[ Page 1385 ]

CONTENTS

Municipal Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 62). Mr. Gibson. Introduction and first reading — 1385

Oral Questions

Hay-feeding problem. Mr. Fraser — 1385

Report on powers of Auditor-General. Mr. Gibson — 1385

Federal acquisition of Columbia Valley land. Mr. Wallace — 1385

Vacant government-rented premises. Mr. Bennett — 1386

Municipal land-use regulations. Mr. Curtis — 1386

Use of leghold traps. Mr. Gardom — 1387

Availability of ICBC annual report. Mr. Phillips — 1387

Soliciting of funds by Helping-Hand Club. Mr. McClelland — 1388

Committee of Supply: Department of Health estimates.

On vote 64.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1388

Mr. McClelland — 1389

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1393

Mr. McGeer — 1395

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1400

Mr. Curtis — 1401

Mr. Wallace — 1401

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1405

Ms. Brown — 1407

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1409

Mrs. Jordan — 1410

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1414

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1415

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1418

Mr. Chabot — 1419

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1420

Mr. Chabot — 1421

Appendix — 1421

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House another good Conservative, a resident of the Premier's riding of Coquitlam. I have great pleasure in introducing Alderman Les Garrison. I ask the House to welcome him.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are hard-working representatives of the Nimpkish band council at Alert Bay. With the group today is Chief Chris Cook and band members Reneé Taylor, Pearl Alfred, Roy Cranmer, Gloria Cranmer-Webster and their assistant Del Broadhead. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is either standing or sitting down — I'm not sure which. (Laughter.)

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, your vision's improving, Mr. Speaker. I give you full credit for that. Many can see, Mr. Speaker, but few perceive — you can remember that quotation.

I would like to welcome to the House this afternoon some gentlemen who were here earlier today — members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, members of the Registered Industrial Accountants, Certified General Accountants and the Accredited Public Accountants of B.C., who have come to see public accountability in action.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the assembly the mayor of the great municipality of Burnaby, Mayor Tom Constable, and his guests from Quebec. I'm meeting with him shortly but I apologize that I do not have his....

Introduction of bills.

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 62, Municipal Act Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

HAY-FEEDING PROBLEM

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On Monday the Minister advised the House that he had not had any communication from any of the cattlemen with respect to the hay feeding problem in the province. Would the Minister care to revise his statement of Monday in view of the fact that he had received a letter from the Ritchie Creek Livestock Association, dated April 7?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'll check. I'll take that as notice.

MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the letter.

REPORT ON POWERS OF
AUDITOR-GENERAL

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier and Minister of Finance. Now that a committee appointed by the federal Auditor-General has made a report to that gentleman suggesting greatly expanded powers for that office, would the Premier undertake to read that report and introduce such legislation in British Columbia?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I have not had time to read the report.

MR. GIBSON: Would you read it, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if I get a chance to read it. If I get a chance to read it, I'll read it.

FEDERAL ACQUISITION
OF COLUMBIA VALLEY LAND

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Agriculture: could he confirm that the federal government has acquired options on approximately 400 acres of land in the Columbia Valley near Chilliwack for training purposes for the armed forces?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm it, nor can I deny it. I've read the reports. I've asked staff to make some inquiries.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. I take it, then, that there has been no consultation with the provincial government. My further question was to be along the line that, presumably, this is agricultural land destined by the federal government to be used for a different purpose. To what degree is the provincial government informed of this? What about

[ Page 1386 ]

the whole question of rezoning: has such a proposition been made to the provincial government?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, certainly none that the Minister of Agriculture is aware of. I discussed it, very briefly, about a week ago with the Minister of Lands (Hon. R.A. Williams) and he had heard nothing up to that time.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, further, if the Land Commission Act and the powers will stand in court, as opposed to any action that might be taken by the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is out of order since it asks for a legal opinion, and I don't think that the Hon. Minister should ever give a legal opinion.

VACANT GOVERNMENT-RENTED PREMISES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Public Works: I've been asking the Minister some questions regarding the leasing of public buildings. Yesterday he chose not to answer and referred to his statement of March 21 in which he used as an excuse that he'd asked for tabling. But I'd refer to Hansard in which the Minister said: "I just cannot accept what has been said but I would be pleased to take this as notice and give a full report at a future sitting."

This is in regard to the Oxford Building which is empty, yet leased, with rent being paid by the government for almost a year.

Yesterday I questioned the Minister on premises at 10575 and 10579 King George Highway which, at an annual rent of $18,000, have remained empty since August 1 and were still empty, on personal check, April 11.

Today I would ask the Minister, as part of what appears to be a growing scandal of incompetence in his department, if he can advise and confirm to this House that his department has leased 7,817 square feet at 10344-56 137A Street in Surrey for a five-year period, triple net, and why these premises, which have been leased at $32,000 a year, have remained empty since April 1 of 1974.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The answer to the first part is no; to the second part, it is wishful thinking; and to the third part: I'll take it under advisement.

MR. BENNETT: We have three different properties on which leases were signed and which have remained empty and on which rent has been paid. Just an additional supplement about this waste of taxpayers' money: could the Minister advise the House if the continuing vacancy of these premises results from the inability of the government to hire civil servants fast enough to fill the space this Minister is leasing?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): He doesn't know what a lease is.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think the further question falls under the third category. The Leader of the Opposition would like to make certain charges, and is attempting to make certain charges. It's wishful thinking on his part.

MR, BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I believe we provided information on which this Minister could bring answers to the House on three different occasions. I believe this House deserves an answer in what seems to be a growing situation of continual government buildings being leased...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BENNETT: ...far in advance of their being put to use, and at great expense to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It appears to be that you are making a speech....

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this Minister is frivolous in his answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. Member is out of order in trying to make a speech.

Hon. Members, please confine yourselves to one question so that it may be answered clearly without any confusion arising from three questions at one time.

MUNICIPAL LAND-USE REGULATIONS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, before he leaves for his regrettable meeting with the mayor of Burnaby: The Minister was quoted in The Province this morning with regard to the possible need for legislation to speed municipal approval for housing developments. I wonder if the Minister would inform the House if this is a move on behalf of his department to involve itself in the overriding of land-use regulation which has been within the jurisdiction of municipalities for many decades.

MR. BENNETT: There are 45,000 civil servants and the Minister can't even get an answer.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I haven't seen the report in

[ Page 1387 ]

the paper, but I presume it is in regard to what I've said in my address in reply to the budget debate, referring to the fact that we would have to take a close look at the actions of a few municipalities in regard to holding up development permits and so on for housing purposes.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary: I wonder if the Minister is now in a position, after a number of weeks, to tell the House which municipalities are causing him concern in this regard. Name names.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, I have no intention of naming names. I'm quite convinced that the municipalities involved know who I am talking about and I am quite certain the opposition know who I am talking about. But certainly there are very few of them in the province and I have no intention of naming names.

MR. CURTIS: A final supplementary to the Minister: if he is concerned about the delay in approval of various developments on the part of municipalities, is he also aware of very considerable delay which develops after a regional district — many regional districts, in fact, and this is well documented — have gone through the necessary public hearing and the necessary steps and then must wait in some instances a number of months, perhaps up to a year, for provincial government approval of even a very minor land-use change?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, I will agree with the Hon. Member that the waiting period was scandalous. However, since we've taken office we have shortened that waiting period. Now if a bylaw is held up more than one month for any reason other than sending it back for corrections, I am notified of any delays.

MR. CURTIS: It is established then that there is a one-month limitation in terms of government handling through Municipal Affairs, Highways, or whatever it may be. Is that what the Minister is telling us is in effect now?

HON. MR. LORIMER: That is correct. If there is a delay of over one month I receive notification of the delay and why it has occurred.

USE OF LEGHOLD TRAPS

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Recreation and Conservation: Information from the department concerned indicates that in the 1973-74 period there were 106,248 fur-bearing animals trapped in this province, and that by far the majority of those were killed — or perhaps tortured is the better word — by the leghold trap. There is a report in The Vancouver Sun, Mr. Minister, of April 14, 1975, that your department is taking the leading role in developing humane trapping, and to the effect that some 30 traps are being tested. It also reports that you have made some $5,000 available.

The question, Mr. Minister, is this: Mr. George Clements of the humane-trapping association says that in 19 months the committee has not tested a single trap, and this appears to be very contrary to the remarks of the Hon. Minister. I would ask him which is correct and what is being done to rectify this very cruel and vicious practice.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Yes, Mr. Member, I must say that there has been some delay, and I should explain why, on the federal-provincial committee in finding out ways and means of bringing in a humane trap.

First, it is a long process. Five traps are now being tested. You must realize that first it must go to a firm of patent attorneys to determine the patentability, then to the engineering consultants to determine whether the device will work and the estimated production cost. If no prototypes are submitted, and only drawings, these have to be made first before going to engineering tests for runs. They have to be field tested, and they are now in the process of testing, as I said, five traps. But to date none of them have been field tested.

I might add that our programme to dissolve or ban the leghold trap is compatible with the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals. As a matter of fact, in a letter that Mrs. Bunty Clements, president of the association, wrote to The Vancouver Sun but which they failed to print, she states: "This association feels that more has been done in the last two years by the B.C. government than in the last 20 years, but much more needs to be done."

MR. GARDOM: To the Hon. Minister. It appears therefore that the quoted statement of the Minister referring to 30 traps being tested is incorrect. In fact it's five. But I think, in the interests of this very, very serious problem, there has been a very effective lobby of a number of serious people and they've arranged for a special showing of "Canada's Shame" tomorrow in the Legislature. I recommend all Members to be present if they possible can.

AVAILABILITY OF ICBC ANNUAL REPORT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications in charge of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. Will the Minister advise the House when the annual report of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia will be available to the Legislature?

[ Page 1388 ]

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the report be available before the estimates of the Minister will be debated on the floor of this Legislature?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I certainly hope so.

MR. PHILLIPS: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the report presently being prepared?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why, certainly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Arrogance! Arrogance!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I answered every question.

MR. GARDOM: Supplementary. Is the Minister prepared to inform the House if that report is prepared now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said certainly.

MR. GARDOM: It is now ready and prepared?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I said it is being prepared. You asked if it was being prepared and I said certainly.

MR. GARDOM: Is the Hon. Minister prepared to request the House Leader to have his estimates stepped down until such time that that report is available prior to his estimates coming on the floor of this Legislature?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I answered that question. I certainly hope so.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't ever recall in this House ever before, after a Member has been recognized and is about to ask a question, that the bell rings and question period is over. It's a very unusual procedure, and I hope it's one that we won't follow any longer.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I recognized the Hon. Member as the bell rang. Whether that happened or not, I really don't know how at this stage one should tackle the matter. The time limit is up. Once the time limit is up, question period is over.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: As far as I'm concerned, I'll look at the matter, but I seem to recall that nothing was said by the Hon. Member by way of questions. He was merely recognized by me and then the bell rang.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I really think we're embarking on a dangerous precedent here. I'd like to ask for leave to continue with my question.

Leave granted.

SOLICITING OF FUNDS
BY HELPING-HAND CLUB

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. I'm wondering whether or not the Attorney-General has had any complaints in his office regarding an American outfit called the Helping-Hand Club, which is soliciting money in Canada through a Surrey post office.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I'll check on the matter. It hasn't come to my personal attention. If the Member has any information, I'd appreciate it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would the Attorney-General take the matter to an investigation if I send him the information on it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I won't undertake an investigation, but I'd certainly like to look at it and see whether it warrants an investigation.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

On vote 64: Minister's office, $96,345.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I defer to the Minister if he wishes to make an opening statement.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, just a word or so. We have a large budget to be debated. I'm quite prepared to answer the questions that are put before us.

One question that I might anticipate is something that happened a couple of days ago in North Vancouver — it occurs to me that maybe I should set the record straight just very quickly — and that was the whole question of the parking lot around the Lions Gate Hospital. That parking lot was one that had been approved in principle by the Department of Health, not certainly as elaborate as what was required or wanted, but certainly as far as the

[ Page 1389 ]

Department of Health could go on a parking lot. Then the district decided to move in another direction and acquire property which wasn't rezoned — or the city council decided not to rezone it.

Then the word came out that it was as a result of the Department of Health in the first place turning down the parking lot, which was not at all true. I just wanted to say that.

As far as the estimates are concerned I think that I should leave it to the opposition to ask the questions, and I'll be prepared to answer them.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm certainly happy that the Minister cleared up that question of the parking lot. That's probably the most pressing issue in the province today.

I'm glad, too, that the Minister said he is prepared to answer questions about his department. Unfortunately, the government has decided to embark upon a course in which it is impossible to have enough time to get the answers to questions, because we have, in this estimate of several hundred million dollars, been given the great and glorious time of three and a half hours to debate the Minister of Health's estimates.

I think this government is turning out to be, in two and a half or three short years, a government of broken promises. It has broken the most important promise of them all, the promise to ensure that democracy continues in British Columbia. It certainly can't continue under the kind of dictatorial schedule that this government placed before the Members of the opposition yesterday with regard to the debate of the most important part of the democratic process, the estimates of the Ministers of the Crown.

Now we find that whenever we get into an area which becomes a little touchy, the government will shut the door on that debate, never to be considered again.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): You're wasting time.

MR. McCLELLAND: It doesn't matter about time any more, Mr. Member, whoever happens to be saying that down there, because we can't do anything with this government any more anyway. We can't debate the most important part of the democratic procedure because the government has stifled the opposition and gone behind closed doors because they are afraid to be accountable to the people of British Columbia.

The Minister of Health will follow the lead set by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) yesterday when she told us in this House: "You've lost your chance to get the answers to the questions in my department." She said that in the House yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and that is what the Minister of Health will do as well. The Minister will cut off the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that this government has proved to be the government of broken promises, and probably the most critical area where that promise has been broken is in the area of intermediate care for the people in need in British Columbia.

We see millions of dollars ready to be spent for the B.C. Medical Centre, and that's fine. Millions of dollars being spent on increased staff, and I guess that's fine as well. Millions of dollars being spent in many other areas, which are all good, but not one nickel in the budget for intermediate care. Not a nickel.

I suggest that our priorities in this province are in the wrong place.

There was a recent report from the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District which said that 3,500 intermediate-care beds are needed right now — not next year or next week or next month or next decade, but today. We are 3,500 intermediate-care beds short in British Columbia, and 4,000 will be needed by 1981. Yet not one nickel in this budget for intermediate care. Not a nickel. Last year at least we had $1 million in there which would pay for staff, or something. This year, not a nickel for intermediate care.

Many of the Members of the House travelled a couple of years ago with a committee that went all over British Columbia trying to assess the health care needs of British Columbia. We found overwhelming.... The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) will verify, the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) and the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms Brown) will all verify that the one thing the people in British Columbia told us was that there was an urgent need for intermediate-care beds in British Columbia. The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was there too.

We heard it over and over and over again that there are these people — and I've said this before — who are caught in the twilight zone of health care. They are not covered under acute care; they are not covered under extended care. They are in that area in which they are not being looked after. That's a shame that we are faced with today because there are many of them who are being penalized both psychologically and financially because we are not making the facilities available.

