they do not have to be dispassionate.

I tend to think that the forms the patients are required to complete should be very much secondary to the relief that they may require. I would suggest very strongly that there be some paramedical solace offered — sort of a good neighbourly kind of help and assistance to all of those people who in most cases are very frightened and afraid, lonely and alone.

There's no question that the prime and first job of an emergency team is to take immediate care of the critically ill and the very seriously injured. That does not mean that the remainder of the less serious cases should be treated somewhat in an insignificant manner, perhaps not from the very finite medical point of view, but certainly from an attention point of view.

Why not see that they have a proper place to lay down, a reassuring hand, readily available bathrooms and basins, and a cup of tea or coffee, or something along that line — help in telephoning, in notifying their relatives, and assistance in departing. What we need to have there is assurance, reassurance and a helping hand.

I say as much as possible eliminate the high degree of impersonality and coldness out of the emergency ward.

There's no question that perhaps the very highly technically trained personnel may be too busy and their priority should be other priorities, but that doesn't mean for one second that there should not be made available also those kind of people who will be able to contribute the time and offer the skills that I've mentioned.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, when would the Minister like to discuss ambulance service? Under this vote or another one?

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Under hospitals? Okay.

The other point which I think might be appropriate at this time concerns pituitary glands. It's a medical area into which I realize laymen such as I should probably fear to tread. Nevertheless, I think it's a subject that requires some discussion and publicity.

There's a teenage lad in my constituency who, as I understand it, had a tumor in the vicinity of his pituitary gland. This was discovered in June of last year and he was operated on in September. The operation was a success, but the boy has not recorded growth for some 18 to 20 months, by today.

I believe it's correct to say that there are approximately 10 children in B.C. right now awaiting some sort of treatment which is not readily available to them.

I have been given by the parents of this lad a statement by the Canadian therapeutic trial of human growth hormone, which points out that there is a shortage across the country. Apparently growth hormones are available in some other countries in larger quantity than here, notably Sweden. But it points out in this statement that the current national collection programme has fallen below 10,000 pituitary glands. Double this amount

[ Page 1613 ]

would be needed to enable children in the programme to be treated continuously instead of only for six months of the year as they're now treated due to the hormone shortage. A threefold increase in collection would enable all children now on a lengthy waiting list to begin treatment which at present cannot be offered to them.

My colleague, who obviously knows a great deal more about this than most Members of this House, indicates that this is a rare situation. Yet I think it would be unfortunate if we let these estimates go by without hearing from the Minister as to the British Columbia position in this regard.

The organization, which is centered in Montreal, has pointed out that the problem should be publicized to relatives, to friends, to neighbours — that willingness to donate pituitary glands at death should be enlisted; and to contact a physician coordinator — I think there are three in British Columbia — as to how the citizen can help that coordinator in collecting and forwarding pituitaries.

I realize it's a very clinical subject, and I really don't wish to pursue it further, but I would appreciate hearing from the Minister at some appropriate point as to, as I say, what British Columbia is doing in this connection. I think that's the least we can do for one, two, or 10 youngsters who are experiencing this really traumatic problem.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we know about that specific case and we know about the other situations around the province. It is, as you say, rare. We have been in touch with Ottawa and there is a coordinating programme, but unfortunately there are insufficient glands available at the present time. We hope that it can improve.

I'd like to thank the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) for his suggestions regarding emergency wards, too.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I'll only be a few moments dealing with a matter which has been raised a number of times before: the question of the negotiations going on with the nurses.

I don't have anything against the practical nurses, male or female, or the registered nurses. But under the previous administration the difficulty with respect to negotiations between the hospitals and the hospital unions came down simply to this. The former Minister of Health (Mr. Loffmark) had made some pronouncements as to the extent to which the government, which provides all of the moneys to run the hospitals, was prepared to go with regard to salary increases. This apparently placed constraints upon the Hospitals Association and the various boards of hospitals in their negotiations with the hospital employees unions. We had the confrontations which we faced here in the spring of 1972, which were very serious.

The situation with respect to the financing of hospital care in B.C. has not changed one bit. The Minister of Health, for reasons which he considers to be valid — and I don't quarrel with that — has seen fit to intercede to ensure there is no improper disparity between male and female employees covered by the union contracts. So be it.

However, we now have the registered nurses believing that their status in British Columbia is somewhat demeaned by the offers made by the Hospitals Association. I would just like the Minister of Health to indicate to us whether or not the policy of the Government of British Columbia with respect to this matter is such that if collective bargaining takes place between the administrators of our various hospitals and the representatives of the registered nurses, and if as a consequence of those negotiations certain salary levels are established for registered nurses or for other categories of employees in hospitals, then is the Province of British Columbia prepared to make available to the hospitals the moneys necessary to meet those wage settlements?

HON. MR. COCKE: With a great deal of respect, my learned friend across the way still persists in indicating that we interfered with negotiations. There were no negotiations at that time at all, so I won't run through that one again.

The policy, as you know, enunciated by the previous government in 1971 was that they would only meet 70 per cent of the wage increases. We restored the full wage increase and our payments to hospitals reflected that. That's our policy: to meet the hospital per diem costs.

We're trying our very best normally to keep out of these negotiations. I hate to be forced into them tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would make the point of order that discussions are presently going on. I would ask you to keep your remarks brief.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for that admonition. Certainly we in this House committee are not to be constrained by what may perhaps be going on outside unless it happens to be in the courts of this land. I wish the committee to understand that I'm not indicating any motives with respect to what the Minister of Health did; I'm not saying he interfered improperly or in any other way.

I just want to get it clearly established that at long last the people who are charged with the responsibility of administering the hospitals in the Province of British Columbia have been set free by the government to carry on free collective bargaining with their staffs, whether they happen to be members

[ Page 1614 ]

of the hospital employees union, whether they happen to be nurses, or whether they happen to fall into any of the other categories of health delivery personnel in those hospitals. The government has now said to them: "We expect you to now do your job in negotiations and administration of the hospitals. If you come to proper terms with the nurses in this particular case, the government will make these funds available." I gather from what the Minister says that this is now the policy.

Therefore I don't think that we in this House — as you indicated, Mr. Chairman — should make any remarks which might interfere with the responsibilities of our hospital administrators, with the proper representations of the registered nurses, and with the job which the mediator is attempting to do between these two groups.

It has already been suggested by some people that nurses are going to withdraw their services from hospitals. I don't think we should do anything which might encourage them to take steps which a day or two days or a week of further responsible discussions could perhaps avoid. We in this group are not going to say anything more about this subject because it is far too serious to the people who are in the beds in the hospitals for us to be playing around with as politicians on the floor of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I have a couple of other questions to the Minister. I'm not going to talk about pituitary glands because that's not my bag.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, there are some people who are older than I am and they understand the problem more than I do. (Laughter.)

We've had the Foulkes report. I've attempted to wade through it as a layman. I frankly hope that something will come out of it for the people of British Columbia, but I seriously wonder.

I'm concerned that in my few years in this House we've argued year after year after year about health delivery in B.C. I would just like the Minister of Health to tell me, following the Foulkes report and the job he is doing — I've got a lot of respect for the Minister of Health and his staff — where we are going. We know there are still shortages of beds and facilities in all of the categories. We're not too bad off as far as acute care is concerned, but in the intermediate levels and in the chronic-care levels we seem to be facing the identical situation that I heard discussed here in 1967 and 1968, and then when I began to learn what it was all about, in 1969 and 1970, the same questions were being asked all the time.

I know that in the rural area of my constituency the same problems exist in the spring of 1974 as existed in the spring of 1967. We have not yet taken the health care delivery services to the people who are in need — that is, the sick and the injured.

I know this is a tremendously costly responsibility of government. All governments complain about it. The amount of money that we are considering in these votes for the Minister of health is colossal, and it's not getting any cheaper. But by the same token, Mr. Chairman, we don't seem to be delivering much better care to the citizens. I would like the Minister to indicate, if he can, the extent to which he believes progress is being made under his department, particularly in those rural areas which don't have the large hospitals, don't have the large numbers of physicians and surgeons, general practitioners, specialists, nurses, physiotherapists, and all the supportive medical personnel that is available to us in the City of Victoria, in metropolitan Vancouver, and the other major centres in this province.