We found overwhelming concern throughout British Columbia for these people. The Minister says that we are developing a home-care programme, and that's good too. Certainly we need to extend home care and preventive care, and all of the other programmes — early discharge and whatever they are — but we cannot do it in isolation. The programme must be developed with a system of intermediate-care

[ Page 1390 ]

facilities so that those people can be looked after and brought within the financial structure of the system so that they don't lose their life savings just because they happen to be sick.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sick is sick.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right. The Member says: "Sick is sick." And it is, and health care is health care. It doesn't matter what level you happen to be at. If you are in extended care you are just as sick as you are if you are in acute care or if you are in intermediate care.

Let's get rid of all these labels. Health care is health care ... is health care is health care, and the people of British Columbia have a right to demand full health care regardless of the level of their condition.

The Minister says that the system can't be developed overnight. Well, sure it can't be developed overnight, but the Minister's had three years almost — three years and nothing has been done towards developing an intermediate-care system of facilities. We've wasted those two and a half to three years and the patients in need of care in British Columbia are the people who have to suffer because of it.

The Minister attempts as well to tell us that prevention is the way to go, that we don't need to spend millions of dollars to develop intermediate-care facilities just as long as we have a programme of prevention. That's important, but prevention isn't a substitute for health care, no substitute for the needs of the people. Prevention is a long-term educational process which also won't happen overnight, and which needs to be vigorously pursued, but in conjunction with the development of the kind of programmes that need to be developed to meet the needs of the people of this province.

The people who are involved and who are in need of intermediate-care facilities must get coverage on exactly the same basis as other levels of care, with no financial penalties. Once again this government has broken its promise to a large segment of the people in need in this province.

I'd like to move on to ask a couple of questions about some of the things that have happened in health care in the province in the past; and I refer to the health security research project. I may have missed an announcement from the Minister's office, I'm not sure. If I did, I'm sure the Minister will tell me about it. But I don't recall seeing any announcement which terminated the health security research project or replaced it with something else, or moved Dr. Richard Foulkes into a different position, or renamed the health security research project.

I do think that it's time the people of British Columbia were told, first of all, what the total bill for that health security research project was — the bill that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for a report of questionable value. What was the final bill? Was it $750,000? Or was it $1 million, $1.25 million, $1.5 million, $2 million? How much did it cost the people of British Columbia to prepare the final study of the health security research project under Dr. Richard Foulkes?

I think, too, that the people of British Columbia have a right to know where Dr. Foulkes is now within the government hierarchy — the Department of Health hierarchy, at least. Is he still actively employed? Is he doing more research? Is he co-ordinating the research that's already been done? Is he providing new input to the Health department? Exactly where is he, what is his salary, and is the Department of Health still paying him?

The Minister in his estimates this year has an intriguing new development called the consultant to the Minister: $61,455. I think the people of British Columbia have a right to ask who that consultant to the Minister is or will be. Will it be Dr. Richard Foulkes? To a consultant to the Minister: $61,455. Is that the new job for Dr. Richard Foulkes? Has he already been appointed? When will he be appointed? If it isn't Dr. Foulkes, who is going to get that job and what will the criteria be for that position? Or is Dr. Richard Foulkes, going to be the head of the new health advisory council, which is also a new vote in the Minister's estimates for $140,000?

The health advisory council: what will it do? When does it start to operate? What can we expect in the way of new ideas and programmes from that health advisory council, and who will be its head? And what relationship does that health advisory council have to do with the health security research project, if any? I think these are questions that the people need to know, because they want to know where the tax dollars of this province are going, when they should be going to provide intermediate-care beds in British Columbia.

I'd like also to ask the Minister if he can tell us where we're at with regard to the employees of the government who are salaried physicians and who are now in conflict of a certain kind with the government because they're being forced, against their wills, effectively into a union which they don't want and don't need.

I'd like to ask the Minister if he'll tell us if there is some kind of an ideological conflict between himself and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) with regard to this matter. It would seem, as an observer on the outside, so to speak, that the Minister of Health, along with his ideas, has made a commitment and a promise to the British Columbia Medical Association that the salaried physicians can be opted out of legislation which puts them in the same category as the professional employees' association.

[ Page 1391 ]

On the other hand, we know that the Provincial Secretary insists that all employees, regardless of their status, should be under the wing of the professional employees' association and, in effect, forced into a union against their will — a union certainly not of their choice.

It's probably important to remember that when the legislation was drawn up the people who drew up the legislation — the lawyers — conveniently wrote themselves out of the legislation so that they didn't have to be covered by a union that they didn't like, One other group, which happens for one reason or another to have a lot of muscle with the Ministers involved, the nurses' association, also opted out. Yet the doctors were left in, despite what I understand was a commitment and a promise from the Minister and from his executive assistant. The only reason I can draw from that for that refusal to maintain that commitment is that there is some kind of conflict between two Ministers in government. That conflict is not only affecting the doctors — the salaried physicians — but it also seems to be affecting all of the professional employees because negotiations have now ground to a halt and nobody knows where they stand.

Can we expect legislation this session ensuring that the salaried physicians will be able to opt out of this legislation? There is a very strong objection — in fact 100 per cent objection — among those salaried physicians against compulsory unionization. They've been represented, and represented well, over the years through the British Columbia Medical Association and they wish to continue that representation. They don't wish to be forced into some other kind of union with which they have no agreement and with which they've never had an association.

Morale among the salaried physicians is extremely low, Mr. Chairman, because of this impasse at the moment. They do not want to be in the professional employees' association. Just as one reflection of the low morale, the salaried people at Riverview have taken the extreme position that they'll take militant action if something isn't done. The doctors have pulled back, waiting for the Minister to act. They're anxious because they haven't seen any action — no bills have been introduced at this session. They're anxious. They don't want to take militant action but they're ready if it becomes necessary.

I can be corrected if I'm wrong here, but the last word I had is that the shortage of staff at Riverview is quite acute. There is also very little response to the advertisements which are running to fill those vacancies. I suggest and the doctors have suggested that this reluctance to begin staffing at Riverview is directly related to the dispute now before the government with regard to the salaried physicians. I'm told, too, Mr. Chairman, that waiting time for admission of acute psychiatric emergencies from the Vancouver area at Riverview has jumped from three days to 10 days. That's a shocking indictment of the situation, particularly when it could be solved almost immediately by some strong action by the Minister of Health.

If there is a conflict with the Provincial Secretary, I'd suggest that the Minister of Health should knock some heads together with his own colleagues and get that conflict settled as quickly as possible.

If I could move on, Mr. Chairman, to the British Columbia Medical Centre for a moment at least....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I guess we don't have too much time to deal with many of these important matters. I know that the clock is running and the Minister is anxious for 6 o'clock so he can close the doors and not discuss his estimates any longer. But we'll attempt to get as many questions as possible before the Minister in that short time limit that we do have under the new rules of closure in British Columbia.

I wonder whether the Minister will tell us whether or not construction of the children's hospital at the Shaughnessy site, the UBC Medical centre or one of the components of the new B.C. Medical Centre will begin this year. There's a lot of concern among the people of British Columbia about the B.C. Medical Centre. For one thing, they don't understand it. It looks like some kind of monolithic centralized bureaucracy which may not deliver the kind of health care that's necessary for British Columbia.

I hope it will. But if it becomes too big and too central, then it will get caught up in that kind of bureaucratic structure that we are seeing in so many parts of government in British Columbia and won't deliver the necessary services.

The idea of a new children's hospital at that site is good. We are in desperate need of a new children's hospital. There isn't any doubt about that.

But I wonder how much more it is necessary to put into that crowded part of residential Vancouver without upsetting the whole of the community and altering the lifestyle and social structure of a rather important part of British Columbia.

When the maternity unit is put into the British Columbia Medical Centre at the Shaughnessy site, does it mean that all maternity cases, most maternity cases, or just acute maternity cases in need of special care will be put into Shaughnessy BCMC site? Where does the general practitioner fit into this whole question? Is the general practitioner — a kind of cornerstone of medical practice in this country at least — going to be cut out because the maternity cases are going to be forced into a super-specialized area in the British Columbia Medical Centre? Are the personal aspects of patient care going to be down the

[ Page 1392 ]

drain because of the cold, impersonal nature that could develop at the British Columbia Medical Centre? Will the general practitioner be forced in any instances to hand his patients over to a specialist and be cut out of the patient-doctor process? Will the B.C. Medical Centre in fact downgrade the need of the general hospital in our community?

You know, it is interesting that while we are going to centralization to a large degree in the delivery of hospital services — and we are doing it, I'm sure, because of a need to lower costs — I am told that in Great Britain today they have been through that stage and are now going back to square one and developing community hospitals. They are finding in that country that that is where the people are sick — out in the communities, not in the large centres where they work but rather at home, where the family needs care close to home.

Perhaps we are moving too fast in this need to regionalize hospitals and centralize facilities.

What about patient preference in regard to this British Columbia Medical Centre? Will the patient have the right to choose? I know that that right is being taken away from patients to a large degree now, but I don't think it should be eroded any further. I wonder whether or not that right will be protected when the British Columbia Medical Centre begins to grow and expand and spread its tentacles into every area of health care. Will the patient be bounced from doctor to doctor, place to place, with no regard for his own preference?

Does the British Columbia Medical Centre hope one day to become the site of all teaching at UBC? Under the Act, the British Columbia Medical Centre must approve all appointments for teaching. All appointments for teaching! Mr. Chairman, that gives the British Columbia Medical Centre an incredible amount of power to control everything that happens with regard to health care in this province — everything that happens.

Recently, the Dean of Medicine at UBC, Dr. David Bates, said that UBC's teaching programme is in danger of losing accreditation from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada because of the moves made by the British Columbia Medical Centre and the refusal to provide more teaching space at UBC.

I know that the Minister went before Vancouver city council not long ago and perhaps attempted to defuse some of the criticism of the BCMC before Vancouver city council. But I think, more importantly than that, it is time that the Minister gave some answers to the people who are mounting petitions and who are vitally concerned about the British Columbia Medical Centre, who live in that area of the Shaughnessy Hospital, and outside it as well, just people who live in Vancouver and don't wish to see the lifestyle of that community destroyed because of a major expansion of the facilities of the Shaughnessy site.

In the Municipal Affairs department we heard it again today, in the Housing Department, the Agriculture department, B.C. Hydro.... Like so many other departments of government, is the Health department now committed to forge ahead with all of its plans for the BCMC despite any opposition that might come from the community?

Will it ride roughshod over the concerns of the people who live in Vancouver? Will it consult? And more importantly, will it take into account the concern and the wishes of those people? Will the government forge ahead with its plans for the British Columbia Medical Centre without the necessary zoning approval from the City of Vancouver? Will it overrule, in fact, as it has the power to do, the zoning regulations of the City of Vancouver?

There's been very little consultation in advance with the people concerned in the city; very little consultation. As a matter of fact, even the moves the government did make to attempt to at least portray some interest in cooperation haven't been working. The government set up an advisory committee which isn't allowed to advise on matters of great concern with regard to the British Columbia Medical Centre.

If I could quote from an article in the Vancouver Sun in which the British Columbia Medical Centre citizens advisory committee is upset. It had the ground cut from under it when BCMC board chairman, Jack Christensen, announced that the committee is not going to retard progress or delay decision. Then, when the committee asked what it could advise on — the advisory committee was interested in what it could advise on — the chairman said: "Well, you can advise on parking, and you could certainly round the edges off the building".

That's the kind of arrogance we've been getting from this government and it's appointed officials for too long, Mr. Chairman. You set up a citizens advisory committee and then the chairman says: "Well, you can advise on parking, and you can round off the edges of the buildings". What's the point of having the committee? It's not much wonder that the committee is thoroughly discouraged and doesn't see any chance for input to this major change in the delivery of health care in British Columbia.

Now I'd like to suggest that a heck of a lot more study and more consultation needs to go into the BCMC concept before you go much further than, perhaps, the children's hospital and the maternity-care wing, whatever it's going to be. Let's halt any other plans until we really know what that British Columbia Medical Centre complex is going to do to the City of Vancouver.

First of all, it is in a primarily residential area. The traffic congestion when that centre goes in will be phenomenal. The social costs to the community will

[ Page 1393 ]

be phenomenal. There will be a serious problem with developing parking areas. There will be a serious disruption of the residential area. I suggest that disruption will come whether or not the plans for the BCMC site at Shaughnessy are cut back, because you can bet that once the foothold is in there, the expansion will come.

Certainly, the pressure will be on to develop the sort of ancillary facilities that will come with that kind of a medical centre — private doctors' facilities, medical centres of individual doctors, drugstores, commercial developments, apartments needed for the staff of the community. All kinds of peripheral development will happen regardless of the good intentions of the government might have at this time. That whole area will, in fact, be institutionalized. No doubt about it. It can't help it. With the plans you'll destroy a residential community at a time of severe housing shortage.

I realize that you're going to tell me, Mr. Chairman, that I have about two minutes left. Once again, I'd just like to regret the kind of destruction of democracy that's been placed in this House. I have many other questions I'd like to ask the Minister and perhaps, next year or some other year in this House, we might get the opportunity to come back and ask the continuing questions.

I would like to suggest that there are some serious concerns in British Columbia about the delivery of health care, and the moves that the Minister is making now are moves which cannot be altered and will be there for all time. He's embarking on several new areas, new directions, and those directions will be forced upon the people of British Columbia for many years to come. Any other government that comes in will be forced to live with those changes, at least for some years. Because of those changes, and the nature of them, and the seriousness of them, I suggest that the Minister needs to look very carefully at them.

Finally, I just want to re-emphasize that the most important thing facing the people of British Columbia today in relation to the delivery of health care is that vast grey area which isn't being covered with intermediate-care facilities. I think the government has broken its promise again by not including one nickel in the budget for intermediate care and, in fact, cutting out a vast segment of our society from the care which is so desperately needed in British Columbia today.

HON. MR. COCKE: I have every sympathy for this rather new Member in the House. He's talking about enough time for the estimates. Mr. Chairman, the estimates used to take something between 60 and 79 hours in this House. We afforded an opportunity to the opposition for 135 hours. They decided to spend that whole 135 hours on one or two Ministers. We felt that that wasn't good for democracy so therefore we've given you a kick at the cat, at every Minister, and you don't really like it. You don't like it because it's just a little bit too fair.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, come on.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Let's have some serious statements.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you know the way they used to get through the estimates in the old Socred days. We sat here until 2 o'clock in the morning until that vote was through. What a bunch of nonsense! And they compare that to today, when everybody gets ample opportunity. A number of Members stand up and talk all sorts of irrelevancies, and then they talk about broken promises, Mr. Chairman. It's just a little bit too much to take.

And the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) asks for some serious statements! He's the one Member who should never make that request, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal just for a few minutes with intermediate care. Not one nickel. That's what the Social Credit Member said. Not one nickel. Millions of dollars for increased staff, he said, but not one nickel for intermediate care. The Member didn't even bother to do his research, Mr. Chairman, as usual. There's $10 million.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where?

HON. MR. COCKE: In the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi's) department — $19 million, Mr. Chairman, for intermediate care alone. and $6 million in my budget for home care for the same clientele, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: He is flush-faced, Mr. Premier. But you know he won't feel real shame. Not the way he should.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know shame.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it would be nice if just once those people could come in here with the research done. After all, since we've been government we've provided them with all sorts of money for research. Why don't they do it?