When are we going to do it, Mr. Chairman? When will we get outside into those communities of this province where people get just as sick, where a broken arm or a broken leg or a ruptured appendix is just as serious as it is in the urban centres, and where public health and the public health nurse is a far more important issue and a far more important person than they are in the metropolitan areas? It seems to me that with the moneys that are available to government we should be making some significant progress in those rural areas.

In the City of Vancouver if you increase the number of hospital beds by 100, that's a drop in the bucket. It really makes little or no difference to the demand in that metropolitan area. But I can assure you that if you're in some of the rural areas and you suddenly provide 10 beds or even 5 beds, and if you provide a nurse-doctor combination where there never was one before, then the step forward is a momentous one for that community.

I'd like to hear the Minister tell us tonight just what it is that he and his department are accomplishing in this field where such a little bit of help makes such a fantastic difference.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) brought up, I think, a particularly important subject. One of the directions that we felt was very, very necessary to go was the direction of, "What do we do for these people in the rural areas?" It wouldn't do very much for a rural area if we brought into service 5 or 10 beds and there was no medical attention. That's one of the big problems of the rural areas.

So one of the reasons we're bringing in an emergency service.... You know, our ambulance service.... As a matter of fact, you'll all have an opportunity to vote on that Act very shortly. I didn't

[ Page 1615 ]

bring it in before my estimates, naturally, but our ambulance Act is going to be an emergency service Act, and that emergency service is going to make just that available in the rural areas.

We're really afraid of providing facilities that (1) are inadequate and (2) can't be staffed full time. That's just one of the things we're very wary of.

I will say that in the last two years we've vastly increased the number of staff we have in public health and that's really healthy. Some of the areas now have nurses that never had them before. We even have a few doctors that are going to outback areas and working. Some are salaried because of the fact that the area wouldn't pay a general practitioner on a fee-for-service basis; there just isn't enough business, so that's happening.

We're aware of those problems, but, Mr. Member, there are also problems in the urban setting, real problems in the urban setting and problems which the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) discussed this afternoon. That was the chronic care and so on.

We're very much aware of this and we hope that the emergency service and the other areas of service that we're providing will give us the kind of leverage that is going to produce for us in these areas. Our only problem is that we just can't get professionals into some of the areas very readily. We're trying to work on that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to.... Yes, I do want to carry on this debate a little longer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pity.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You know, I faced this same response from the former Minister of Health. I think maybe we're getting down to some of the things that are bothering the people of the Province of British Columbia with respect to medical care. I know I can be criticized by some people in the medical fraternity for what I'm about to say, but I'd like to know why it is that we can't get doctors out into some of the rural areas. The rural areas of British Columbia aren't that bad. As a matter of fact, some people are moving to our rural areas because they think that there are advantages there which the cities don't offer.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): We need a lawyer up north.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If I could have your account I just might go. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's providing I could be on the other side from you. (Laughter.) I'd win every time.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You see, Mr. Chairman, how serious it really is. They all want to joke about it, and those are all Members from the rural areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But I'll tell you what it's like. In the vast constituency of West Vancouver–Howe Sound, which is 120 miles long, we have exactly this problem. In West Vancouver, you know, where all the fat cats live, there are lots of doctors, but at the top end of the riding, Pemberton Valley, until about 1968 there were no doctors at all and that's where it was tough.

Finally a doctor moved in and did a fantastic job. Oh, he gets a lot of complaints from the local citizens but that's always to be understood. But the doctor moved in and all he had was an ordinary little black bag, no clinical facilities, no diagnostic facilities. Somebody broke their arm and they went to his house and it was on the kitchen table, you know, and he put on a plaster cast; but he had to buy the plaster used for the cast.

There was no hospital that provides all these services and no nurse to help him make the cast. It was all done by the doctor out of his black bag.

Now this is a problem that the government has to help to resolve. Somehow or other the government and the medical profession have got to attack the problem of how to get doctors to go out into these outlying communities. Some of them have gone out on salary, and I'm certain the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is going to have some comments about some of the consequences of that. But that's a special situation, and I don't want to get involved in that.

It seems to me that somehow or other, with the amount of money that the people of British Columbia are paying to sponsor and support our medical school, we should be able to encourage some of the graduates of that medical school to go out into the rural areas for a period of time at least. I understand that it's not as convenient to practise in a rural area without all the stainless steel and all the equipment and staffing that goes on in the urban areas. But somehow or other we've got to break through and get medical service, competent medical service, into those areas.

The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) throughout his constituency has a need for this kind of help. Whether it's on some basis where they spend a period of two or three years, or whatever the case may be, serving in our outlying communities before they receive their general right to practise throughout all

[ Page 1616 ]

of British Columbia, I don't know. But I really can't believe, in 1974, with the funds that are made available by the taxpayers of this country to support our full health system, which includes the payment to doctors, that we aren't in a position to give some direction to where those doctors are going to practise.

It's very easy to come into urban areas. I'm not sure that some of the doctors who come into urban areas necessarily do that well financially, but they're with their professional peers where all the facilities are. If there's a problem they can communicate easily with someone who can give them assistance. I know this is one of the areas and one of the problems in the outlying areas.

The Minister, I'm sure, would be the first to agree that one of the difficulties is how you get some of that back-up assistance. This may be one of the problems: this communication between the doctor who's on the scene of the accident, or dealing with a particular problem, who needs to have some assistance from a specialist who's going to give him advice.

Whatever it is that's required, I think we've got to make this breakthrough and begin to move our professional people, doctors and nurses, and the other paramedical staff that are found in considerable abundance in the urban areas, out to where the need really exists.

The Members in the earlier debate talked about northern development. Northern development means new communities in parts of this province that are scarcely touched by humans today. A lot of the people who will go to those communities — whether they're going to work in the mills or whether they're going to work in the plants that are built there or whether they're going to be in the service industries necessary to support those primary workers; whether they're going to be drycleaners or whether they're going to work in the bank or whether they're going to work in the grocery store or whatever the case may be — when they go to those northern communities they'll be going, in many cases, with their wives and their families, and they'll be coming from areas of this province which at the moment have a lot of facilities available to them.

It's a big problem for a young man to say to his wife, "We're going to go north where the opportunity is." And the wife says, "That's fine, but what about our young child? Are there going to be the medical facilities there if we have a problem?"

It's all very well for the Minister to talk about the increased ambulance services — and that's fine again in close proximity to our urban centres — but I'm talking about places where if a real problem arises we have to depend upon the services of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to send a jet airplane to bring some youngster or some woman to immediate medical care.

Now the closer we can bring that medical care to those communities, the more acceptable those communities will be to the people whom we will want to travel and take up residence and live in those communities. I think that this is a responsibility which faces government and a responsibility which faces all of the citizens of this province, but in this particular area, a responsibility which faces the medical profession.

We'll have the same thing with regard to teachers and everybody else. We've got to take that whole infrastructure of a community into those northern areas. Difficult as it may be, expensive as it may be, and challenging as it may be, it falls on the shoulders, unfortunately, of the Minister of Health, to provide that leadership which will get this thing done.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would like to add a few comments on the subject raised by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I think it would be naive if we overlooked the fact that a doctor is just a human being like everybody else. I really don't see that there's so much difference in a doctor going to a remote community than a welder or a miner or a teacher or an accountant or a lawyer or a bank clerk or anybody else. The fact is that many people don't like to live in remote communities, and that's no news to anybody in this House.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) interjects, and I know from talking to his predecessor in this House (Mr. Marshall) that there's great difficulty in obtaining skilled personnel in the Peace River area. The wages are high, security of occupation is good in many cases, and yet I just know that there is great difficulty in obtaining skilled personnel in northern communities.

I would admit and accept that in the case of health services, there is an urgency and a necessity. People can't choose whether or not they get ill. They maybe can choose whether or not they employ certain other types of personnel. The only holdup in these cases would be the development of industry or northern development, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has pointed out. So there has to be a somewhat different attitude in the case of health services and I recognize that.

But I think it would be wrong to take a simplistic view and look across the floor at the Minister of Health and tell him that somehow he has to solve a problem. I just don't happen to think that it's that simple. Or is the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound suggesting compulsion such as some measures of conditional granting of a doctor's licence? Should certain doctors or graduating doctors only be given

[ Page 1617 ]

the licence to practise medicine after they have served X number of years in the north country? I don't know, but I don't think we should skate around the subject, because it has to be done either on the basis of certain incentives or it has to be done by compulsion. There's no other way.