Mr. Chairman, we have as much feeling and as much conscience about this area as anybody. We, for instance, took over the extended care system left to us by the Social Credit Party. There were half enough beds. We've been trying desperately to create those

[ Page 1394 ]

beds, and we can go over that in great detail, if you want to, later on in the estimates. But the fact of the matter is we're still building extended-care beds, and have finally almost caught up to the needs in Victoria. You know, it's not that fast, to plan and build. We know that, certainly, when you have to have a regional hospital district who decides that they want to make that a priority. One of the things that we've had here, unlike the situation in acute care, in the Capital Regional District is emphasis by the regional district on extended care. Therefore this area is not too badly off compared to, say, Vancouver with 1,100 beds short in extended care today — extended care which started in 1966.

Mr. Chairman, we agree very much that intermediate care has to be certainly a priority, and it has been with us. This $19 million is a lot of money that's going into this area. The home-care money — there's a lot of money that's going into this area. And, Mr. Chairman, we want to see that fully integrated system of health care. One of the reasons that we're talking at great length with the Minister of Health and Welfare in Ottawa is around this whole question because we want them to adopt that same attitude.

So, Mr. Chairman, the two departments most closely concerned are dealing with this area and dealing with it in a way that it's never been dealt with before. Many, many community projects are being assisted, financed by this government in order to get intermediate care on line.

To get away from intermediate care, that Member talked in terms of the Health Security Programme Project. The consultant to that project was Dr. Foulkes. Dr. Foulkes now finds himself in vote 75 as part of the community health services development. Dr. Foulkes' work now is on health sharing — that's sharing costs with the federal government and other levels of government. He's also being asked to took in on the whole question of the four pilot projects that we have going in community human resources and health centres. So that's his work.

The homework of the Member also comes to the forefront in his discussion of the consultant to the Minister. I don't know how many times last July ... when we made the appointment of Jim Mainguy who was an assistant deputy and raised to consultant to the Minister until such time as we could create the establishment for the new deputy of our department, and that's where he finds himself today. So this was not a consultant in the form that you suggested.

Again, it is so easy to find out. Just a little bit of homework, Mr. Member, instead of getting up and raising questions and innuendo in the way it seems quite natural for you to do. I just suspect that you should turn around sometime when you have your research assistant in the House and ask him to kindly get you some facts before you come in here. The order-in-council was passed and he was advised at that time what it was all about.

Mr. Chairman, he said also: "What's the connection of the health advisory council with Dr. Foulkes?" The health advisory council was recommended by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Medical Association, the RNABC and practically everybody else involved in health care in the province over the last number of years.

We have now put the money for the health advisory council in our budget, We have not got a chairman for it yet. We have so far circulated a number of groups, including the Medical Association and others, asking them for nominees for this very important body whose job it will be in the future, once it is structured, to look ahead in health care and to give advice where it could be given independently.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Independently of the department; they will be outside the department.

It has been recommended over the years, and I don't really think I must go into a great deal of information on this by virtue of the fact that so much of it has been public discussion, particularly over the last few months and over the last number of years. Dr. Corbett of the Medical Association has been calling for a health advisory council for British Columbia for at least a decade.

Now we hope we can put it all together in such a way as to make it a really beneficial aspect of health care in the province. I can't guarantee it. All I can say is that it's in the budget, and providing we can get the right kind of cooperation, the right kind of people and the chairman, who is going to be very, very important to this, it will go ahead.

The Member asked about salaried positions. Needless to say, the salaried position situation has been very much in the forefront recently. I don't think it would be in the best interests of anyone if I were to stand here and inflame the situation, and I am not going to. I would suggest to other Members that they take that as some leadership. There's no ideological conflict between the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) and myself.

As far as shortage of staff is concerned, Mr. Member, the shortage of staff in that particular area which you talked about has been with us virtually since day one. There was a little while in my tenure when that lack of shortage of staff was almost brought up to optimum, but again we find it.

One of the very, very hard things for a psychiatrist to do is work in the institutional setting when there are other ways of working in that particular field. I just have to say that I would hope that psychiatrists will pay a little more attention to an area that needs them.

[ Page 1395 ]

About the construction of the children's hospital — I understand that the construction of that complex, which will be a children's hospital and maternity, will take place this year. I would hope that it gets off the ground and running. This province desperately needs it.

The Member discussed the centralized bureaucracy of BCMC. That's precisely what we tried to do in creating BCMC — create a situation, or at least a vehicle, whereby the different conflicting groups could get together and formulate policy around the best direction for teaching and health care in the Province of British Columbia. What we did is get some very very active, thoughtful people and put them on a committee headed by Jack Christensen who, incidentally, has never taken a nickel, nor has his BCMC group. He is an industrialist who is prepared to really work for the community, and, as a result, took a lot of abuse from Members of the opposition and the public at large.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite absurd to listen in this House to the kind of criticism that we heard around what the BCMC is doing and how they are doing it. They have 23 committees reporting to BCMC. "No consultation," the Member said. But 23 committees report to BCMC; it is an entirely different concept than what the Member discussed in this House.

Mr. Chairman, the maternity situation will be part of that new concept at the Shaughnessy site, but I want to remind you that the BCMC isn't only there. BCMC is attached to all the teaching sites; St. Paul's, General, G.F. Strong and others. The Member says: "What are we going to do about maternity? Are we going to make it really highly sophisticated?" Yes, I hope we are going to have highly sophisticated procedures there. It is going to be high-risk maternity. But there is also going to be primary care.

Mr. Chairman, what I've done is to ask the Salvation Army, who run Grace Hospital, to run this particular unit as well. As a matter of fact, ultimately I would suspect that we will phase the Grace Hospital into this particular unit. I think that that would serve well. Implicit in their service over the years has been Grace's recognition of the importance of GPs and a recognition of the importance of the people who are involved with primary care in maternity. They are not going to let go of that if in fact they take up the challenge we have offered. I suspect they might very well. In any event, what we are trying to do is to develop a system whereby we have something we have not had heretofore, and that is a hospital system that lends itself to teaching.

Mr. Chairman, when that Member said that BCMC is the cause for the college suggesting that they were not going to accredit UBC as a teaching facility, it has got to be ludicrous. They were talking about the clinical facilities, the clinical facilities that have been neglected over these many, many years — VGH, St. Paul's, et cetera, et cetera — that couldn't get a nickel. So let's not hear that kind of rubbish. What we are doing is trying to provide them with space outside the hospitals until we can upgrade the space. What that Member was talking about is not going to happen. But I suggest to him that he do his homework.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we want to forge ahead. We don't want to walk roughshod over anybody in the Shaughnessy area or any other area. But there are 47 acres there; they have always been hospital acres. We think that some of those acres should be properly utilized. Yes, there should be plenty of green space. No, it should not detract from property values. Yes, we think that the City of Vancouver, if they are asked to build special doctors' offices up there, will have to respond in their own way. If they want to permit that, then that is an attack on the community. I don't think it needs doctors' offices up there. They have doctors' offices all around Broadway and other areas that are very close.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that Jack Christiansen and his group are doing an excellent job and they are certainly getting cooperation from my department when they are asking for it. I think we can forge ahead in health care if, in fact, we are given an opportunity.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I realize that in the past it has been possible for Members to follow up with supplementary questions, but I think that if all three parties will have an opportunity to ask questions during the estimates, we are going to have to forgo that luxury.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. McGEER: We have been presented with an absolutely unique form of closure in this assembly. I have been in opposition — it's a dubious honour, Mr. Chairman — longer than anybody on the opposition side has been in opposition. I have watched one government go, and it won't be very long before another one is going to go. But regardless of whether governments come and go, this is the forum of the people. We have been sent here by the people to have those Ministers who sit on the Treasury Board held accountable for their actions.

Looking in the past, I cannot imagine how a situation that we have had in the past, where a Minister has been accused of gross indiscretions, where it was known that if he had to appear on the floor of this House and answer his salary vote there would be a revolution, practically.... Therefore resignations have been asked for in this House rather

[ Page 1396 ]

than have a Minister's estimates come to a vote. But in the present rules it wouldn't matter if a Minister committed some gross indiscretion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are on vote 64...

MR. McGEER: All he has to do would be to sit for three or four hours; then his vote is called and you go on to the next one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...responsibilities of the Minister of Health.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it is a fact. I know that this Minister isn't going to have to face that kind of an inquisition this afternoon. By and large, the Minister has done a creditable job. But the day will come....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Shame! Withdraw! Withdraw! You're accusing the government of doing a good job. Shame!

MR. McGEER: Give me a chance to continue, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit while you're ahead.

MR. McGEER: Give me a chance to continue, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No wonder you've been in opposition so long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: The Premier has got many years in opposition to face if he's to stay in politics, and it behooves him in the interests of himself or his party not to rob this assembly, and the Members who are sent here by the people, of traditional rights.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to vote 64, Mr. Member?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there is not an assembly in Canada that has less protection today in the matter of accountability of the Ministers of the Crown than the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. Can we get to vote 64?

MR. McGEER: The Members have been stripped of their rights to question and to hold Ministers accountable. Let us not for one moment lose sight of that fact. It has happened in one single day. The opposition didn't agree to these rules on limitations of debate, and what the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter under question is the responsibilities of the office of the Minister of Health. Will you stick to vote 64, please?

MR. McGEER: Is it not his responsibility as a member of the executive council to set overall policy? He is an guilty as any other Minister of the Crown with respect to the rules that have been brought into this House. The opposition never agreed to this. They don't agree to it now. The government has proved its incompetency in managing the House, as it has in managing the affairs of the public outside the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, if you do not wish to speak on vote 64, the Chair will recognize another speaker.

MR. McGEER: I have a dozen questions, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 64, I hope.

MR. McGEER: ...that I propose to ask the Minister — specific questions that deal with the way he has conducted his specific Ministry, quite apart from the role he has played as a Member of the executive council.

Before doing that, I'd like to welcome some new faces behind the Minister, particularly Mr. Mainguy who is the new Deputy Minister. We wish him and the other officials well in their new duties.

The centre-piece of the Minister's policies with respect to hospitals has been the B.C. Medical Centre. And the centre-piece of the B.C. Medical Centre is the construction of new facilities at the Shaughnessy Hospital site. A number of us, I among them, warned from the beginning of the problems that were going to arise. Some of the pigeons are coming home to roost.

No one has spoken more eloquently of the democratic attitudes that the new government has, its desire to consult, to be an open government, than that Minister. Yet it seems clear today that he is prepared to ride roughshod over the City of Vancouver and to bulldoze citizen committees who are concerned about the quality of life in their neighbourhoods. "Phony committees," says the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, just today, that Member who represents the area that has become so controversial, received in the mail, as I did, a brief from the Citizens' Hospital Action Coalition. These groups are

[ Page 1397 ]

against the Minister and his Shaughnessy plans.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister as well as the Member, whether these groups are phony groups. The Cambie Ratepayers' Association, is that a phony group? The Douglas Park Community Association, is that a phony group? The Social Planning and Recreational Council of B.C., is that a phony group? The Shaughnessy Action Committee...that's phony? All right, the first three aren't. The Shaughnessy Action Committee which has collected thousands of signatures on petitions against the Minister's plans in that Member's area — and the Member says: "It's a phony committee."

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, the Minister has been given the signatures, Mr. Member. I don't need to table them because the government has received them. The Marpole-Oakridge Area Council, is that phony? Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), is that a phony committee? The British Columbia Council of Consumer and Health Services: I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer Services, is that a phony committee?

The Red Door Information Centre. There is one for the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). Is it phony? Maybe it is.

The Renfrew-Collinwood Information Centre; the Dunbar West–Point Grey Property Owners' Association; Cedar Cottage Ratepayers' Association.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's nonsense!

MR. McGEER: That's nonsense? The Fairview Ratepayers' Association — are they nonsense? Shaughnessy Hospital Citizens Advisory Committee. How about that one?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Oh, oh! Mr. Chairman, am I deaf?

The Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Association — how about them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you relate your remarks to the Minister's responsibilities, please?

MR. McGEER: I'm right on, Mr. Chairman. I'm explaining to him the citizen committees in the City of Vancouver who are opposed to the plan that Minister brought forward.

Downtown-Eastside Residents Association. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, when the Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Association and the Downtown-Eastside Residents Association can agree on something, Ministers ought to take notice.

The Grandview Community Centre.

Those are 16 associations — in my opinion, unlike that of the Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings), real and valuable associations, not phony ones — which have formed themselves into the Citizens Hospital Action Coalition.

Mr. Chairman, when the government announced its plan for a super hospital at Shaughnessy it committed the one sin which this government had criticized repeatedly other governments doing: it failed to do an environmental impact study, That study was done by the City of Vancouver planning department. It was done because the City of Vancouver knew that when that major hospital complex went ahead, if it were to go ahead, they would be faced with a fait accompli and requests for zoning changes.

The implication, Mr. Chairman, of what this major hospital complex would do to a residential neighbourhood was absolutely shocking.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): There are 1,400 beds there now. Tell the truth.

MR. McGEER: The City of Vancouver, Mr. Chairman, formed an advisory committee, because they thought the citizens ought to be consulted — not the Minister, not the NDP government, the City of Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister wouldn't meet with that committee once he learned they were opposed to his plan. Ask that citizens' committee how many meetings they have had with the Minister. They had one. The Minister found out that they were opposed to him and that finished that citizens' committee.

There were 15 other committees who were just as opposed as this one, and they formed themselves into the Citizens Hospital Action Coalition. Will the Minister meet with them? No, sir! There isn't any meeting with these committees. Why? Because they are opposed to his plan.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there isn't a single facility being planned for that Shaughnessy site which could not be placed in some other location to better effect. That's basically the problem. When you begin to examine this plan it is faulty, not just on environmental impact grounds.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, that's what the planners said before the Minister came in with the plan that everybody is opposed to.

I'd like to ask the Minister how much money has so far been wasted on architects' fees for plans that never will be implemented. Is it half a million dollars? Is it $3 million? How much have we wasted at this

[ Page 1398 ]

point?

Secondly, is there still going to be a plan to put underground parking on that site at $5,000 a stall? The highest priority, as I understand it, in development of that site was to commence with the underground parking. This was with the Health Resources Fund — $52 million — that had been held in abeyance for the development of teaching facilities for medicine in British Columbia. At the time this money was not being spent, the medical school, for lack of facilities, was taking in 80 students and graduating 60. But the College of Physicians and Surgeons was licensing 300 doctors a year, and anywhere from 300 to 400 qualified students were being turned away.

Then the priority went to underground parking at $5,000 a stall. Is it going to go ahead or isn't it? Will there be underground parking?

The next, Mr. Chairman, concerns the facilities that are actually on the Shaughnessy site. I don't know how many Members actually go and tour hospital facilities, but I have occasion to do that professionally. I can tell you that that Shaughnessy hospital is at least half empty. There's a desperate shortage of beds in British Columbia and we have a hospital that's not running anywhere near capacity. As I understood the plan that we paid several hundred thousand dollars for, it was to tear down functioning beds in British Columbia at a time when there was a bed shortage.

Members have stood here — the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and myself and that Member when he was in opposition — complaining about the lack of beds. So our first step would be to tear down good beds. My question is: will hospital beds be torn down on the Shaughnessy site in order to build new hospital beds?