The Member asked the question, without putting himself on record, as to what his answer to the problem was. I don't think any of us should put forward such difficult social and moral and legal questions in this House without at least taking our stand as to what our solution would be if we were government.

I think some of the points which the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound raised were very valid. A doctor generally has a wife and children, and it benefits nobody very much if the doctor takes his family to a remote area and his wife has a nervous breakdown. That really doesn't help anybody, and it certainly doesn't help a doctor to dispense good medical care.

So I think we'd better just keep our feet on the ground and look at this very coldly and realistically in a practical way. As far as that goes, I served in a northern community for four years and I know what I'm talking about. I served four years in a community in northern Ontario. I enjoyed it, but I'm not so sure that my wife enjoyed it, and I'm not so sure that as a doctor I have to make some complete commitment medically and dedicate my time and services forever and a day when my wife's unhappy.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Roy, for God's sake, go back to sleep. We're on a serious matter for once. (Laughter.)

These are some of the issues, Mr. Chairman, that this House must consider. Beyond that, from the doctor's point of view, it is not easy for a doctor to serve in a northern community and remain abreast of his subject and keep in touch with the demands that are made on him. I'll tell you more than that, Mr. Chairman — a doctor in a northern community finishes up doing many medical and surgical — particularly surgical — procedures for which he is really not competent or properly trained. Now, that's just the fact of the matter. But when you get some youngster broken in 100 pieces in a highway accident with fractures and a head injury and internal bleeding, you just do the best you can. You do the best you can and it's not easy.

I think it's time, and I think the Minister's on this direction, that maybe we'll have to start and look at bringing the patient to the medical care instead of all this heroic pioneer approach that some young doctor who hardly knows what it's all about should perhaps be the one who might be compelled or directed to serve in remote communities.

I've looked at that and I've often thought that perhaps young doctors could receive financial assistance in their education and the condition for that financial assistance would be that they would serve in the north country when they graduate. But, I have looked at that a second time, and I just wonder if the youngest, most inexperienced medical man is the person who should really inflict himself upon people in a remote community who have no other medical care.

So this, Mr. Chairman, is a very difficult problem. There are many people always coming out with bright ideas as to how it can be solved, but it's very complex and it involves human relationships far beyond the mere content of the medical service.

As the Minister knows, some efforts have been made where doctors in the urban areas have given one month or two months of their time to go to some of these areas and give medical service, and this is particularly useful for some of the more highly trained specialists in the field of ear, nose and throat and eye surgery, who may at least be able to go and consult with the patient for several days in some of the northern areas and then arrange for the patient to be brought down to the appropriate facilities for the surgical care.

I know we've only started, but the start has been made. I feel that while from a simple conscience point of view, it might look good to send young doctors out to these areas, I think the quality of care which the patient receives surely has to be of primary consideration. This old-fashioned attitude that any doctor is better than no doctor at all, I just don't buy. A young, inexperienced, doctor can make some pretty serious mistakes, even with the best of intentions. I just feel that this whole matter has to be tackled in the most conscientious way by cooperation with the Minister and the government, the medical profession and the College of Physicians and Surgeons who grant the licences.

As one particular, positive suggestion, as the Minister knows, at a recent conference it was decided that we should try to educate our own sons and daughters to become doctors, we would expand our medical training facilities and there was a real possibility that if immigration of doctors continued at the rate it's been occurring, in fact there would be an excess of doctors or at least there would be an increase in the maldistribution of doctors.

I think that the Minister would be well-justified in considering some direction of doctors who immigrate to Canada. In other words, there are many very well experienced physicians and surgeons coming into Canada every year, and they tend to settle in the urban areas. If there is to be any compulsion at all — we always approach that word with some reservation — I would suggest that this is the area to start.

[ Page 1618 ]

I was a doctor who came to this country by my choice and received as much as anyone could expect coming into a new country. I chose to go to the north country, and certainly the experience I'll never regret in any way. The experience was tremendous, but there were times when I don't think the patient received the best treatment, and that was just because of my inexperience.

If we have experienced people immigrating to this country and wish to settle in this province or any other province, it would not be unreasonable, in my view, to direct these people in their particular specialty or in general practice to the areas where there's greatest need for a period of perhaps two or three years. It's a possibility that should be considered.

But this other aspect of the really remote areas: I think the principle has to be to provide the vehicle whereby the seriously ill or the fairly ill patient can be brought from the place where they live to the skilled medical attention. I think the third possible measure I would like to suggest is to provide various incentives encouraging the urban physician and surgeon to make his services available for a month or two months — or for a group of doctors to rotate.

I know it isn't as satisfactory as having a resident person at the place of need, but for the various reasons that both the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has pointed out, and the reasons I've tried to point out, I think you'll try forever and a day to encourage people to go and practise in these areas. But for the various reasons I've mentioned it is not likely to succeed.

I think these other positive proposals I've made are the ones that should be followed up by the Minister.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased with these positive contributions.

I agree that it's a mixture of a number of things that have to be done in order to bring about better care for those people in remote areas. We have right now, for example, under contract with the United Church of Canada, I think, about 11 doctors in B.C. in remote areas that are salaried doctors. And we have others, as you know, that we're getting into areas where they can be fairly easily reached.

There are other people who can never be close to a doctor. We can be unkind and say it's their choice. But, you know, if you're living in a community of 10 people, you can't possibly attract a doctor — and it's very difficult to attract any professional person at all in that kind of isolation. But we do feel that there has to be a mixture of accessibility to medical care where possible. I certainly agree that there has to be a better way of doing that now because the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound indicated quite rightly that there aren't even doctors in areas where there should be.

I hope that we can, by cooperating with the college of physicians.... I don't think we could give direction even to new immigrants. I don't think we could give that kind of direction without assistance from the college. I mean, if the college licenses a person to practise medicine in an unlimited way, and then you say to that person, "You must go first to Pouce Coupe" — is it possible to do it that way? I think it's possibly something between the college and the Health Ministry to get something like that off the ground.

Anyway, we'll see where we go. All I know is that I'm directed in the same way as both of you are, and that is to try to get more care to more people in the rural areas because it is a priority. I hope that emergency service does at least provide us with the first step.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a few comments to this debate, because I've discussed in this House before the matter of professional services to the north. I'm not going to call it the rural area because in the north there are many towns of 5,000, 6,000, 12,000, 20,000 population, which I don't consider a remote area. But it is difficult in many of these instances to attract professional people into these areas.

I have made this suggestion in this House before and I will make it again tonight: I think we have to come up and take the long-range view, particularly in view of the economic development that is being proposed for the northern part of the province — both northeast and the northwest. Certainly I think, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Health, he'll have to agree that that area in the province is going to be developed, it's going to be opened up and, if the present DREE agreements are signed, then within the next few years there's going to be a tremendous influx of population.

I have suggested in this House before and I discussed it during the estimates of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly): I think we have to come up with some sort of a long-range plan where we assist young students who have the mental capacity and the inclination to enter the professional services. We have to assist them with some type of financial aid because it's a long spell to spend at the lower mainland in a university taking either a doctor's degree or a dentistry degree or a law degree.

The cost of transportation back and forth puts a severe burden not only on the individual, but the individual's parents. As I've said before, it's only those students who come from a good financial background that can afford to spend this amount of time in a university in the lower mainland. I think if we had some plan whereby these students could be assisted financially, and even if

[ Page 1619 ]

they had to sign an agreement that they would go back for a period of 5 to 10 years.... But I think the experience you will find, if you want to check it out, is that students from that particular climate who have been brought up in it, who are used to the ruggedness of the north, who are used to the severe climatic conditions, will generally go back. They are accustomed to it. As a matter of fact, I think you will find they really don't like urban living and they have a tendency to go back.

I can speak of this from experience. For instance, in the Peace River area we really haven't got that much of a problem with doctors. I think we have some of the finest doctors in the province. But where do they come from? They certainly don't come from the lower mainland of British Columbia; they come from the Prairies and they come from Alberta, where they are climatized.

They are not used to this tulips-in-March type of climate. So if you get people who are climatized, who are used to that kind of life, they will go back. I would like to see some type of system, either through the Department of Education or through the Department of Health, instituted where some positive measures are taken immediately.

With regard to the remote, remote areas such as — well, I won't say Fort Nelson at the present time — Fort Nelson a few years ago when there was a smaller population, now with the demands made on the medical profession, the specialties, the one-man hospital is sort of out the window. In the older days when you didn't have to have a doctor to administer the anesthetic, you could have a one-man hospital. We didn't run into the problems we have today.

It seems to me that outpost hospitals with a general practitioner would certainly be a far better area in which to provide medical service than it would be to take that patient and fly him out of his area.

When they're sick physically, and you take them out of their atmosphere, particularly people from remote areas, they're in strange surroundings, they're away from their loved ones, and I don't think that's the answer.

I realize we've made great advances, but certainly I would think that general practitioners in those remote areas might not be specialists, but they can diagnose; then if they realize that the treatment needs a specialized care you can use your air ambulance service and move them out where they can provide proper care.

This is happening today. Anywhere in the north country outside the lower mainland where a patient needs a specialized lung operation or open-heart surgery then the doctor diagnoses it and brings him down to the facilities that are here — the more specialized facilities. This is going on today.

I'd like to leave that suggestion with the Minister, Mr. Chairman. I think it's valid. It won't solve the problem immediately, but in the long range I think that we would solve a lot of the problems that exist.

I'd like to, for just a moment, Mr. Chairman, speak on another subject. I feel in British Columbia we've done an excellent job with our acute hospital facilities. I think we've made a lot of progress in that area. I think probably in British Columbia, it's one of the best anywhere in Canada.

There's one area, though, that I feel we have made no progress whatsoever. I'm not sure what our plans are and I'd like the Minister to advise me what he intends to do in this area, and that is the intermediate care facilities.

I was just noticing, Mr. Chairman, that in the annual report of the Department of Health there are just three short paragraphs devoted to intermediate care in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is a vote that covers intermediate care and I would request, if you're considering specific programmes, that you bring them up under the appropriate vote number.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to ask the Minister a specific question while I'm on it and it's under his.... It's been discussed here before, Mr. Chairman.

The report states that the government has accepted the principle that there is an unfulfilled need in the health care facilities of the province. I would like to ask the Minister before I question him further what the plans are in the province, if they accept the principle of this unfulfilled need, to fulfill these needs?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think we've discussed intermediate care at some length. Maybe that Member was out of the House, but our plans are to expand extended care, we've expanded intermediate care and now we're just moving in the direction of cooperating with those non-profit societies that are going into intermediate-care and we ourselves are naturally moving in the same direction of setting up our own. As you know, there'll be an intermediate-care hospital on a trial situation in Cumberland in the not-too-distant future.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on the same subject, my information is that in May, 1973, the federal government made an offer to British Columbia to pay 50 per cent of the cost of construction...

HON. MR. COCKE: You may as well sit down, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...of facilities for intermediate care in the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 1620 ]

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, this is the information I have. I have it on good authority.

HON. MR. COCKE: Your authority is no good because I have been down there negotiating that very thing and we're not even close. We would like to have some help on chronic care of any kind, and outside of extended care there is no help forthcoming from the federal government on intermediate care, personal care or, for that matter, even mental health which has been going on for years and years. Your government, the former government and this government have continually asked for assistance in this area but have not....

MRS. JORDAN: You said you know how to get it.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I know how to get it. Vote for the mining bill, Bill 31.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that under vote 97, code 035, there is...

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we've been discussing this and I don't have any intention of delaying the House, but I'm sorry I hit a sore spot with the Minister because this information was relayed to me. If the information is wrong, I'll go back to the sources I got it from, but I'm told this was not made on the Ministerial level but that it was made on the civil service level. The information — I'll be quite frank — was relayed to me that this offer was made in May of 1973 and the federal government offered to British Columbia to pay 50 per cent of the cost of construction of facilities for intermediate care. That information was relayed to me by the Member of Parliament for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) who says these facilities are badly needed in his area. He did some research into it and this is the information he relayed on to me. As I say, if the Member's wrong, I'd like to know where he gets his information.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've already asked him and I've discussed it and he told me I could use this on good authority and that he would back it up. So I think that if the information is wrong it certainly should be discussed with him, because there is a facility needed in his area which would also assist the Peace River area. I don't know why he would relay to me in a special phone call to me from Ottawa to give me this information, if he didn't have it on good authority.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, there might be a mix-up here. You might be talking about personal-care homes that are financed by CMHC where Ottawa loans money. We grant money, they loan money — but anyway that's neither here nor there. Certainly there has been no talk.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much. I just have one further subject, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to discuss with the Minister and I hope it hasn't been discussed while I was out of the House this afternoon and that is with regard to venereal disease.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a separate vote — vote 86.

MR. PHILLIPS: Vote 86? All right, I'll discuss it under vote 86.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd like to pursue with the Minister for a few minutes this matter of medical help and professional services in some of the rural areas of the province. Being an MLA from a predominantly rural area, I think I understand some of the problems that we face in trying to attract adequate medical help, but I also think that I have a few ideas and suggestions that I'd like to throw out to the Minister with respect to what could be done to relieve some of the areas where we do not have adequate medical facilities or doctors at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks relevant to the present administrative responsibility of the Minister as contained in these votes, if this is possible.

MR. SMITH: I'm trying, Mr. Chairman, but please grasp this. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) introduced the subject, the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party indicated some interest in this, and so did the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). We're continuing on a subject that is vital and important. I think that perhaps this is the best time to discuss that particular subject.

As I was about to say, Mr. Minister, the thing that I think you could do through the facility of your department is conduct a study into the background of the medical people who are presently practising in predominantly rural areas in northern British Columbia. I think that if you conducted such a study, you would find, as suggested by the Member for South Peace River, that they have a background not particularly in medicine in the Province of British Columbia, but a background in medicine which they

[ Page 1621 ]

acquired in some other part of Canada, quite often the prairie provinces, as a matter of fact, or from overseas.

A lot of these people initially that I have talked to and I know personally have a great reluctance to locate in an urban area. They're anti-urban in their thinking. They do not want to become associated again with the large urban sprawl of a metropolitan city. I find that a lot of these people are outdoors people. They like the idea of the wide open spaces. They're not unaccustomed to wide open spaces; as a matter of fact, they prefer that to urban areas. You'll find that a lot of them are sportsmen — they like to get out. This is the type of medical practitioner that we can best attract into the rural parts of the province of British Columbia, because they do not mind practising medicine there.

There is another very serious problem, and that is that when these people locate in small communities, which they do, they find themselves locked in, in that once they arrive and set up their practice they feel duty-bound to stay there and render the medical care necessary, even to the detriment of their own health, because there's no one available to relieve them. If we could do nothing else, at least we should be able to work out a system whereby doctors who are practising and are quite content to practise in rural parts of the Province of British Columbia could take periodic sabbaticals, if you like, away from their work, because they do get locked in, they're overworked and it's a seven-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year business. Their families object to that because they don't get a chance to take a holiday with their family. Yet because they're dedicated, medical, professional people they will not desert the people who are depending on them. They'll stay rather than take a holiday.

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

There's another thing that I have found, and that is many of these doctors will stay in a rural community until their children reach junior high school age and then they want to make a change for the simple reason that they want to give their children the advantage of every educational opportunity possible. Quite often the small communities cannot afford that type of education; they can't offer it. So many of these people will come up as young doctors, young married men, some without families, some with very small families, and they will stay in an area which is predominantly rural for a number of years and be quite happy. But when their children get to the age of junior high, they decide that for the best interests of their family and their wife they should move. So this has to be taken into consideration.

I would think, Mr. Minister, that what we should do, rather than try to coerce doctors from whatever part of Canada or wherever they come from, into going into a certain direction, is try to provide a basic framework and look for the doctors that fit into that pattern, because they're the ones who will be the most content and they're the ones that will actually stay.

We have doctors, for instance, in a community like Fort Nelson that is growing rapidly. The only complaint that they have is that they're overworked quite frequently. Fortunately, we have three or four doctors there now, a far cry from what it was five years ago. But five years ago we had two doctors and neither one of them could leave, because if an emergency came in or they had to perform an operation it took both of them. One was a general surgeon and the other had to handle the anesthetic for the operation so neither one of them could take a holiday. These are the things that we run into in these rural areas.