My next question is: where will the Grace Hospital go? What will be its physical location? Will that hospital maintain its professional and administrative integrity? If it's not going to, if it's to disappear as an entity, I would ask the Minister to say so today. If it's going to maintain its integrity....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I thought the answer was equivocal; I thought it was vague. That's why I'm asking it again. No doubt the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: You said you hoped it would be part of a new unit, but that's not precise. Where will that physical unit be? Will a number of...? You said it would be gradually phased out. I didn't understand that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you?

MR. McGEER: What I'm asking is what will happen to that hospital.

HON. MR. COCKE: I said that I have asked Grace to run the new hospital.

MR. McGEER: The new hospital. How many beds will that new hospital be and where will it be physically located? Where will the Children's Hospital go?

HON. MR. COCKE: Right there.

MR. McGEER: That'll be along with it. Will the Children's Hospital run as an entity in that location on the Shaughnessy site?

HON. MR. COCKE: Right.

MR. McGEER: On the Shaughnessy site. The southeast corner?

Will good hospital beds be torn down to make room for that?

HON. MR. COCKE: No.

MR. McGEER: Will it be underground parking?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Where's the cancer institute going to go? Will it be moved to the Shaughnessy site as well? Physical facilities? Will it move to the McGavin building at 10th and Heather? Where's the cancer institute going to go? Will the Minister be inclined to accept a proposal, if he ever gets to hear it, from the citizens' advisory committee which suggested a site near the endowment lands.

Where will the obstetric and pediatric facilities at the Vancouver General Hospital go? Will they be rebuilt at the Vancouver General Hospital? Will they be incorporated into the new Shaughnessy site? If so, who's going to run it — Grace and the Children's or pediatrics and obstetrics from the Vancouver General Hospital?

The next question: will there be a hospital built in the east end of the City of Vancouver? Has that got higher priority than rebuilding hospitals that already exist? In other words, can the people in the east side of Vancouver reasonably expect a new hospital for them before other hospitals are torn down.

Will the Vancouver General Hospital become larger or smaller in the future? What does the Minister plan to do with the facilities at the Vancouver General Hospital? How many beds will it have five years from now if the Minister is still the Minister?

[ Page 1399 ]

Will there be a willingness on the part of the Minister and his planners to abide by the zoning regulations of the City of Vancouver?

We very much respect the efforts that Mr. Jack Christiansen is making as chairman of the superboard, but he is an appointee of the Minister. He is the Minister's lieutenant and if his wishes are to be put forward they become the Minister's wishes, and the Minister has to decide whether he wishes to run roughshod over the City of Vancouver as well as the citizens' groups.

Will the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District be required to review any plans of the B.C. medical centre? The GVRHD is the responsible hospital planning body. They've been in business longer than the BCMC. Will they be the final voice in those plans before the government gives the go-ahead?

And yes, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings), will there be a teaching hospital at UBC? I want to say that this has been the consistent recommendation for 20 years and regardless of what happens under this Minister's direction, it will remain a top priority because there is $100 million worth of basic science facilities located around that site. Those facilities were built with the idea of a teaching and research hospital being the guts, if you like, of a teaching and research complex. It's something which has been done with great success all over North America, including Canada.

The plans for that hospital site at UBC were built in another province in Canada. We planned it; we spent the money planning it; they got the plans for nothing, and they built it. The cheapest major advance we could make in hospitals in British Columbia today would simply be to take our plans back again because they've gone right through the working drawing stage. You could start digging a hole tomorrow and put that hospital up. The complete plans exist for it. Instead of that, for future acute hospitals there has been a proposal put forward by Mr. Christiansen's committee that would involve tearing down good hospital facilities, redesigning hospitals. This is a waste of time, a waste of taxpayers' money and a waste of precious hospital beds, all being done over the facts of the City of Vancouver and sixteen citizen groups.

Now, my final question is: will the Minister not take it from me but agree to meet with these people? Will the Minister agree to that? The Minister sits there frowning. Will you agree to meet with them — just yes or no?

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm not going to give you a yes or no.

MR. McGEER: You see, it's a pretty simple, direct question: "Will you meet with the citizen's committees that represent the people of Vancouver?" and he can't answer that.

HON. MR. COCKE: Will you sit down and let me answer the question?

MR. McGEER: A yes or no is simple enough.

HON. MR. COCKE: Knock it off.

MR. McGEER: "Knock it off," says the Minister. If you're going to meet with them, say yes; if you're not going to meet with them, say no. But don't ask for the floor so that you can fan around.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, ho! So you fan around and you....

MR. McGEER: No, I'm asking you a direct question and you're avoiding it. For some reason you do not want to meet with them and you don't want to take the consequences.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please?

MR. McGEER: You'll just bulldoze right over the top of them. You're not interested in democracy. You're not interested in all those things that you espoused when you were in opposition and which you stand up so pontifically to state. Even in the House today you're not interested in democracy at all. You're not interested in what the citizens' groups want. You're merely interested in pushing plans ahead over the legitimate and wise objections of people who've been planning hospitals in that area a lot longer than you have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a point of order, Mr. Member. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. WEBSTER: On a point of order, I understood that people, when they got up to speak, were to address the Chair, not the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. Mr. Member, will you continue, please.

MR. McGEER: The Member's point is very well taken, and I apologize to the Member. I got carried away there, Mr. Chairman, because I thought it was a pretty simple, direct question, and I got exasperated when the Minister refused just to give simple assent to meet with the group.

You see, Mr. Chairman, those people are in

[ Page 1400 ]

Victoria today...

HON. MR. COCKE: So that's why you're bringing it up.

MR. McGEER: ...and if the Minister were really sincere about his desire to listen to these groups, he would agree to meet with them this very afternoon.

I realize that we aren't going to have opportunities to follow up on questions, but I certainly want to give the other Members in the House an opportunity to ask, I'm sure, what is a very interesting series of questions of the Minister.

HON. MR. COCKE: That was a most interesting, but not unexpected, presentation by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. That Member runs in the face of a wind that he knows blows. He knows that taking hospitals to the university is quite convenient for academics such as himself, but not always convenient for the patients, who might prefer to have some kind of more central facility. So let's not kid ourselves about who is on what side and why and whose friends are who. Mr. Chairman, I know perfectly well that that Member has been espousing the fact that every facility in the world should be out at UBC for some length of time. He is so concerned about the East End of Vancouver. "When are you going to build a hospital in the East End of Vancouver?" he says.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister made a misstatement. He said that I was in favour of every facility being at UBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can correct a misstatement...it's not a point of order.

MR. McGEER: I'm against the 300-bed hospital for extended-care patients which the Minister is building at UBC now.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it was the university group that felt that it should go there, so who is to say? But the fact of the matter is that what we have done isn't laid down as an edict. What we have done is set a vehicle to work in Vancouver: the democratic process that those people so beautifully understand. We took all the warring factions, and that Member was a member of one of those warring factions — the academics who insist that everything around teaching be built out at UBC in a nice monument to their own intelligence — and it was to put these warring factions together that BCMC was developed. The children's hospital, St. Paul's Hospital, Shaughnessy, Vancouver General, G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Clinic — all of these groups plus interested people in the delivery of health care are represented.

There has been no announcement of a super hospital at Shaughnessy. The only announcement that I have had any part in at all has been a children's facility with a maternity facility adjacent — the only one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Cancer is a priority. What are the things we are looking at? You have to know directions. We are looking at using part of the Shaughnessy area that the Member was talking about as being empty or near empty for cancer. That is the area that is already built and developed.

As long as I'm Minister they won't be tearing down any hospitals that can produce. They certainly won't. The fact that people suggest it in conceptual plans doesn't make it a fact accomplished. But that Member indicates that it does. In his great concern over the residential neighbourhood, it seems to me it is a nice backing for his all-time position, and that all-time position has been: Let's build that fine thing out at UBC so that we have a convenient access, rather than building it where the people are. Mr. Chairman, the East End and the West End are served by that corridor of health facilities that find themselves in the Vancouver area.

[Mr. D'Arcy in the chair.]

I indicated to the citizens' groups and a number of other interested people when I attended the City Council meeting not too long ago in Vancouver that I am not interested in a very heavy concentration that was originally suggested. But I certainly am interested in seeing some of that 47 acres used properly for health care and the remainder in open space and space that we can be proud of.

I suspect that that hospital was there before any resident who came before city council that night or before any of these interest groups lived in that area. Why? Because the land was assembled and the hospital built in 1909 or 1913 somewhere. That's when that hospital became a hospital. Not the day before yesterday. Not at all.

It is something like building next door to an airport. You know it's there. As the planes get bigger you get more and more frustrated, but you built next door to an airport, Mr. Member, and when you build next door to a hospital ... and it strike me, Mr. Chairman, that hospitals have to be somewhere. It wouldn't matter where you built it. Unless you built it out in the middle of that forest in the UBC endowment lands there would be some neighbour complaining. We all want service from hospitals; however, we don't want them next door.

I have asked the BCMC to see to it that among their 23 committees there be a committee for the

[ Page 1401 ]

concerned groups. I happen to know why SPARC was on there. I talked to the SPARC people. Most of those groups, except the immediate neighbours, were interested in development but not to the extent that was suggested in the conceptual plan.

So don't try to suggest to this House that all those groups are completely in disagreement with properly planned services being developed out there, Mr. Member. No, sir, they are not.

Mr. Chairman, I said we set up a vehicle to do a job — not to do it ourselves, but to do a job. I suggest to you that in the long run that group headed by Jack Christiansen, whom this Member so quickly jumps up and defends but defames ...I can't understand the kind of argument you have with yourself. He is a completely independent person on there. Can you imagine him going through all the work that he is going through for nothing and taking the direction that you are suggesting?

Mr. Chairman, no money has been wasted.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to use all of the allotted time for one speaker. I also share the hostility which has been spoken about on this side of the House with respect to the even more strict closure which has been enforced on the opposition in debating estimates.

One feels that perhaps local issues or regional issues should not be raised in view of the fact that time is so limited. Nonetheless, I do want to ask the Minister to bring us up to date as of today, the middle of April, 1975, on acute hospital construction and planning in the Capital Regional District — the latest status, if the Minister can do that, regarding plans and schedules.

There is strong concern in greater Victoria, in the capital region, and if it were not a matter of life and death, Mr. Chairman, the chronology of the years of discussions and studies and reports and debate at the regional hospital district level would be humorous — I say, if it were not a matter of life and death.

As far as I can determine, this Minister is not at fault with respect to the delay; nor is the provincial government. I make that very clear. I think that when we are in opposition it is our job to oppose, but also, when we assess a situation in such a way as finding it possible to compliment a Minister, it is also important that we do so. I do that with respect to this Minister whose estimates are before us.

He must share with us in this area a growing concern and a very serious frustration over the continuing delays. As the Minister knows, there have been studies upon studies, studies rehashed, studies of studies, debates, referrals and delay. The months and the years have ticked by and we are still not very much further ahead in terms of acute beds in this area. What a staggering number of words have been written and spoken on this subject!

I have a series of very brief questions to the Minister. Hopefully, he will find it possible this afternoon to give us some answers.

At what point is he going to find it necessary to meet again with the capital regional hospital district and perhaps engage in stronger talk than may have taken place thus far?

With respect to the Saanich Peninsula Hospital acute wing, I note with interest and I am sure the Minister will recall that it was March 25, 1974, that this matter was debated in this chamber. The Minister quite optimistically and correctly indicated at that time that he hoped a decision would be made. Yet we are still awaiting action with respect to the Saanich Peninsula acute wing.

What about a new acute care hospital in the more northerly portion of the greater Victoria core? Is his department addressing itself to that subject in any way, shape or form? If so, what approximate time frame is being considered?

Would the Minister also tell us about his department's view concerning the long-term future of the Victoria General Hospital as it stands at the moment, which has been the subject of continuing and repeated debate?

Finally, a matter I've discussed with him and on which we have had correspondence is community medical centres — it may be another term, but small medical centres — in those portions of the constituency I represent in the Gulf Islands. On Mayne Island, the Minister will recall, as of very recent date no action has been taken, to my knowledge, with regard to that type of facility. The residents of Mayne Island and other islands are awaiting that kind of model which was spoken about a year ago.

Mr. Chairman, Saanich Peninsula Hospital; what about a new acute-care hospital in the longer term; the future of Victoria General Hospital; and community medical centres?

I think that I can speak for a number of people in this area with regard to the growing disappointment concerning the lack of action and the inability to make a decision at the regional hospital district level over the past number of years. I experienced considerable frustration while I was on the regional hospital district board. But, more importantly, we have a situation now which I think is vital, and I hope the Minister can take whatever time is necessary. I noticed he was distracted for a moment by a note, but I would hope that he could answer some of these questions. Thank you.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The health budget, of course, is such an enormous one that it's very difficult to cover the subject adequately. I think that each of us in the opposition has the choice of either taking a rather quick overview of the total situation or trying to pick specific issues which

[ Page 1402 ]

appear to have priority interest. I shall try to follow the latter approach, but inevitably I'll be leaving out many issues which I would very much love to discuss with the Minister.

The biggest problem, after a long period of national and provincial study, is apparently a tremendous difficulty in getting the modern concept through to both the citizens and particularly to politicians at all levels, and that is the fact that the answer to many of our hospital problems is the levels-of-care approach and the fact that despite numerous publications, going right back to the federal government task force reports of about eight years ago, we still seem unable to implement what is staring us in the face as the most obvious and sensible and economic answer to the delivery of health care.

I hate to go on repeating what I've said in the House many times, because I know we're moving in that direction gradually. But, oh my goodness, the speed, in my view, with which we're moving is really regrettable. I, like the former speaker, don't believe that we can lay all the blame by any means at the door of this Minister or this government. Nor am I here to be an apologist for the federal government, which, really, I would put high on the list of the real obstacles to a rational and nationwide integration of the various levels of care, which would result not only in the most appropriate kind of care being given in the most appropriate kind of facility but would result in the most economical use of the dollars that are available for the total spectrum of health care.

As I said in my opening comment, that seems all rather philosophical to some people. Let me make it very plain: the practical consequence of not doing that at the present time is the utter shambles we have in the greater Victoria area. We have post-anesthetic patients being looked after in clothes-closets. I have the clipping here, a headline from January 13: "Old Soul in Closet." Then when this was reported, the nurse said: "We even had to put one old soul in a linen closet. Of course, she was out to lunch" — meaning she was under the anesthetic — "so it didn't bother her."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this kind of situation, in a supposedly affluent province and in the capital region, is nothing short of a scandal. I repeat that this is by no means the fault of one person or one level of government or one layer of politicians, but I do wish to God they'd all get together, because we've already got some evidence, for example, of the speed with which this Minister is prepared to approve certain things if the regional hospital board politicians would get off their butts and come forward with some specific proposals. I'm talking, for example, of the speed with which it has been agreed to build another 150 extended-care beds at Glengarry Hospital. That decision was taken quickly enough.

The other element in all this business of trying to follow the simple, logical steps in the integration of levels of care that's right in front of our nose surely has to be typified by the very most recent study done here in the greater Victoria area. To add the final indignity, the regional politicians, appointed, elected by the voters of this area, have the audacity to go behind closed doors because they're not happy to reveal in public the contents of the consultant's report. I don't know who these politicians think they're representing, but they're certainly not representing me very happily, and I'm a taxpayer.

I think the sooner this message gets through to all levels of politicians involved in any kind of health-care programme or the provision of facilities.... Let's at least get it out on the table. I just don't feel that this is an appropriate area where studies should be going on behind closed doors.