I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about ambulance services. I know that you're moving in this direction. You're going to try to provide more ambulance service to the rural areas — as a matter of fact to all of the Province in British Columbia — and I think it's a desirable goal.

It's going to be costly, no question about that. But in the meantime before you completely establish the type of service that you are talking about I think you would be well advised to look into the emergency air transportation facilities that would be available to you.

There are many places now in British Columbia where charter operations are located. They have good aircraft and I'm sure the department could work out some sort of an arrangement with them that they would have aircraft available on a stand-by basis 24 hours a day, every day of the week, provided they knew that there would be some remuneration for them other than the odd emergency flight that they have to take on behalf of the department.

HON. MR. COCKE: In our pilot project that's what we're doing with Okanagan Helicopters.

MR. SMITH: Right. Well I'm glad to hear that but Okanagan is only one firm. They're only located in certain areas. But there are many charter firms scattered throughout the north now. They are there mainly to cater to the petroleum industry, the mining industry and so on. They are there as a result of that type of activity. But aircraft would be available to the department.

As a matter of fact they are used now quite often and have been in the past on emergency basis and quite often they're never even paid for it. They can't bill the individual patient. But that would be one means of overcoming some of the problems of

[ Page 1622 ]

moving people rapidly to the areas where the adequate medical help is available to them.

There's another area that causes concern in north-eastern British Columbia, and I'm sure it must have similar ramifications in other parts of the province, and that is the matter of operating grants for hospitals.

Many of the hospitals started as a very small institution built up over a period of years, some of them by private nursing orders as in the north, others by means of community organizations and societies that set up to help finance. Each one of these hospitals is allocated a per-diem rate according to their actual expenses. But because that per-diem rate covers no more than the actual operating expense of a hospital they've never been able to accumulate any amount of operating capital.

I know the Minister on a number of occasions has done something to relieve this problem. But it's a problem that doesn't get any less with many of these institutions. And I could name for instance four of them in the Peace River country that have had recurring problems: Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Chetwynd, and Pouce Coupe. They've all had these problems and they all are continually faced with the problem of chronic shortage of working capital.

Now, I know that we don't want to provide them with excess dollars. But surely there should be some way to allow them sufficient working capital that they do not have to continually go to the bank and depend upon the good graces of the bank manager, or someone in financial institutions to help them finance on a month-to-month basis. There should be some working capital available to them perhaps jointly through the department and the regional districts which operate the hospitals now.

This is a very real concern to the administrators of every one of the hospitals which I have named. I believe that many of these people are adequate administrators. Some of the hospitals have had problems, I don't disagree with that, trying to find good administrators. But don't think it's the fault of the administrator than it is more the fault of a system where they were never really assigned any amount of working capital when they set up and hospitals expanded and have grown like Topsy and the condition has never to this day been completely corrected.

I'd like to speak about intermediate care facilities but I will wait till the proper vote where that comes up, Mr. Chairman.

I do wish that the Minister would comment on some of the remarks that I have made.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister a few questions on a couple of topics. First of all I'd like to deal rather shortly with the Foulkes report which I see is bound in interesting fuchsia and perhaps that's a clear indicator of what's inside it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, one of the surest tests to arrive at a diagnosis as to whether or not a person is a complete and utter regulationist or structionist is to ignore him a little or perhaps be slightly critical of his master plan and sit back and wait for the shrieks. And such seems to be the case with the Dr. Foulkes report because he's become pretty shrill in the Province of British Columbia, and he lashed out against his medical colleagues not too long ago and no doubt that's soon to be followed by rather hefty doses of complaint about governmental inaction on his report.

It seems to me that the creed that Dr. Foulkes is following, Mr. Chairman, is that the existing structure that we've been living within the Province of British Columbia in the field of health care is one that has created all of the ills, and that his new structure is one that should cure all of the ills.

It seems very, very demonstrative that once again this is an over-simplistic socialistic concept, that the end-all and the be-all of all of the problems of man is to make the state the vehicle almighty, and then that all pestilence and drought and despair would go ahead and disappear into thin air which is somewhat, I suppose, the antithesis of the witches in Macbeth. If I remember them correctly, they said; "Fair is foul, foul is fair and hovers through the fog and filthy air." But the socialists always seem to fail to appreciate....

HON. MR. BARRETT: When shall those three meet again? (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: But the socialists always fail to appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the great differences of mankind in the heterogeneity of his direction and of his ideas and how controls really tend never to expand, but they tend to limit his productive and innovative capacities and certainly limit local initiative and participation and local interest and certainly all kinds of useful autonomy.

Now Dr. Foulkes, as I stated at the outset, made the initial assumption — at least it appears clear from his report — that the system that we have today is primarily responsible for the deficiencies. It seems that throughout he often exaggerates or overstresses the deficiencies to support his premises. As I said everything seems to him to be sort of authority central. He's spinning his wheels constantly into planning and committees and into making horses into camels, and creating level after level of control and regulation and designation. And he seems to call that progress.

Well there's a marvelous quotation from a pretty-old timer, by the name of Petronius Arbiter, and it says this: "We tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."

[ Page 1623 ]

It seems to me that this is the direction of Dr. Foulkes, and his report is just full, chock-full of socialistic political overtones. Those seem to be never ending and if nothing else it's a political treatise in which he's used health care as an example.

He's discussed the controlling of food supply and the manipulation of the civil service. He suggests that political consideration and involvement in the process of selecting medical students would be a very good thing, and he certainly blames the medical profession of all of the faults of the health care system. I would just like to refer to those four things in specifics by quoting to you, Mr. Chairman, and for the interest of the Minister when he returns and certainly for his comment, from some excerpts of the Foulkes report. When he talks about the need to control food supplies in the market in the province and comments on the subject of nutrition he says this, that the object of a good nutrition programme "requires government regulation of the food supply, its quality, storage, distribution and cost."

So he's going the total way insofar as the regulating of food products in the Province of B.C. Then when he refers to the civil service he says this:

"The best designated system will fail, if those responsible for implementation and ongoing operation are not sympathetic to its basic goals and objectives. Unfortunately there will be senior personnel who cannot identify with these objectives or who cannot provide the necessary administrative and management skills.

"As soon as such persons are identified, decisions should be made either to transfer them to positions where they can function effectively or if this is not possible, to provide them with adequate termination and pension arrangements. This will then make way for personnel who will identify with the objectives and who will contribute effectively to their successful implementation."

Well, for all practical purposes there goes the Civil Service Commission and the concept of civil service that we have enjoyed in this province for as many years as we have been a self-governing province.

Now, dealing with the political considerations for the selecting of students in medical school, he says this — recommendation No. 51:

"That a select committee of the Legislature be formed to ascertain with the faculty of medicine the possibility of developing a method of selection of applicants to medical school as a means of achieving changes in medical school out-put."

So he's going to leave the selection of medical students up to a committee of the Legislature. Surely to goodness, isn't that another preposterous extreme? Dealing with his criticisms of the doctors, when he suggests they don't carry out the quality of care, surveillance and evaluation and, "It is virtually impossible for the hospital to exert the effective control over the quality of services offered in its facilities." That's not true. That's not true because every accredited hospital in the province must demonstrate effective quality control measures in order to obtain and certainly maintain its accreditation status. That's just a little bit of more fuchsia Foulkes.

When we're talking of Parkinsonism and this portfolio, one would think that it would relate to physical impairment, but I'll tell you, certainly no. If the concepts of the Foulkes report were followed, it would just relate to one more classic example of this government's committed direction to an inflexible initiative-destroying, overwhelming bureaucracy. That's not Parkinsonism at all; it would be Parkinson's law running loose, running at large, and very, very large indeed.

I'm going to ask the Minister…he skated around this Foulkes report, left, right and centre — it's a terribly costly experiment. Are you afraid of it? Are you going to back it, or are you going to reject it? What portions are you going to support and what portions are you going to tell the people in the Province of B.C. that you're going to throw out so they don't have to be afraid about it?

HON. MR. COCKE: We have discussed the Foulkes report at great length and that's exactly what it's for; it's for a discussion paper and it's out right now being discussed. Last weekend at the university it was discussed by nurses, doctors and other health professionals, and positive results are coming from that report.

MR. GARDOM: Are you looking for another report?