Let me just quote from The Sidney Review of Wednesday, April 9. It sort of touches upon some of the issues raised by the former speaker, the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). I will quote. The headline says, "Secret Study Exposed," as though this was another CIA operation, or some high-level secret situation that would be to the detriment of people to learn the details.

"A copy of the secret Agnew, Peckham and Associates report on the role of regional hospitals indicates that the decision last week to proceed with the 75-bed acute-care hospital for the peninsula does not agree with the consultant's recommendations. In a copy of the report obtained by the Review, from a source close to the commission, the Toronto-based consultants recommended strongly that any new hospital for the peninsula be located further north than the projected site on Mt. Newton Crossroads."

Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to argue whether it should be north, south, east or west. All I am saying is: let's get the facts,, the data and the opinions of hospital development in greater Victoria out on the table, if for no other reason than that it becomes public knowledge within a day or two of the meeting anyway. If I can be a little facetious, I would say that Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Barrett know how difficult it is to meet behind closed doors and maintain confidence about what was said.

So, first of all, I think the acceptance of the logical, sensible attitude to levels of care.... The old idea where you had a general hospital and a person's home, and you were either well enough to be at home or you were so sick you had to be in the general hospital.... That's 50 years old, that idea. We have several levels of care where the appropriate kind of facility and the appropriate intensity of personnel qualifications should be available.

I know that I get worked up about this. But I spoke in this House.... I think that the first speech

[ Page 1403 ]

I ever made in 1970 was on just this subject. As I say, it isn't nearly as difficult to implement many of the factors in this kind of programme as we might imagine.

I don't want to spend valuable time arguing as to whether it would be this figure or that figure or the next figure. But we are moving in the direction where I feel the 6,000 patients that the Minister mentioned in the supplement to the budget is a ballpark figure for the number of people who require the type of care that we call intermediate care.

Unfortunately, terminology has caused more confusion than clarification when I meet with various citizen groups or with patients. But all we do know is that if you are in an acute-care bed or an extended-care bed, you pay $1 a day. If you finish up in a nursing home, it can be $700 or $800 a month. That we do know, and there is no terminology or semantics in the whole wide world that will cover up that fact, nor should it. So that's my proposal, and I'd like the Minister's response.

I agree that if any of the parties on this side were in your shoes today, we would be facing the same difficult decision about the financing of the dimension of costs related to intermediate care, I simply say that under these circumstances, and in the continuing absence of federal cost-sharing, does it not make a lot of sense — using a phrase which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) uses frequently — to move the money around?

Does it seem just that a person in extended care lives for $30 a month, and perhaps receives Mincome of $238 a month — and in fact has spending money, for lack of a better phrase, of $200-plus or minus a month — whereas a person who may well have worked hard and saved a few thousand dollars in the bank through their lifetime, gets stuck with paying a bill for several hundred dollars a month? It just doesn't seem right, and I know the Minister agrees with this, because at a previous time the Minister himself suggested that possibly a higher level of patient participation in the daily cost, as long as it didn't inflict hardship on the patient, would make moneys available to widen the programme. I'd like his response to that.

The figure at that time was $5.50 a day that was suggested. Again, I am not arguing whether it should be $5, $6, $2, $3, $4. I'm just saying that the principle to me seems sound. But surely we should equalize the justice of the system whereby some people are actually saving money by being in extended-care hospital beds, while other people simply spend their savings up until they have to go on welfare. I don't think that's a fair system at all.

The emphasis the Minister has placed at different times on home care is admirable. I don't know whether he's going to the annual conference of the homemakers in Nelson this year. I hope, if he possibly can, that he will go there, because the homemakers could make a tremendous contribution to the very vital goal of keeping people in their homes and receiving care which, if unavailable, means that the patient finishes up in some kind of institution at greater cost and at much greater distress to the patient — and we've been over that many times. There again, there doesn't seem to be a province-wide, uniform approach to the financing of home care.

I've had a lot of correspondence lately from up island in particular, where they've worked out their cost to be $4.50 an hour. I don't think that is unreasonable, but there again, a person on a limited income, who perhaps needs four, six or eight hours a day, finds that a substantial cost. So once again, could we not move the money around and try to equalize, as far as possible, the cost to each individual regardless of the type of care they require?

It's a problem that I think has to be solved, otherwise we keep finishing up with a situation we have right here in Victoria. I've checked as recently as today, right today and in the Jubilee Hospital, today, we have 55 people qualifying for extended care who are occupying acute beds.

In the Eric Martin Institute one-third of all the patients are not really acutely ill to the degree that they require that kind of facility. As with the Victoria General, which had to look after a post-op patient in a clothes closet, we have both hospitals in this city using treatment rooms, classrooms, conference rooms and hallways at times to cope with the needs of acute patients. At the same time we have 50 or 60 patients in that same building who don't need to be there at all. The occupancy rate of both hospitals is close to 100 per cent which is unsafe and really is above the level of occupancy which accreditation standards suggest are safe.

So all I'm saying is that we must, all of us, try to get the sense of urgency through to our elected officials at the municipal and regional level. If that kind of urgent response is forthcoming, I would like to think that the Minister, today, would give the same kind of rapid commitment that — while he can't guarantee to approve everything that comes to his desk, he does acknowledge that we have a very serious problem in the greater Victoria area — some of these measures, which could be taken fairly rapidly by the regional hospital board, would be approved.

I personally would appeal to the regional hospital board: would they please hasten, expedite — any word we want to use — to come forth publicly at the earliest possible moment and tell the people of the greater Victoria area what their considered proposals are out of this study of a study. We had the same study by the same consultants in 1968; we now have another one in 1975. It would be a tragedy beyond belief if this recent study went the same way as the

[ Page 1404 ]

last one.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, there are many subjects I would love to speak about but one that I think deserves the highest attention is the commitment by the Minister to try to do something about the early diagnosis of breast cancer. The figures show that approximately one in 15 women will develop breast cancer during their lifetime.

I don't want to go into a long, clinical discussion about the matter, but one or two questions arise. The Minister has got a $ 1.1 million item in the budget for a cancer programme, which I presume relates mainly to his proposed breast cancer screening programme. I want to choose my words very carefully because I commend the Minister for what he's doing, but I want to try to put this whole subject in context.

Today the diagnosis of breast cancer in a woman, in terms of that woman's future, is relatively little different than it was 40 or 15 years ago. Now that's a very sobering fact. Therefore, while it obviously makes sense to diagnose any cancer early, or as early as possible, I would not like to think that by setting up screening programmes we are offering to the women of our province any measure of false hope that if it's diagnosed this month rather than next month, we have treatments available which will proportionately enhance that patient's survival rate.

If there's one area of cancer which is the most frustrating for surgeons and physicians to treat, it has to be breast cancer. Each of us has had patients where the original lump appears to be very simple and very early, and yet within, sometimes, months the patient is in serious trouble and deceased within perhaps a year and a half. Other times a lump is discovered which, under the microscope appears to be fairly well advanced and one either operates or radiates with a feeling of hopelessness, yet that patient is still alive five years later.

While I certainly commend the Minister for taking what measures are available for screening and early diagnosis, I think it's fair to put the matter in context and say that our methods of treatment, unfortunately, have not shown increased degrees of success over quite a number of years.

I would like to ask the Minister if he's had any discussions or consultation on the proposal put forward by a Dr. Michael Richards who is sponsoring a programme called "Keep Women Alive." He's emphasizing the point I just tried to make: all our breast cancer has been crisis-oriented after the diagnosis has been made and we've tried to improve and enhance treatments. Yet we know precious little about the cause and some of the predisposing factors which might tend to increase or decrease a woman's chance of getting breast cancer. He's suggesting that in the computer age it would be possible to ask a relatively small number of questions at periodic intervals in a woman's life and computerize this to try to come up with some kind of pattern of factors which would at least highlight the most vulnerable groups among women, such as the whole element, for example, of bottle-feeding or breast feeding. Breast cancer has increased and is more frequent in those women who bottle-feed their babies. The whole question of whether they bear children or not bear children is obviously another factor which is already known. There must be many others.

Without going through a long lecture about the clinical aspects, I'm just wondering if the Minister has been consulted on this question of participating — not only by B.C.; it's actually proposed to be an international study. I believe that the National Council of Women has taken the initiative in setting up an office with an address to which women can communicate. It seems to me that if we knew more about the cause, we would obviously know more about the prevention.

The last point on the subject of breast cancer: I wonder if the Minister could tell us which particular technical procedures are to be used in the programme he is setting up. We know that the term "mammography," which relates to the x-ray of the breast, has been used. Again, I have to say that anybody who reads the literature objectively has to acknowledge the limited value of mammography. It's better than not doing it at all, but it's very expensive.

I don't want to appear in any way to be pouring cold water on attempts to enhance diagnosis. All I'm saying is: let's keep some of our sense of balance. Is the Minister planning some of the more refined techniques like thermography, the use of heat tests, to try and make earlier diagnosis? I'd be interested in hearing the Minister's answer to some of these questions.

On another subject, I would like to touch upon the whole question of the publicity that arose over the possibility of the medical school at UBC losing its accreditation because of inadequate facilities — the whole matter of space and staffing and a variety of other points that were mentioned. It said that the academic staff were certainly dedicated physicians but they had inadequate facilities. Dr. Bates, who is the Dean of Medicine, expressed real concern at the fact that either UBC might lose some of its accreditation, or, in fact, it might be necessary to reduce the number of medical students who could be taught at UBC medical school.

Mr. Chairman, if there's one thing we don't need, it's a decrease in the number of young B.C. men and women entering medical school. That's a whole subject we could debate for a long time. As the Minister knows, this government has already increased the number in the last year and I understand there's a projection for the next three or four years to go to 160 students, if I'm correct — I think that's the figure.

[ Page 1405 ]

This came as a real surprise to me — the information that I read in the newspaper back in early February — that, in fact, Dr. Bates was concerned that the situation might lead to real problems. I wonder if the Minister can assure us that something is being done in this direction.

As I say, we haven't time to go into details, but the statistics show a very distressing fact that many sons and daughters of B.C. residents just haven't the vaguest hope of entering medical school in this province because they have something in the order of nine applications for every vacancy.

The last time I checked, I think the average marks of the people who were accepted were somewhere in the high 70s or low 80s, which means we have many excellent young men and women, probably very dedicated to the concept of a medical career, but with marks in the 70-to-79 range, who just cannot obtain admission to medical school. Even some of the students who have higher marks than that have great difficulty. We have B.C. residents travelling to various parts of the globe in order to obtain a medical education. I hope the Minister would perhaps touch on that.

I also would like the Minister to comment on any plans he has to try and develop more harmonious relationships between interns and residents and their employing hospitals. It is a big issue in itself. We have had the recent withdrawal of services by the residents and interns. I don't know whether this was mainly due to inexperience in the bargaining process or what it was. As I say, it is a complex subject. It's one of the first times that it has happened in this province, if not the first time.

I think it is a very distressing situation, particularly when the physicians concerned are prepared to tell lies about the situation. I don't use that word carelessly. The physicians and interns stated that they were booking off sick. I think it is tragic when physicians, of all people, take that kind of liberty with the truth when they know very well they were not sick. Now if they want to withdraw service, that is one thing, but to try and kid the people of British Columbia that they were sick I think is following a tragic example that I would criticize, really, in any group.

I don't for a moment dispute the fact that residents and interns work very hard. I was interested in one of the reports on this issue where the reporter entitled the report: "Weary Doctors Make Mistakes." That is absolutely right. If you are working 60 or 70 or 80 hours a week and part of that is in the emergency department of a hospital, I don't think that that promotes confidence in the recipient of your care.

I don't dispute for a moment the difficulties of residents and interns and the dangers that arise from working very long hours. But I would like to ask the

Minister if we could not perhaps develop some better system of bargaining with these employees, whether we could not take some new initiatives in the hope that this kind of very serious situation doesn't arise again. At least, can we try and take some preventive steps?

I'm not sure when my half hour is up, but I have just time.... I have been more interested recently in the whole question of child abuse and the great difficulty in trying to pin down some of the examples of the battered child syndrome and, again, try to start with prevention rather than dealing with the problem after it has happened.

The Vancouver parent-teacher council met, I believe, with the Minister last month. They put forward certain proposals — which I needn't detail here because I am sure the Minister is, aware of them. A few months ago or late last year — I can't remember the exact date — we had some tragic examples of children dying in this province. In these cases — again, I certainly will not mention names and not even specify areas, but we all know that incidents occurred — from the evidence that was made public it appeared that all these three episodes that I remember were preventable. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) answered a question that I placed on the order paper numbering the inquiries that had been made and giving some useful statistical information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to note to the Hon. Member that what he was concerned about a minute or so ago is indeed about to happen.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will quickly terminate my comments.

It is obvious from the concern in the community and the letters I've received that the question of child abuse in the tense, hectic pace in which we live and all the social and financial and economic problems that many parents are subject to ... that the incidence of child abuse, whether it is detected or undetected, appears to be very much on the increase. I wonder if the Minister could give us some idea of what particular plans his department has either to follow recommendations of the parent-teacher council or possibly to incorporate it as a very specific part of the study of this combined committee to do with children which was announced in the budget speech. Will child abuse be very much a specific and integral part of that study?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, first, the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) discussed the whole question about the regional district and lack of action and whether we are addressing ourselves to a hospital in the north end.

No, we are not. As a Health department, Mr.

[ Page 1406 ]

Member, what we're addressing ourselves to, and as I tried to indicate to the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), we ask regions and districts and areas to do their own planning and work. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Member, planning occurs and nothing results thereafter, or planning doesn't occur and nothing results as a consequence.

I would hope that there will be some very definite action in the area. One thing that kind of concerned me, however, was the fact that almost a whole area in the District of Saanich called for a small acute-care hospital adjacent to and part of the Saanich extended-care facility. If the Member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace) announcement of the new report and what that report incorporates is true, then it would appear that that won't be part of the direction, and that might very well be sad. In any event, what we're asking is that the regional district come up with its proposals. As the Member for Oak Bay said, when proposals come forward I think we react to them very quickly. There was a proposal for 150 beds...

MR. WALLACE: Glengarry.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...at Glengarry, I think, recently, and we said, "Yes, go right ahead. They're needed."

So, in any event, we agree that there is a huge priority here. I can't tell you when, Mr. Member, I'll make any further demands. I think I've made a number now, and I think that they know perfectly well that we're quite serious here and we want things to occur in the Capital Regional District around the creation of properly co-ordinated acute-care facilities.

Regarding the community medical centres in your area, we have met with the regional district and we have given approval in principle for two — one at Mayne and one at Renfrew.

MR. CURTIS: What was the second one?

HON. MR. COCKE: Port Renfrew.

We have done a lot of this, this government. In order to attract either professionals or to create an opportunity for service, we've created facilities or are in the process of creating those facilities.

Getting on with the Member for Oak Bay, he says: "Let's move money around in the whole intermediate-care field," and so on. I agree, Mr. Member, that there has to be a lot of moving around of money. One of our problems is, of course, we're bound up with our own rules and our ties with the federal government. At the present time, there's $19 million roughly being spent on intermediate care by the government through the Department of Human Resources. But then, you see, the trouble is that's tied down to those people who require assistance from that department by virtue of their lack of wealth.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: I can't hear you, Mr. Member, and you might wait until you get the floor and then we'll get on with it.