HON. MR. COCKE: No, no, no. We're implementing part of that report right now in the ambulance service — the integration of carriers, and so on. There are parts of that report that won't be implemented. The fact of the matter is that report is a discussion paper, and it's an excellent one. We need help.

MR. GARDOM: The ambulance service concept and so forth, certainly long preceded the Foulkes report. We've been talking about that thing in this Legislature ever since I've been elected, which is coming on to seven years now.

I'd like to ask the Minister a few more questions dealing with another topic. It's something that I raised last year, and he said, "By golly, yes, we've increased our staff 400 per cent." I was talking about nutritionists, and I'd like him to inform the House: if

[ Page 1624 ]

we do have a nutritional programme in the Province of British Columbia, what is it? Is it being effective? — and as to whether or not the people in B.C. can receive independent advice from the government as to the nutritional value of foodstuffs, say cereals. If Snap, Crackle and Pop, and what-have-you is on the shelf, does it actually snap, have some crackle or could pop? I think the public would be entitled to know that. So far they've never been able to find out.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we're going up 200 per cent this year, and that kind of information is available.

MR. GARDOM: In what form?

HON. MR. COCKE: In forms, for instance, of printed material and also in form of consultations. Basically our nutritional aspect of health care is to assist the public health units throughout the province. In other words, our nutritionists go out, talk to the public health nurses, give them advice. They in turn give advice to the public. There is a nutritional service and it will be expanded and will continue to be expanded.

MR. GARDOM: A propos of that, Mr. Minister, have nutritional values and nutritional standards been developed? Is it possible for a person to go into a store in the Province of B.C. today, which I gather it is not, and look at a specific package of cereal and compare the nutritional value of that package of cereal with every other packet of cereal on the shelf?

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Well, in what form? Will the Minister inform me?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well it's Food and Drug — it's a federal Food and Drug programme.

MR. GARDOM: I am aware of that.

HON. MR. COCKE: Okay. Well, then we have no control over it. As I said, if you want advice, that's precisely what our department is for.

MR. GARDOM: Is it possible for any individual in British Columbia to get hold of your department and ask for the nutritional contents of a food or liquid in the province?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. And if they haven't got it, they'll find it for you.

MR. GARDOM: And they'll receive that information free of charge? Who do they write to?

You?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. The Department of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 75 pass?

MR. GARDOM: Well...just hold the phone! (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I'm missing all the action that's going on. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sit down and I'll send you a note.

MR. GARDOM: How many nutritionists have we....

HON. MR. COCKE: You're wanted on the phone. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: The last time I spoke on your estimates, I remember I dropped a tooth on the floor, and I didn't receive any compassion from you at all.

However, how many nutritionists have we got now in the Province of B.C.?

HON. MR. COCKE: Four.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, so they're the same as the.... You just put in four last year, the same four as last year.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a quick comment about a couple of the answers that the Minister gave us, and I want to thank the Minister for responding the way he is. It's the first Minister we've had....

AN HON. MEMBER: The only one.

MR. McCLELLAND: The only one who really responded to our questions and we appreciate that very much.

The Minister did say, however, that the Foulkes report was under discussion, but it really isn't because the Minister refuses to discuss it. He has suggested, in fact, that it isn't appropriate that there be discussion of the report on the floor of this Legislature. I don't know where else it is more appropriate than on the floor of this Legislature to discuss a report of this proportion, and of this expense to the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's $270,000.

[ Page 1625 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister now says at least half-a-million or a little better — and that's some discussion.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister also said earlier that they're looking for ways to solve the alcohol problem, the drug dependency problem. He said, "If someone comes along with something we haven't seen yet, we'll look at it." The question I'd like to ask is: why won't the government look at some things that have been presented to it for years and years? Why something that's new? What's wrong with some of the suggestions that have already been made? I'd suggest that those may be just as valid as any yet undiscovered magic cure. Let's look at some of the things that have already been presented to the government.

I just want to get clarification on this matter of the interference by the Minister into the bargaining procedure of the Hospital Employees Union and the Hospitals Association. It's my understanding that the provisions of the mediation commission, in the agreement that was signed, were that there were certain grievances which were as yet unsolved and the agreement was that those grievances would be settled during the life of that contract. There's nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong at all with that.

It's the same kind of an agreement that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) made with the Ferry workers. The only difference is that the Minister of Transport and Communications didn't keep his word with the ferry workers, and that's one of the reasons they're upset. But that's all right; there was nothing wrong with that. No big deal.

I'm glad the Minister mentioned the Cumberland Hospital. There is an intermediate unit going in there, and that's good.

He also suggested the other day in the House that the people in the Cumberland area are all happy as anything about what's going on in there. But that's hardly the case. The people in the Cumberland area are pretty upset about the treatment they've had from this government with regard to their acute-care hospital and they'd like some answers about that as quickly as possible.

Many of them come to me as the health critic on this side of the House and for help. They want to know what the government is going to do.

In the last election, the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was almost going to march on Victoria if they didn't get their acute-care hospital. I have some clippings here in which the Member is quoted.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: All right, I will, if you insist.

On August 23, 1972, the Member for Comox said, "I feel that Cumberland should retain its hospital."

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said on that same date at the same meeting, "You've got a better chance of a new hospital with Karen than with the present MLA." Some chance, some change! Then the Member herself said, in a letter to the editor,

"The following is a letter which I mailed today to the Hon. Ralph Loffmark, the Minister of Health, in Victoria.

'Dear Mr. Loffmark:

As a provincial NDP candidate for Comox riding, I am particularly concerned about the future of the hospital in Cumberland. The people of the area are understandably confused by conflicting statements on the matter. Mr. Donald Cox, Deputy Minister of Hospital Services, informed Mayor Bill Moncrief of Cumberland that the hospital would be phased out; Premier Bennett, speaking in Courtenay on Sunday, said he favoured construction of a new hospital. I urge you to inform the people of this area just what the plans are for that hospital.'

That isn't all she asks:

"'I personally feel that a new hospital should be constructed in Cumberland in order to provide adequate hospital services to the residents of this area.'"

That's a pretty positive statement from an NDPer running for election in that area. What did the leader of the opposition in those days say in that area? That's the present Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Barrett.

MR. PHILLIPS: Trust us, trust us.

MR. McCLELLAND: He doesn't say that any more; he doesn't bother to say, "Trust us" any more.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, may I continue?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, certainly.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you. He was talking about the staff at the hospital. The Leader of the Opposition took a tour of the hospital and was talking all about the facilities and the staff. He said, "You've got skilled staff here for the hospital. That's great." And then he said: "We should build on that rather than abandon it. What you are really threatened with is the loss of a good staff." Barrett was earlier informed that Cumberland is fighting not just to save the old buildings but for a new 75-bed hospital. "The more I see of it, " Barrett said, "The more it makes sense."

Where is Cumberland's new hospital? The people

[ Page 1626 ]

in Cumberland are terribly upset, so upset, as a matter of fact, that I came across this headline in the Comox District Free Press which says, "Non-Confidence Voted in Karen".

HON. MR. BARRETT: There were 15 people at the meeting.

MR. McCLELLAND: There were 500 people at the meeting, Mr. Chairman, 500 people according to the editorial in this paper. Do you say 15? Wednesday, March 20, 1974.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many people at the meeting?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, let's read and find out. I wasn't going to read this but I will. We'll read the whole thing.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you want to read the headline again: "Non-Confidence Noted in Karen." Karen Sanford, Member for Comox. Yes, really. Non-confidence.

Mr. Chairman, if I could continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: I voted non-confidence in her years ago.

MR. McCLELLAND: May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

"Sunday's vote of non-confidence in Comox MLA Karen Sanford by citizens of Cumberland and surrounding area over her lack of support in saving the Cumberland General Hospital from closure is not unexpected."

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many people at the meeting?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, wait, I'll get to that, Mr. Premier.

"Displeasure over the inaction of the MLA has been simmering over the past year, and things came to a head with the announcement a few weeks ago that the hospital was being phased out. The motion, passed at a meeting Sunday with only one dissenting vote, came after citizens had openly criticized Ms. Sanford for her hypocritical and arrogant cold shoulder to the wishes of those persons directly affected by the NDP government's decision to close the Cumberland hospital.