There has to be a new approach to chronic care. That's one of the things we're talking to the federal government about. We feel, for an example, with our Mincome programme and people's pension plans and so on, that a person, once they're in a chronic-care situation where they need care, the best thing to do would be to charge room and board and then let government services — that is, the insurance benefits — pay the remainder; that is, the nursing services, et cetera. This is the approach that we're looking at very carefully at the present time.

It seems to be that what we need is a plan, however, that has some universality but, at the same time, isn't so rigid that it wrecks the economic viability of a family. Say, for example, there is a husband and wife and one is taken away into that environment, the remaining person might need more in order to keep up the family situation. There are a lot of problems around it but, as far as I can see, the easiest way to go would be in that area. I just hope that we're able to produce something through the health, as opposed to the other direction, because I think we can provide a wider benefit than we do at the present time, naturally, because of the restrictions of the Human Resources Department. As I say, that's where it's presently being done, and there is $19 million being spent other than the $6 million that we're spending in our area.

You see, all the people in the Dogwoods and the Tillicum and, of course, the new Ponderosa when it comes on stream; those people that are at Skeenaview, and others, are being paid for by the Department of Human Resources because of this kind of anomalous situation. The others within our own institutions where we can control it...no one has been charged more than $10 a day or $300 a month. So we are expanding. It is going to take some time to create the facilities we need. But, in any event, that's our direction and we'll just go as quickly as we possibly can.

The early detection of breast cancer is an area in which I think a great deal has to be done. We have seen the New York study; I am sure you have. The second study hasn't been reported yet — at least it hasn't come to my attention — and that's the second five years of the ten-year study. I hope that we will have access to that soon. It is awfully important as there hasn't been much advance made in this area.

We feel that in securing the services of a man from the research world it might just help us a great deal in this regard. As you know, Dr. Tom Hall has a tremendous background in research and has a tremendous background in the area of chemotherapy,

[ Page 1407 ]

and is highly thought of in the whole cancer world. I hope that that puts us ahead.

He is talking about a great many things — screening for different areas and so on. We're not quite sure just how far advanced some of the screening processes are. They are suspect still by researchers and so on, but at the same time we have to take some chances.

Thermography you suggested is an area in which we can get interested. We have taken a very close look at what was going on in Montreal. We find a tremendous number of false hot spots and a tremendous amount of psychological and emotional concern over this. Many people are suggesting that thermography is very iffy. Mammography, of course, is something we are providing to a number of hospitals so that we can produce a great many more areas in the province where people can go in for earlier detection — on a referral basis for the time being, but ultimately it could lend itself to a screening process when and if we can get that kind of situation off the ground.

I, for one, happen to be one who is very interested in xeroradiography because it looks kind of impressive, but then, on the other hand, there are many experts around who are unimpressed with this. So it is a very difficult area, to deal with and all we can say is that we are bringing in the best people we can find and saying to them: "For goodness' sake, give us your best advice in helping solve this problem as best it can be solved."

Around the question of interns in residence — it was a surprise, Mr. Member, that we ran into that area. There was no bargaining system for them. They have always been viewed as students heretofore; they became workers and under those circumstances there will have to be some system of regularized bargaining for them. I am quite sure that kind of thing will happen.

As far as child abuse is concerned and my meeting with the parent-teacher council, we did have a very good meeting with them. I think they were delighted to see that the Berger commission had on it Dr. Segal whose real emphasis and whose real direction has been around this area for some time. He is a well-known pediatrician, and we have had some excellent reports from him. As a matter of fact, they met with him very shortly after meeting with me and I think we have some very good direction in this area.

Just so that I can get this on the record — there are many more reports now. The medical profession is reporting a great many more situations that they have had brought to their attention and we are, I think, getting much closer to being able to provide help in this area. To provide help in this area a great deal of therapy has to be directed on a preventive basis towards those people who very clearly look like they can fall into the category of child abusers. One of the things that has come out of the research is that if you want to find a person who is likely to abuse a child, find a person who was abused himself as a child. There is a lot of work going on in this area. I suggest that it will have to continue because there is a long way to go in that particular area.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to add a few words to some of the things that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) had to say about the matter of breast cancer and the early screening procedure.

In particular, I want to thank the Member for Oak Bay for bringing up the matter of the real lack of research done in this area and the fact that, even though it is one of the major killers, as far as women are concerned anyway, certainly the techniques and methods used to treat it have not changed much over the years. I would like to support his call for funding for research in this area. I realize that most of the medical research is funded by Marc Lalonde, the federal Minister responsible for this area. As you know, Mr. Lalonde is cutting back on the amount of money that he's putting into medical research. It certainly is not one of the areas which he considers a priority. I don't think that we can continue to rely on the research being done in other countries. I think we're going to have to start doing some more of this ourselves if we are going to do anything about the quality of medical practice in this country. So I would certainly like to support his request for some funding for research in this 'area as to the causes of breast cancer, not just the treatment.

As women we have always been told that the best kind of treatment available is the very early detection. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says that this is not true. He has treated cases where the detection was quite late and the women lived and there have been other cases where there was very early detection and the women died. So there goes another one of our myths. Certainly that's one of the reasons why we've always supported the call for early screening, because we were always led to believe that the very earliest detection of this cancer was certainly the best way of dealing with it.

Breast cancer is not a statistic to me. I am in the age group where continually more and more of my colleagues and more and more of my friends are coming down with breast cancer and dying of it, quite frankly. I don't know of any one of them who has managed to survive more than the five years — usually it's a year-and-a-half that they go. So this is of great importance to us. I would certainly like to see us get into the research end of it because I can't see how we can devise any kind of treatment if we don't know what causes the thing. I'm interested in all forms of cancer but I think that this is one particular area that has been neglected, as has most research

[ Page 1408 ]

that has to do with illnesses in women anyway. No one has ever paid that much attention to researching the illnesses that strike women more particularly than any other sector in the community. Certainly this is one way in which we as a government can set an example.

What I specifically wanted to talk about is Vancouver General Hospital. VGH happens to be in my particular riding so I have to follow what happens to the hospital very closely. It's one of the few hospitals in the province which conducts abortions; it's one of the few places where women who want to have an abortion can go and have it done. I don't know whether anyone has been following the controversy raging in the media over this but apparently an attempt is being made by people who are against abortion — the people who call themselves the Right to Life people — to pack the general meeting in an attempt to take over the board of governors of Vancouver General Hospital because they are displeased. They are unhappy with the fact that this is a hospital where abortions are performed. They believe that the thing to do is to change the membership of the board.

I don't know whether this is possible or not because, of course, the pro-abortionists are also going to pack the meeting, too. I am certainly going to attend the meeting just as an observer. I'm not going to take any position; I have to represent both sides. But what I want to know from the Minister is whether in the event that the anti-abortionists do manage to change the board and do manage to take over the board of the Vancouver General Hospital this can in any way affect the decision that the hospital is one of the areas where you can have an abortion and that it should continue to operate as such.

I know there has been some criticisms about how the abortions are done and the facilities that are available. Certainly these things need upgrading and changing. But whether the hospital itself should be permitted to refuse to do abortions is another question. I'd like the Minister to deal with what would happen if the anti-abortionists manage to take over the board of that hospital.

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

The other area that I want to talk about is the facilities at VGH for people who used to be referred to as "mentally ill' but who now would like themselves to be referred to as "mentally disordered" people. There have been a number of incidents.

Mr. Wasserman in his column in The Vancouver Sun on April 12 dealt with a letter which he received from the Mental Patients Association, which by some coincidence also happens to be in the riding of Burrard. One of the things that that letter pointed out was the severe lack of facilities. It says VGH has four side rooms and two trolleys to serve the psychiatric emergencies of the whole city. One night recently they tried to cope with 30 suicide attempts in that kind of limited facility.

Mental health and the whole kind of attitude towards mental health have gone through so many kinds of changes just within the last few years. We've seen the whole attitude that people who are mentally ill should not be locked up in hospitals, that we should close down Riverview. We should close down the big mental hospitals and return them to the community, and if possible, try and keep them in the community. Certainly this is the role of the community-based mental health teams; this is the what they are supposed to be trying to do. Certainly this is the position that the Mental Patients Association took when they were formed. And I was a part of the movement of the Mental Patients Association in their beginning stages.

But now we are beginning to see that there is a role for mental hospitals in the province, that there are some people who cannot be maintained in the community and must, for a period of time anyway, in terms of treating them, be in mental hospitals.

What are the Minister's plans for Riverview? Is the plan still to close down that hospital and to try and maintain all of the mentally disordered people in the community? If so, what is his position on the kinds of things coming out of community groups like the Mental Patients Association, who are themselves saying that the community-based health teams cannot cope. Because of some of their rules like geographical boundaries, for example, they cannot handle the transients, that number of people who move around and never seem to fit in to any of the boundaries, so they're not getting the kind of treatment they need from the mental health teams.

Is he going to make the boundaries more flexible? Is he going to say that the mental health teams should treat anyone who comes in and needs treatment? Is he going to somehow manage to upgrade the facilities at VGH so that the emergency department can deal with this job?

Again, in Mr. Wasserman's column, he brought out the case of the 20-year-old who ended up sleeping in doorways, kept moving around and never seemed to fit into any of the boundaries that were treated by any of the mental health teams. What are we going to do about these people?

The third area is the complaint that we hear from the doctors at Riverview — one of whom I know quite well — that as soon as the patients are in, the first thing they do is phone their lawyer and then there is a case about infringing on that patient's civil rights, and the hospital has to discharge the patient before the patient is really ready to be discharged. I would really like to hear the Minister speak in more

[ Page 1409 ]

detail about the kinds of plans he has for mental health facilities in the province.

I have one more request. It has nothing to do with my riding, but I received a phone call from one of the reporters of the Victoria Colonist, and she wanted to know what the Minister's plans were for Gillian Manor. Apparently this was a facility that was going to be an alcohol treatment centre — right? — and the people building it ran out of money. There is a question as to whether the Minister was approached by some of the residents of the North Saanich area to buy Gillian Manor and use it as an extended-care unit. What they'd like to know is: are there any plans? Has he been approached and has he made any decision about taking it over and using it as an extended-care hospital, or what other kind of plan does he have for it?

My very final question has to do with Mayne Island. Did I hear the Minister say that there was going to be a community health facility on Mayne Island? That's an ongoing request from the people of that island, most of whom are senior citizens, that they get better health facilities than they have at present. They've been operating with a part-time nurse, and whenever anyone gets sick, they have to be flown to Salt Spring Island. That just hasn't been good enough. I'm hoping that I did hear right when I thought I heard the Minister say that Mayne Island was going to get a community health facility. Thank you.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the last question first; in that way you get that answer right away. It's fresh in your mind and it's fresh in mine. Yes, we're building a small unit at Mayne Island. Also at Port Renfrew.

Gillian Manor. The answer to that is absolutely no, as far as I can see. Gillian Manor was not developed for an extended-care hospital. It was a very, very high priced alcoholic centre whose operating cost per day was going to be around $75. We looked at it and we felt that it cannot be operated even for $75 a day. It was a great idea, but it just went south, I'm afraid. So there's no point in us picking up a facility that really doesn't lend itself to any kind of an economic operating cost situation. So Gillian Manor, no.

The patient who gets out of Riverview too early to get treatment by virtue of the fact that some lawyer puts in an appeal: we've created an appeal procedure because we felt that it was necessary that these people do have access to due process. It's somewhat inconvenient and sometimes people are out who maybe shouldn't be, in the best sense, as far as the professionals are concerned.

They get out because of the fact that the appeal committee decides that they don't belong there. I can't answer for it other than to say that it was set up in order to give people that access to freedom that everybody deserves in a democratic society.

The plan for Riverview, I've always said, was to phase down, not out. Some day there will be decentralization to a far greater extent. But there are people who require that level of care that can only be provided there at the moment. So, as far as I'm concerned, it is phased down, not out.

Now I might suggest that when I took over the department I think the patient population of Riverview was somewhere between 2,200 and 2,400 patients. It's down now below 1,600. Maybe that's a little stiff. Maybe there should be some relaxation. It's very difficult to find that happy balance. But certainly, where at all possible, people should be kept close to their homes, kept close to their people, kept close to their communities.

I really can't comment on the abortion situation at VGH. I understand that there are people vying for positions on the board. Frankly, I think that it's an unfortunate situation that's developed there. That, whether we like it or not, is a general hospital in a city providing care to the total population. In that area, one of the levels of care that's required is abortion.

MS. BROWN: Can the new board change the...?

HON. MR. COCKE: I don't see how they could.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: For my part, I'd like to see it get out of the Criminal Code. I think it's terrible that it's in that particular area, but that's where it happens to rest at the moment, and there are committees and all the rest of it. I think enough said about that.

The medical research for breast cancer certainly has to be a priority. We feel that as much research as can be done will be done in British Columbia, but we also feel that the federal government should not pull in their horns in this area. We think that they've made a mistake, because probably one of the most responsible positions the federal government can take is that kind of co-ordinating and that kind of funding. After all, they don't play a direct role in many of the aspects of health care, but they do play a role in the funding and the financing. Therefore it's much to their good. And the population of Canada is their responsibility as well. It means that there isn't going to be a great deal of duplication.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister forgot to answer my question about the flexibility of the community health care boundaries.

HON. MR. COCKE: It's very difficult to talk in terms of flexibility of boundaries if, in fact, you're going to provide anybody with an obligation to do a

[ Page 1410 ]

responsible job within their own area. I think, however, that there are a great many people who are raising straw men around this issue. If a person finds himself in Vancouver and he's an adult psychotic, he will be cared for by the adult psychotic programme in Vancouver, unless unusual circumstances indicate that he shouldn't be, in my view. And if you have any specific problems, bring them to my office.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be recognized after so many attempts to get on my feet. I'm finding that most of my speech topic has been covered, because I was the Member who has carried this ball on diagnosis, and early diagnosis with all its problems, on breast cancer, and I wanted to speak on it. But I would like to go back before I do. I intend to because I'm not as happy with the Minister's actions as the other two Members are.

I would like to ask the Chair why we are having these peculiar problems in the House at this time. Earlier this afternoon the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was denied the right to have any cross-floor discussion with the Minister about the Member for Langley's question; and he was denied the right to even have a follow-up question of the Minister. Yet the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) first came into the House and was immediately recognized and hadn't been making an effort during the day to get on the floor. Secondly, she was afforded the privilege of a reply to the Minister's answers in the form of another question. All we're asking, Mr. Chairman, is fair treatment for all Members.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, prime time for the NDP leadership candidates. We suggest that the questions the Member asked were very simple and that they might well have been taken care of in caucus rather than using up from two to three to four to five to six.... We have four hours to debate the Minister of Health's estimates for the whole of the Province of British Columbia and for the whole of the year of 1975. It's an utterly disgraceful situation. It's a case where quite obviously this government and the Premier of this province are running scared — scared of the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we stick to vote 64, Madam Member...

MRS. JORDAN: He's scared of the democratic process.

I'm just responding to the Minister of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...responsibility to that Minister's office?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Health mentioned that when the former administration was in, the debate of estimates, 60 or 70 hours was all it ever took. He said that was the maximum time that had been taken to debate estimates in the history of this province.

I agree with him. I think that's very rational. But I would suggest to him that that's no excuse for forcing closure on this House — because the estimates today are taking longer. We all know, Mr. Member, that in those days (1) the opposition was obviously very lazy (which, I might add is being reflected in its attitude as government), and (2) the government was operated....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Member, I have to tell you the same as I told the previous Member — we are on the responsibilities of the Minister of Health. Would you stick to vote 64, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I am merely seeking the same privilege that the Minister had. I'm responding to his comments. I am just advising him that there were no secret deals in those days. There were no boards outside the control of government, and the Legislature not responsible to the people. There were no blue-eyed Arab deals that can't be made public to the people of British Columbia but are paid for with their tax dollars. It was an open government. Whether it was perfect or not is not a matter for discussion.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): On a point of order, I would be willing to either listen to a discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Health or else I would like to speak on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. I would urge the Member again to please stick to vote 64, the responsibilities of this Minister and his department.

MRS. JORDAN: Delightful to have the Minister of Housing on his feet. I wonder if he would be as willing to answer questions about his own department.

Mr. Minister, I listened with interest to your answer about the abortion situation at Vancouver General Hospital, and I must say, in one sense, your view is far more acceptable to this side of the House than that of the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), who seems to wish to practise the selective form of democracy. She seems to feel that the people who choose to champion the right of life should not have the same opportunity to exercise their voice and their democratic opinion as those who wish to have open and free abortion. That Member seems to stand

[ Page 1411 ]

for one thing one day and fall for something the next day. She talked about....

MS. BROWN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: There's no point of order.

MS. BROWN: The Member is imputing all kinds of motives to me.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, someone has to take up your speech, Lady Member, because you're getting the facts all wrong. She is imputing motives to me which I did not say. I did not say I was against life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that is a point of order. Will the Member continue her speech?

MRS. JORDAN: Regarding my charge that she believes in selective democracy, I would like to have my speaking time, limited though it is, and I would like the opportunity to speak for the people in this province who I represent, Madam, without rude and unfounded interruptions from you. If you want to run a leadership campaign, do it at your own expense and not the taxpayers' expense and do it on your own time and not the precious time in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to the vote, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I am not as happy with your accomplishments in the whole area of detection of breast cancer. I recognize as much as you do the serious imperfections there are in mammography and thermography and other areas that are being championed. But, Mr. Minister, it's worth repeating again and again and again that one in 15 women in Canada and British Columbia will develop breast cancer this year; one in 15 women in Canada will die of breast cancer this year. It is interesting to note that the incidence of breast cancer is higher in British Columbia than anywhere else this year. It is also interesting to note that along with a somewhat alarming evidence of increase in certain types of cancer in women, and I speak specifically of cancer of the cervix, there is also a strong indication to suggest that there is a growing incidence of cancer in younger women in the form of cancer of the breast.

I say that while you must with some caution in the terms of the type of unfounded hope you offer women, you mustn't allow women to become bogged down in a mire of hopelessness and walk through life with a veil of depression over their heads that there is futility in this disease. There is much evidence to suggest that some things can be done today to help women. I won't go through what has already been said about the various treatments and their shortcomings. But what I would point out, Mr. Minister, is that in all these discussions regarding mammography, thermography, radio-thermography, xeroradiography, which I have difficulty in pronouncing, one thing comes through paramount: in themselves they offer a certain element of success but they must be accompanied by a physical examination. Mrs. Rockefeller, who developed cancer of the breast, had just been through the most sophisticated, scientific diagnostic procedures for breast cancer and was declared clear of this disease, to the best of their knowledge. She found her own illness by self-examination at home.

Now, Mr. Minister, when I questioned you originally in this House — and it is recorded in Hansard — on your position in a province-wide programme for the early detection of breast cancer, I won't quote it because of time, but in essence you answered that when there was a majority opinion of agreement on the technical, scientific means, that money would be no object, and that you would support it and your government would implement it.

When I pointed out to you at the same time that we needed to accelerate and increase and reemphasize the whole programme of self-examination, you agreed with me.

We have two points of concern here. In the area of accelerating and renewing a vital interest in self examination, you have done nothing. This is not an expensive programme. This doesn't need a highly-trained, scientific professor from another country. All it needs is the word from you, Mr. Minister, to implement it. I implore you, for the sake of some hope for younger women and older women, to get on with an updated and massive programme, not shrouded in fear, but shrouded in intelligence and hope and responsibility of education for self-examination in this province.

Put it into the high schools at the senior level. Put it into our colleges. Put it into our universities. Make it available through every doctor's office for just that reason. Encourage women to go to their doctor's office and learn. Mr. Minister, insist that every physician take a refresher course in bow to teach a patient to do self-examination. Many physicians know but don't practice it or forget to encourage it, or maybe just really don't remember how to do it.

Mr. Minister, it isn't going to cost you a lot of money. It isn't the be-all and the end-all, but it is consistently proving one of the more reliable ways for early detection. It is a backup way of detection for the more sophisticated programme. It is something that every woman can learn to do if it is approached in the proper way. If you wish, teach, teach husbands how to examine their wives. It would be a very good thing.

[ Page 1412 ]

The other point that disturbs me when I listen to your discussion on estimates, Mr. Minister, and again I am referring to our previous discussions in this House on detection methods for breast cancer, was that you said "when there is consensus of agreement" you would support it. Then, at the same time that you were telling me this, you had already met with the committee of B.C. medical people and your own committee that suggested that we should embark on this type of programme. You went to cabinet and said to them at the time (and this is just around the time you're telling me the other answer) that there doesn't seem to be enough public support for it.

When you did finally take the programme as suggested to cabinet, your colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), all these humane Ministers, and the Premier of this province, who likes to be noted for his humanistic approach, he says, turned it down because there wasn't enough public clamour for it.

Are you telling us, Mr. Minister, is your cabinet telling us, are your colleagues telling us that in the area of medicine, you will move only when there is public clamour? Would there be the thousands of diabetics walking around alive and enjoying a normal life today if Best and the government behind him had waited for a public clamour for insulin? Would there be the decrease in cancer of the cervix that there was if the former government had waited for a public clamour to implement a pap smear programme?

HON. MR. COCKE: There's no decrease in cancer of the cervix. You know that.

MRS. JORDAN: There was a decrease in deaths after the pap smear programme came in because of early detection. Are you questioning that?

HON. MR. COCKE: No. I just...

MRS. JORDAN: Well, perhaps I phrased it wrong. I certainly stand corrected if I did.

My point is that British Columbia, for all its frailties in research in cancer, and I believe they are there, still led in Canada in many areas in its treatment for cancer and in its approach to early detection. It is falling behind. It will fall behind more and more, Mr. Minister, if we have to wait for a public clamour. So I urge you to accede to my wishes and go into just a simple programme of education in self examination.

When you are moving, you have got three years, almost, before you are going to get your scientific programme in the 25 hospitals that you committed. Then, Mr. Minister, start with a mobile unit as well and have that mobile unit not just by appointment and not just for women in the so-called crucial age.

Do what they used to do with the TB unit and send it out community by community, advertise that it will be there, and park it in neighbourhoods as they did with the TB unit, and allow women to go through.

This wouldn't be a highly difficult programme to organize and it would, Mr. Minister, have the beginnings of figures and statistics upon which they could follow up at the cancer institute.

I would suggest, with all due respect, one of the problems that I would be concerned about in the cancer institute. Is that they haven't always followed through on programmes that they've embarked on in research. Breast cancer is one. They started a programme in the B.C. Cancer Institute in the 1950s — in fact, it may have been earlier. I myself was a participant, and I've never heard from them since. Yet the idea was that all those women — and they started with student nurses in British Columbia — were to participate as a beginning and there was to be a follow-up over the years as to how many developed breast cancer and why. There you would have got into some of the areas of the types of women that do. Again, it wouldn't have been the whole thing, but we'd have more figures and more groundwork than we have now.

In the whole area of research, which I don't intend to go into deeply because there are others much better qualified than myself, I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that there is a golden opportunity right here in British Columbia for you to take an active interest with a possible view to a more effective treatment of cancer of the breast, and that is with the programme called TRIUMF at the University of British Columbia.

I don't intend to go into great detail because I'm not a scientist, but for those who don't know, the TRIUMF cyclotron is the basis of the facility known as a meson factory, the intense beam produced by the cyclotron — about a thousand times more intense than that of any existing facility anywhere — will be used primarily to produce secondary particles called mesons. They and their offshoots, Mr. Minister, among many useful functions in our life, are looked to as being a far more intense, a far safer and a far more effective form of treatment for certain malignancies and certain malignant tumours. This unit is really the first of its kind, at this stage of development, in the world. It's a combination of efforts by all the universities in British Columbia and other bodies. It's functioned by the federal government through a contribution, and it has made marvelous advances.

I think it's at the point now, Mr. Minister, where, in this whole area of cancer treatment, a direct interest by the provincial government in the form of some funds and, in this particular instance for breast cancer, might have some remarkable results and might complement a programme that we would like to see

[ Page 1413 ]

develop in British Columbia. I would urge you to consider this on the basis of a grant specifically from your own department.

I'd like to follow up a subject I covered in question period about senior citizens and the rake-off that's being done at their expense by ICBC, and plead again for a simple matter of allowing their physical examinations to have their driver's licences renewed brought under B.C. Medical care. You know, they have to have an exam at 65 — it's compulsory; one again at 70; one at 75; but if their medical record is questionable at all, then they're subject to call at any time.

Mr. Minister, it's a minimum of $10 — and in many areas it's considerably more — and the senior citizens today are facing very high costs for gas, very high costs for the cost of living, higher taxes. They're in a position, really, where most of them, even though they have a little home and a car, find that this is an added cost, plus the fact — as you know I've mentioned — that they pay exactly the same rate as anybody else for their auto insurance but they don't get the same benefits. Now surely, if they have to pay the same rate for auto insurance and they don't get the same benefits — because their pensions are deducted from the benefits — as anyone else, they should be entitled to have their physical exams, which are required by the government and required by ICBC, to be covered by medical insurance.

As it is now, Mr. Minister, either the doctors are subsidizing them and doing it for nothing, or there are dishonest statements attributed to the examination and it's charged dishonestly to the insurance plan, or the people are just too proud and pay it anyway and perhaps do without other things. It wouldn't cost very much, Mr. Minister, because there are not that many who qualify. I would urge you to do it.

I'd like to speak about a couple of local matters, as far as the constituency of North Okanagan is concerned, and I'll very simply ask you again, Mr. Minister: when are we going to break ground on Riverview Hospital? There is an urgent need for the expansion of this service, and I'm not even suggesting that you tear the old one down yet, but please, Mr. Minister, the plans are in your department. I understand that the design is there. This is a facility for elderly people who are wandering mentally and yet still have a capability to enjoy certain aspects of life. They're jammed in there, literally, from door to door. I'm not sure we have them in the cupboards, but we certainly have them in the hallways, and we have a backlog all over the province, as you know, Mr. Minister, of people who should be in hospitals like Dellview....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Twenty years back.

MRS. JORDAN: ...or in fact any care areas, and are staying in private nursing homes where there are not adequate facilities.

Then the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) again had to get his two-bits worth in. I wish he was as good at answering questions about his portfolio as he is at making comments. But, Mr. Minister, the former administration had the same problems as you in intermediate care, but they were embarked on a programme of personal-care homes in this province, and I wonder why you cut it off. Why don't we continue with that programme so that we can alleviate this tremendous backlog of really improper treatment and placement of patients who need hospital care and who are having their life resources bled from them because of the cost of that hospital care?

Mr. Minister, there is land around Dellview; the government owns it. It could form part of the regional college teaching programme. They are going to have a nursing programme, RN, at the Okanagan Regional College, headquartered in Kelowna. This expansion of Dellview on the campus in Vernon could complement the educational programme as well as serve a very useful need in the province.

You have before you, and I read it to you several times in the House.... Are you listening, Mr. Minister? I wish the Premier and the Minister could meet in caucus also so we could have the Minister's attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it would be more proper if you addressed the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Four hours to discuss the Minister's estimates for the whole of the health care in British Columbia for a year, and he's busy talking to his friend — I assume he's a friend. Shocking!

Mr. Minister, you have briefs which I have read to you in this House, which we have discussed and which have proposed very realistic well-thought-out programmes for rehabilitation and therapy combined with the expansion of Dellview. I would urge you to advise us that this is one of your major priorities this year, and that we will get on with it.

I would like confirmation from you that we will be breaking ground on the Lumby Community Resource Centre this spring. We are all ready; everyone has his shovel sharpened. I would like to say that we appreciate the cooperation that has been given this project by the various departments, and even some of the Ministers, including the Minister of Health. We assure you in return that this is a very worthy project for a community that needs it, and one from which the people will benefit a great deal.

I'd like to ask the Minister his decision. I have a letter on the way to his office regarding the North Okanagan Health Unit and our need for a nutritionist

[ Page 1414 ]

and a speech therapist. This has always been a very responsible, conscientious and aggressive health unit. Through Dr. Smart and his staff, and the very fine people who serve on the board, we have embarked on a number of innovative programmes on behalf of the province at our own initiative.

I personally appreciate the problems of getting speech therapists, and I am sure it is the same for audiologists. But, Mr. Minister, we would like to be assured that the money is available for the equipment for these people and for the salaried positions. If your department can't supply them, then if we can recruit them on their own, if we could have your blessing, I think this would go a long way towards helping the situation.

I recognize there are reasons why people go to different areas of the province to practice, and I would rather emphasize that if we could have the money, if we could have the salaried positions and the equipment, and if we could have the cooperation of the department, we will put on a massive programme to see if we can't fill these positions and meet the needs of our area.

I have many other things I would like to discuss, but I would like some answers on these, and therefore I will defer to the Minister.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in listening to the different approaches to the whole question of early detection of breast cancer. There is no question about the fact that self-examination and a self-examination programme would be in order, but it would be only in order if it were developed by the B.C. cancer group that will take responsibility for all cancer programmes in the province — that would be our early detection, also research and giving leadership and therapy.

The fact of the matter is that there is now a direction around this whole question. Don't start indicating that we've got our wheels in reverse. We've got people working in that area now who...

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, let me get to that. We've got people working there now who are really turned on to the whole question of developing ways and means of avoiding the kind of mortality that we are at present enjoying in this area. It was indicated by the Member....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's proper grammar, incidentally.

It was indicated by the Member that the cabinet — the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), the Minister of this and the Minister of that and the Premier — turned down the screening programme.

MRS. JORDAN: Your own words.

HON. MR. COCKE: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the cabinet had a discussion about this. They considered if there would be the kind of cooperation not only from those that are presenting the service but from the public. That sort of thing has to be ascertained.

Do you know what's happened meanwhile? There's a great controversy grown, a great controversy about whether or not this is the right way to go. So what did we do? We responded with $1.5 million worth of equipment for cancer screening, for early detection, to be placed in the hospitals — 26 hospitals, including yours, Madam Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, good! I wanted to know if we were getting one.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of response, I think, where action speaks louder than words. When does it start?

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: My cabinet said no such thing. Mr. Chairman, they said: "Let's study this thing and get up a programme." That's what we're doing now — $1.5 million dollars worth. When does it start? The first unit is to be delivered in three months; five units a month thereafter.

MRS. JORDAN: Good.