"It was quite evident at a public meeting we attended last December that the majority of the 500 citizens in attendance…"

— 500 citizens.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND:

"…were definitely opposed to the plan to close the hospital. Several speakers at that meeting reminded their elected representative of her promise prior to the last election that she would fight to retain acute-care beds in Cumberland."

It's not my headline, Mr. Premier.

"What is distressing to many citizens is the manner in which Ms. Sanford has handled the hospital issue. Citizens are naturally angered that she has failed to live up to her pre-election promise, but what they resent even more is Ms. Sanford's presumption to tell them what will be good for them in respect to institutions."

This is good stuff. You should listen to this; it's really good stuff. It says a lot more here.

"The lack of positive action on the part of Ms. Sanford in attempting to alleviate some of the problems which abound in this riding is causing concern to many citizens."

They go on to talk about other things which don't relate to health but, nevertheless, lead the area to say "Non-confidence Voted in Karen." In that article on the front page they say:

"The citizens of Cumberland and the surrounding district passed a motion of non-confidence in local NDP MLA, Ms. Karen Sanford, Sunday night for her lack of support in saving Cumberland General Hospital from the deathblow of Health Minister Dennis Cocke.

"The committee also noted in the motion Ms. Sanford's pre-election pamphlet in which she pledged full support to retain acute-care beds in Cumberland.

'' The committee said they also resented…."

Well, I won't repeat that; I've already said that. But they also said that, "Ms. Sanford was not representing them but ruling them."

Well, that's the hospital in Cumberland. Then there was also a group of people who came into my office the other day and wanted to know what this government was doing about a hospital in the Sidney-Saanich Peninsula area.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I can't really help it if the people come to me, but the business of British Columbia is the business of all of us. We'll treat it as such. There's a serious question here of a hospital which

[ Page 1627 ]

was promised to the area's residents and is now apparently being forgotten; that promise is being forgotten by the government.

The Health Minister on February 12 told the people of that area that the question of providing acute-care hospital facilities in that area must be very quickly resolved. Speaking on acute care for the peninsula, Cocke said, "That's an argument we must get into very quickly and resolve." The people still want to have it resolved, and they think all they would like you to do is live up to the promise that was made for those people to have a hospital in that area.

I understand that the construction carried out on the hospital to this date has been carried out in a manner so that an acute-care hospital could be added. There are facilities there for an acute-care hospital. The people want an acute-care hospital; they've already passed a referendum to pay for an acute-care hospital; all they want now is the Minister to tell them why they can't have their acute-care hospital. I think that's a reasonable request of the Minister and I agree with him that that matter should be resolved very quickly.

MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry the Member for Langley felt it necessary to raise the matter of the Saanich Peninsula acute-care hospital this evening. I am aware of the issue, very much aware of the issue. I have discussed it with the Minister and I think the Minister knows the matter rests with the regional hospital district of the Capital Regional District at the moment. I did not want to raise the matter during the estimates because the decision is not on his desk at the present time.

I've attended more than one major meeting with more than 15 people present, with more than 500 people present. In fact, I attended one in Sidney in Sanscha Hall earlier this year with something over 800 people present. The people of that peninsula want that hospital. But until the Minister suggests, "You can't have it," I am prepared to work quietly with the Minister and with his department to secure the hospital.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Yes, I have one in both cars, Mr. Member. I am very much aware of the strong desire on the part of the residents.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Well, as I say, I am sorry the Member felt it necessary to raise this tonight. The Minister knows how I feel; the Minister knows how the people on the peninsula feel. We want the hospital, but I felt it was a matter that did not need to be raised in political debate at this time.

HON. MR. COCKE: I am not going to deal with the Sidney hospital but I do want to say something about the Cumberland hospital and I want to say it very quickly.

The Cumberland hospital was a decision made by the previous government. I have in my possession a memorandum by the former government to the Deputy Minister, Donald Cox, telling him not to announce that they would have to close the Cumberland hospital because of the decision to open up 70 new beds in Comox. Not to announce it!

Once that became a fait accompli, there was no other course but to go the way we did with the Cumberland hospital — unfortunately.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Certainly we will. Absolutely. I can't do it tonight but I will certainly table it tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, that MLA for Comox is one of the hardest-working MLAS; I have never had more representations from anybody in this House. I think I have said enough.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I'm pleased to see the Hon. Member for Langley is back in the House because I, too, have a copy of the paper he was referring to. I would agree it is unfortunate that issues like hospitals have to become political issues as that Member has chosen to make it this evening. I think that's unfortunate.

I think the Ministerial responsibility which the Hon. Minister has to show in cases such as the situation at Cumberland is one which I wouldn't wish on anybody. I think the kinds of decisions that a Minister of Health has to make in this province in order to provide the best possible health care for the people requires that he make decisions as unpopular as the one which has required the closure of the oldest hospital in this province, namely the Cumberland hospital.

In Comox Valley we have two hospitals located nine miles apart. With the opening of 70 additional beds out at Comox, the Minister could not justify a surplus of acute-care beds in the Comox Valley and is therefore closing the old building as an acute-care facility.

It was not an easy thing for the people of Cumberland to accept, Mr. Member; it was not an easy decision for them to accept. The people of Cumberland years ago worked to build that hospital. The miners in the early days paid $4.25 out of every monthly cheque, money which they could not afford, in order to build that hospital. It's not easy for them to accept that decision; it was not an easy decision

[ Page 1628 ]

for the Minister to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. SANFORD: In order to soften the blow to the people of Cumberland, the Minister decided he would leave the building open as a diagnostic and treatment centre and also as an intermediate-care unit until we can have built in Cumberland a brand new diagnostic and treatment centre and a brand new 40-bed intermediate-care unit in Cumberland. I have supported the Minister's decision in this because I am convinced the Minister is providing the best possible health care for the people of the Comox Valley. Not only will we have sufficient acute-care beds to serve the needs of the valley but we will have intermediate-care which is again provided completely at government expense.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't bet on that.

MS. SANFORD: I am requesting tonight of the Minister that in the new unit which is going to be completed in a year and a half — and those plans are well underway — that he set aside one room, perhaps it could be the reception room or the waiting room, in which we can have placed, like a museum, the pictures and the history of what is involved at Cumberland hospital. I am going to ask that a special place be set aside for a Chinese tapestry which was donated by the Chinese people of the Cumberland community who worked in the mines years ago.

I would like to point out to the Minister that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) is quite misinformed as to what happened at the meeting. This is the kind of thing we get out of the press occasionally in Comox. There was a meeting held in Cumberland at which time there were well over 500 people in attendance. This was held some time ago. The people at that time made their opinions known to me very strongly. They were unhappy because Cumberland hospital was to be closed.

Most of those people have now accepted the fact that it will close, and are forward to the completion of the two new units. As a matter of fact, in the February issue of The Hospital Guardian, Cumberland hospital is featured. There is a picture of the old hospital on the front page and on the inside there is a story about Cumberland, the hospital, its employees and that particular meeting. It says, and this is really what happened: "The good guys were cheered and the bad guys were booed." That night I was one of the bad guys.

But the Minister indicated that the hospital would remain open as an intermediate-care facility and as a diagnostic and treatment centre until such time as the new building could be built.

That evening, the mayor of Cumberland was interviewed. He said: "I'm very happy " — referring to the decision made by the Minister. "So was the hospital's administrator. 'This will make a hell of a difference,' said C.A. (Chuck) Cousins, whose future had become a little less uncertain with the announcement. He had been administrator of that hospital for many, many years."

The meeting referred to in this paper was attended by 15 people. It is unfortunate that the Member over there who was raising it could not determine that by the article. It's no wonder, because nowhere does it say that there were 15 people at the meeting reported in the last week's paper with a banner headline like that.

I would like to tell you something about that citizen's committee which organized this meeting. It has had three meetings all told; each of them has had about 15 people at it. The first one was held in the hospital itself; the second one was held in the doctors' clinic in Cumberland.

At the second meeting, a vote of non-confidence was attempted and the vote at that time was seven to seven. That night they had 14 people out. These meetings are not advertised; no one knows that they are taking place except a few people who are phoned. The people who were phoned to come out that night included those who were willing to support a non-confidence motion, but the ones who had voted against such a motion before were not invited to the third and last meeting, the one which is reported here in the press.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks more closely to the administrative responsibility of the Minister.

MS. SANFORD: I'm attempting to respond to the political football that this particular hospital has become.

However, I think that I have canvassed the subject sufficiently for the information of the House and for the Minister and I would again request that a special effort be made in order to have a room as a museum within the new building to house the pictures and the special tapestries made by the Chinese people and donated to the Cumberland Hospital many years ago. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I hoped that these votes would get through tonight. I didn't think that we'd take such a crass political turn. The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) decided to attack the Minister...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

[ Page 1629 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...over the question of the hospital in Sidney. That's what he did. Well now, there you go. They raised the question of the hospital in Sidney and now they don't want me to speak about it. They're the ones who raised it and if that Member went out of his way to put it in a political context it was obvious to everybody that's what was done. At no time did he go down and speak to the MLA for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) about the question. Not at all. He brought it up purely for political purposes when that Member had already been involved in negotiations in his own constituency. That shows you how low that Member will go to play politics with a hospital. The House has to give that Member full credit for dealing the way he has with the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then they raise the hospital...and I want to deal with the hospital in Cumberland. What is the purpose of an MLA other than to evaluate facts that are brought before him or her and then to make the tough decisions that are based on what's best for the constituency, even if you face a great deal of emotionalism in your riding? How well I remember some MLAs who don't operate this way on other issues the same as this hospital issue. They went to 3,000 people and attacked the government over the Land Commission Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That Member stood up on this hospital issue....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can't I speak about it? He spoke about it, she spoke about it but I can't speak about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Premier to relate his remarks to the administrative responsibility of the Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is how much I respect that Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) for having the guts to stand up for what she thinks is right in her riding in the face of that kind of propaganda.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I call motion 22.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I recall that motions must be called in order unless there is leave unanimously of the House to call them out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: No. That is only where they are private Members' motions. Government motions take precedence in accordance with the....

MR. SMITH: Yes, but you must stay within the rules of the House, which say the motions will be called....

MR. SPEAKER: No. It has been decided about five times that the government may take up government motions in any order that the government chooses. Other motions, in standing orders, are taken up differently. They are in order of precedence on the list. That is a decision of Speaker Murray, a decision, I think, prior to that of Speaker Irwin and also a decision that was put to me and I had to decide as well, based upon their decisions. In each case we followed the same rule.

MR. SMITH: Do you have them printed?

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, yes. They are available. I can get them for you. I'm sure the Hon. Member remembers those.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm afraid not. I can't remember them.

MR. SPEAKER: Look at standing order 27:

"All items standing on the orders of the day (except government orders) shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper."

That was the basis upon which the objection has been made. I made it myself once. Speaker Murray didn't agree with me and I followed his ruling, as I think I feel bound to do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker:

"Resolved that on Tuesday the 26th day of March, 1974 and on all following days of the session there will be three distinct sittings on each day — one from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., one from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and one from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. — unless otherwise ordered."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This motion deals with three distinct sittings per day. I remember very clearly statements made by that little band over there, that was over here, in which they spoke on

[ Page 1630 ]

numerous occasions. They screamed to high heaven of legislation-by-exhaustion. Now that same band is over there. The Premier, who is moving this motion here, was very eloquent in his criticism of the actions of the former government relative to sittings of the Legislature. We're not having only legislation-by-exhaustion by this motion, Mr. Chairman; we're having estimates-by-exhaustion as well.

The Premier feels it's necessary already, even though he already has sufficient latitude within the standing orders of this House to carry on and to call a session for the morning, but he feels compelled to move this particular motion because his memory must be failing him. He's liable to forget he called a sitting for 10 o'clock the very next morning.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Day-time work.

MR. CHABOT: He says day-time work.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Daylight saving.

MR. CHABOT: He says day-time work. I remember very well the pious promises made by that Premier and that government over there when they changed the standing orders of this House. They were pious platitudes — that's what they were, Mr. Speaker. They said the objectives of having sessions from 10 o'clock in the mornings on Fridays to 1 o'clock in the afternoon was for the object of Members having the right and the opportunity to visit their constituencies in the hinterland.

What's happened the last few Fridays? And what is the object, Mr. Speaker, of introducing this motion at this time? Is the government reneging on its promise to Members of this assembly? Is the government opposed to Members having the opportunity of visiting their constituencies, as they clearly indicated was their intention when they changed the standing orders of this House?

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that was a shallow promise. A shallow promise, indeed. That's what it was. Sheer nonsense by that government!

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: It's all right, Mr. Speaker, to have the chit-chat from those Ministers and those backbenchers relative to the motion which we are discussing. Most of them are not sitting in this House and debating the estimates. They work the shift system... (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: S-h-i-f-t system. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shift!

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: He heard it. He heard it.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: ...where two-thirds of the Members are absent. What is their responsibility? Fulfilling their role to the people they represent within their constituency.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly, when you have Members of the backbench...

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: ...who rarely speak in this assembly on estimates or legislation. They have the opportunity of fulfilling their role and their responsibilities to the people they represent.

AN HON. MEMBER: We might work him back into it.

MR. CHABOT: I want to say, though, that the role of a Member of an opposition party is substantially different from that of a backbencher or from an absent cabinet Minister in this chamber. We have a responsibility to fulfill in this chamber: to oppose some of the policies which we consider are not in the best interests of not only the people whom we represent but the electorate of this province. We must be here in order to be sure that we do oppose the repulsive legislation that is introduced quite frequently by that government, as well as seek, on behalf of the people we represent, answers from that government on estimates. We are fulfilling our role and our responsibility in that connection.

I want to say that we have great difficulty in fulfilling the other role of looking after the problems of our constituents when the government decides it is necessary for us to sit in this chamber from 10 o'clock in the morning over three distinct sessions until 11 o'clock at night. How in heaven can you possibly look after your responsibilities to your constituents when you are sitting in this assembly at all times? It is virtually impossible for a Member of the opposition. I don't think the government is being responsible by the introduction of this legislation and estimates-by-exhaustion motion tonight.

I wonder what the real reason is for the introduction of this attempt to grind the opposition into the ground. That's what this motion is all about. It is a serious and genuine attempt by that

[ Page 1631 ]

government to ensure there isn't the proper scrutiny of the estimates and the legislation which they are presenting.

Is that really the motivation behind this motion or is the real reason the anxiety on the part of that Premier to get this session over, Mr. Speaker, to get on with his rugby game in Japan? Is that the real reason for this motion at this time? It appears to me that that is the object of this motion.

It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has lost absolute control. Due to the fact that he has lost this control, there is a genuine attempt on the part of that government over there for the shortcomings of the Premier to punish the opposition....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: ...to threaten the opposition...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: ...to grind the opposition into the ground with three sessions per day. The only reason this motion is being debated at this time is because they have a crushing majority over there, Mr. Speaker, and they want to whip this opposition into line. That's what that overpowering, overbearing government is attempting to do.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious to me that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is wiping his eyes right now, needs a pair of glasses. That's what he needs. His vision is gone; he can't see anything.

It is quite obvious also that the Whip system in this House has broken down very seriously.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Whip system has worked very well in years gone by, and you know it too, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications. Your former Whip has gone to bed a few moments ago — the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)....

SOME HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: He's gone to bed because it is too late. He would tell you himself when he was Whip in the opposition that it worked extremely well.

I think I should quote some of the attitudes expressed by that government over there, when you were in opposition over here, relative to motions introduced on the question of daily sittings.

There was a motion put on January 26, 1970, where the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett said:

"Mr. Speaker, I move motion 1 on the order paper, seconded by the Hon. Leslie Peterson, that on Tuesday, January 27, 1970, and on all following days of the session, there will be two distinct sittings on each day, one from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and one from 8 p.m. until adjourned, unless otherwise ordered."

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Two o'clock in the morning; 3 o'clock in the morning.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says 2 o'clock in the morning. I want to tell that Minister of Health and that government over there that I would rather sit until 2 o'clock in the morning so I could have the mornings free to serve my constituents. I'd rather do that any day.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: If necessary. Absolutely. You didn't see any motions put forward by the former government dealing with sittings in the mornings, unless it was on one occasion on the adjournment of the House, the day prior to prorogation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We used to sit until 7 o'clock in the morning!

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the House is....

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether you heard that. The Members behind the Member speaking, will you be more restrained so he can speak freely?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, after that motion was put in 1970, there was an amendment introduced dealing with this subject matter of two sessions. Now we are dealing with....

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.