HON. MR. COCKE: In other words, now — action. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, that's what the people have expected from this government and that's what they've got. They rightly deserve it.

Mr. Chairman, the Member also spoke of TRIUMF. We outguessed her or we outfoxed her or we out something. We've now been responsible for securing a fairly significant grant for TRIUMF under the....

MRS. JORDAN: From your own treasury?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. So much has been set aside from the federal government on the old health resources funds. It's being treated as a project of national significance and therefore we'll be getting a substantial grant.

MRS. JORDAN: How much provincial money?

[ Page 1415 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, it's had a lot of provincial money over the years, as you well know — practically none.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: It's a matter that's out at the university. The Health department knows perfectly well that the TRIUMF is going along well, particularly in view of the fact that they are getting a recent grant. There are other areas that we feel are equally, if not more, important, particularly in the area of developing a cancer service.

Mr. Chairman, the TRIUMF is one of three — one in Switzerland, one in the United States and one here. It's well along the way and we hope that it delivers the way the Member hopes.

As far as ICBC having anything to do with people requiring a medical examination for a driver's licence, I can't understand that situation. Always there's been a department and they've always been required — it's the motor-vehicle branch that requires that a person over a certain age should be examined. We are, Madam Member, looking into this whole question.

MRS. JORDAN: You were looking into it last year.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. One of our problems has been that there are other priorities. This one we would like to resolve around a number of areas where people require physical exams.

Mr. Chairman, the senior citizens of this province never had it as good as they have it now because they have a government that cares. What about Pharmacare? What about Mincome and all the rest of it? ICBC has nothing to do with this situation at all. How you can sort of convolute and get around and make some remark about ICBC...? Look, ICBC happens to be a very popular thing, so you'd better quit knocking it.

MRS. JORDAN: It's ripping off the senior citizens.

HON. MR. COCKE: It's ripping off no one.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, it is.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'll go on with the Lumby situation that is going ahead, as you well know. Dellview is a matter of great concern, and one of our great concerns there is how to treat these particular kind of patients. Should they be treated as extended care, intermediate care or should they be treated as they have been treated traditionally as psycho-geriatrics? That's one of the great problems.

Right now our first experiment is at Skeenaview; then we're moving into Dellview. I can't tell you exactly when.

MRS. JORDAN: Weren't they starting that in 1970? That was the one where the only....

HON. MR. COCKE: Nothing happened in any event until last year.

As far as the health unit — Dr. Smart's unit up there — I understand he has a need for more staff. But then on the other hand the opposition keeps telling us we're hiring too many staff. We just don't know whether to believe you or your leader or whatever. The fact of the matter is that we have providing a great many more health units....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Member knows, if she has done any work on this at all, that one of the greatest problems in this whole area is the lack of availability of manpower. That is precisely it.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that that answers some of the questions the Member wanted.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, last year when I spoke in this debate, I congratulated the Minister. My opening words were to congratulate him for the way he handled estimates, and I'd like to say it again, It's a refreshing approach and we appreciate the fact that he listens to questions and makes a real attempt to answer them. I said that last year, and I repeat it again. It is very nice to see a Minister who makes an effort to deal with the questions that come to him in the estimates debate, or indeed, at other times.

Before the Minister gets too swollen-headed, I will say that when he is acting as Minister of defence, sometimes he forgets this great approach of his. I would just urge him to be consistent.

But, I think, Mr. Chairman, that a word is in order to about the change. When I looked back at the debates last year in the estimates, and I looked at the way that Hon. Members used to pop up and down and ask one-sentence questions and get one- or two-sentence responses from the Minister, it's a very interesting area. The Minister was well briefed. When I look at the way we did it last year, compared to the 30-minute speech which seems to be required this year under this new rule system, I am a little unhappy, because the Minister's great performance of last year is not as good. At least, it was much better than it is this year. And it's not his fault that he's going down. The fault is the system.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) last year got up time after time. I didn't count them. I

[ Page 1416 ]

thought of doing that, but they were just innumerable times he got up for individual questions. This year he told me before he got up that he was going to speak for half an hour, because that's what he had and that's what he'd have to take, and, of course, he's only been on his feet once.

What a different system! Even the Minister himself is not as able to perform as well as he did under the new system, as he did last year. There's no question that the Minister is doing his best under this system by getting to his feet frequently, but he's not able to do as well as he did. Certainly, though, he's much better than other Ministers, and I think particularly of yesterday, which led to a lot of unhappiness. He's lots better than that. I hope that he'll try and give a little seminar for his colleagues, telling them how effective one can be if one tries to be reasonable.

I was disappointed, for example, in the Second Member for Burrard (Ms. Brown). When she asked her questions, she had the same attitude: "My goodness, I'd better get them in." And the Minister in his response answered one of them saying: "I'd better answer this one first when it's fresh in my mind " — "fresh in your mind and fresh in mine" were his words. In the old days we didn't have that worry. As soon as the question was asked you could get it answered. If you had a follow-up or another subject, you could pop up again. Now we have to answer questions before they're forgotten. It's a very poor system.

Cross-floor questioning by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) last year was effective; this year it's cut out. Mr. Chairman, it's a real pity that I can't just get up and ask one or two questions, sit down, get recognized again because you're not going to do that. You and your other Chairmen have made it perfectly clear that once you get to your feet you had better say your piece, because that's that on any particular Minister. What we've done is convert a back-and-forward exchange, a reasonable exchange, a search for information on a question-by-question period, into essentially a series of 30-minute speeches which are on a specific Minister's estimates, or a specific topic, but essentially are budget-type speeches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think this comes within the responsibilities of this Minister or vote 64, Mr. Member. Could you return to vote 64 and this Minister's responsibilities?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The effectiveness and the Minister's ability to respond so well as he did last year has been impaired. I think I should point it out to him. The Attorney-General, the Minister of Justice...or is that the Minister of Justice? I don't know. Anyway, the Attorney-General's ability to answer in the same way has been impaired. We just are not getting the same type of approach as we had.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): You don't have to make 30-minute speeches.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, you don't, but Mr. Attorney-General, I did not make.... That's an interesting point. The Attorney-General pipes up, out of turn as usual, and says: "You don't have to make 30-minute speeches." But I did not in the Minister of Education's estimates. So what did she do to me? She attacked me viciously — and if you like, I'll read the Hansard quotes to you — stating that I'd used up my time in discussing only one thing, that I wouldn't get another chance to speak, and therefore I had to say it all at once of get nothing. That was the approach she took. Look at Hansard, Mr. Attorney-General. You've really shown exactly the problem I was dealing with yesterday with the Minister of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I wish you'd use your time on the Minister of Health's office and responsibilities.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well I will swing to that right now, because you're perfectly right, Mr. Chairman: we're on the Minister of Health's estimates. The Premier will get a letter from me dealing with suggestions as to how to improve the system. He asked for it yesterday and it's in the mail. Oh, sorry, I haven't signed it yet. When I finish this I'll sign it and get it in the mail to you. But we think this system is perfectly rotten and it's about time it was changed, because it's ruining the whole concept of estimates.

Mr. Chairman, the subject of chronic care was touched on by the Minister. Last year he mentioned this. Last year he stated — this is a quote from the Minister of Health — "The Premier has said that this chronic care is the priority in this department." He then went on to talk about home-care back-up. Well, if that was the priority this year, really I don't see very much come forward in the Minister's statements so far this year.

I know this is an old story to the Minister. He has heard it from me before; he has heard it from other people. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister, there are probably more people affected by the failure of your department and the government in the area of chronic care in my riding than that of any other Member. I probably see more of the problem cases as an MLA than any other Member does. It is a matter of deep concern.

The Minister made some statements. He talked about the $19 million which is essentially welfare money, and he knows it. It is a system we have now whereby they use up their assets and then, of course, once they are on welfare maybe they can even stay in

[ Page 1417 ]

the same institution, but they move down from the room they were in to the hall or wherever, or down the hall to where beds are a little more crowded and they become welfare cases.

I know you've heard it before and I know you're sympathetic, but, really, we are going to have to keep telling you until we get action. The problem is that the people who are in this situation are really scared by the tremendous loss of funds this involves. Up to $600 a month is not unusual.

A person who has saved a little bit of money, put a little bit of money aside, who is trying to be independent, who knows he is getting on in age but is trying hard to remain a useful, working member of society, or is trying to at least preserve his self respect, suddenly finds that there is this enormous hemorrhage of cash. He loses a tremendous amount of his assets. He has to start selling things. He has to get rid of some of the things that may have been dear to him over his life. He has to move out of his house, or whatever. These persons are faced with this and they are very fearful of this.

Senior citizens, like other citizens in society, tend not to want to go on welfare. I am not one who is willing to believe that everyone is willing to leap on a gravy train of welfare. I am not one who believes that. I think senior citizens, like the rest of us, don't want to go on welfare. Welfare is for people who really need help. They don't feel that they do. But they find that when they get into that situation of going into chronic care, suddenly they are going to lose all their assets and they are going to wind up on welfare, It is a fear problem.

I mention the fear problem because, Mr. Minister of Health, we really have a two-fold problem here. One is the problem of the people in the institutions, in the hospitals. There may be 6,000 people of this nature in B.C. I don't know exactly how many, but there is not an enormous number.

But the fact is that there are tens of thousands of others who face the possibility of winding up in that situation and some of them are, literally, terrified of it. The Minister knows this, I know, because we both have constituents who face that problem. They pay as long as they can and then they become welfare cases.

What happens is that some of the doctors who have these patients tend to slip them into acute-care beds which they don't really deserve or shouldn't be in. I am not telling any tales out of school when I say that the hospitals in Victoria probably have 60 beds occupied by people who should not be there but who should be in chronic-care hospitals during the winter months. Sixty are probably slipped in there during the winter months. Sure they are sick; they are not healthy people. But they are slipped in there because the doctor is able to get them in. They are borderline cases. He knows they should probably go to chronic care, but they go to acute instead. The Minister is quite capable of telling me the enormous difference in cost between keeping these people in acute-care beds as opposed to chronic-care.

The other problem, as the Minister knows, is the failure to get into a chronic-care institution at a time when they should. They hold off, hold off, hold off. That is wrong too. If they need it, they should be there. They shouldn't be holding off simply because of the potential financial burden.

I stressed this before; I stress it again. The Minister has talked about $19 million. I think I am quoting him correctly — he said: "I hope we will be able to produce something." He talked about a "system not so rigid that it wrecks the family situations." I think that again is a quote. He admits there is a problem by saying that nobody in a government institution will be paying more than $10. But, really and truly, the problem has not been dealt with.

It's fine to throw phrases such as these forward, but the real problem and the Minister knows it, is that we have no system in British Columbia similar to that in Alberta which allows the individual patient to go to a chronic-care institution which may be run by a fraternal organization, by a service organization, by a government — be it municipal or provincial or, indeed, in Alberta there is one that is federal — and get subsidized a large amount of the daily rate. I am guessing when I say I think it is $5 to $7 per day in Alberta that the person would be paying on the average, because the bulk of the daily rate is subsidized by the government.

I fail to see why, except for cost reasons, this system is not adopted here. If it is a cost problem, I am surprised because I took the Minister entirely at his word last year when he said that this was the priority in his department. It may be the priority, but really, he has reported nothing more than he did last year except the addition of certain hospitals and the slight expansion of the government programme, but in terms of dealing with the root problem, nothing at all.

I most strongly urge the Minister to come forward with some scheme. I would strongly recommend the Alberta scheme. It may have problems but it is better than what we have got here now, so let's bring it in.

I wish to quickly go through the argument I heard last year, not so much this year, about the government not wanting any profit in the health delivery field. Fair enough to wipe out profit in the health delivery field in the hospital sense. But when you're not offering something to replace the loss of chronic-care beds, which is the situation at the present time, Mr. Minister, why don't you make some alteration in your policy so that you can at least help people who need help? The problem is just as bad as it ever was and I think you're aware of this. I just don't understand why you can't either come up with a scheme of your own or admit that you can't and

[ Page 1418 ]

adopt a scheme from another province. It's perfectly simple to do.

Let me give full credit to the previous government of Alberta which introduced their scheme. It did it. It's no scheme that I've thought up on my own, but it's one that makes sense and let's do it.

To close on that subject I would like to just quote to the Minister a letter, a copy of which I received from a constituent in Vancouver. This constituent said.... I'm sorry, this non-constituent resident of Vancouver said:

"Dear Mr. Cocke:

"I write to you in severe disappointment after listening to Premier Barrett's presentation of the budget. For years while the NDP was in opposition in the Legislature I listened to your Members attack the Social Credit government for its failure to provide chronic care for our elderly citizens. Now, two and one half years later, I must accept that this matter is really very low on your priorities list.

"There are approximately 6,000 patients in chronic care in the province. At present rates, the cost of this care would be about $35 million. It seems incredible to me that in a year when the government is anticipating $700 million in extra revenues it cannot find the funds (less than 5 per cent of the extra revenue) to provide chronic care for these in need of it.

"I understand that the average stay of patients in acute-care hospitals is from five to six days, for which they pay $1 per day. I would suggest to you that few of our senior citizens can afford a rate between $500 and $600 a month, month in and month out, often for years. Even those who in their industry and pride saved all their lives to provide for independence in their old age are soon reduced to poverty at these rates. Yet until they are reduced to going on welfare they receive no help.

"A government which does nothing to support these, the most helpless people in our society, does not merit support from the citizens of this province."

Well, there's a plea from a lady who I think expresses more eloquently than I can the problem faced by people in that situation. Really, Mr. Minister despite your statements of last year that this is the priority in this department, quoting allegedly the Premier, nothing has been done to really change the situation, and your statements today admitted it. Let me turn from that subject, Mr. Chairman, to one other which is important: the dental survey referred to by the Minister on a number of occasions. I wonder whether he has information to give us about the requirements in British Columbia in terms of new dentists. How many more do we need to bring us up to some reasonable level, some average which is considered acceptable? I wonder if he would also add in discussing the dental problem the cost of denticare in terms not only of dollars but in terms of personnel. How many dentists do we really need? The Minister last year mentioned that there were only two dentists in Prince Rupert. If that is the case, is it feasible to have a denticare programme for those under 16? Will we have to import or hire new dentists? What will be doing to flesh out the professionals in the field and the paradental personnel who presumably will be doing a great deal about this?

I see that the time is running on. I've got one last subject, which is the Minister's efforts with respect to dealing with the Department of Education on the subject of venereal disease. He stated last year that he would be doing a major amount of work, introducing a major campaign of education. I wonder what he can report in this area as to whether it has led to any substantial declines, whether indeed it has led to declines in certain age groups where the problem is most acute — namely, of course, people under the age of 21 and sometimes under the age of 18. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate what progress has been made with his educational and other programmes to combat venereal disease or whether it is still a major problem area.

Mr. Chairman, I've got plenty of time left in that half hour. I took much less, but it's probably my last chance to speak in this debate. Let me just finish by saying what a pleasure it is to have a Minister who does answer a few questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I wish the opposition would let me off the hook in this regard. Can they imagine the hornet's nest that they're developing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right! You tell him that he's answering questions; I want to know how come he's being treated with favour.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, first I'm going to deal with the VD situation. In 1974 I reported that there had been an increase of around — I forget now — 13 to 20 per cent, somewhere in there. And we said that it was escalating at a rate that was quite unacceptable. This year, for the first time in the last five years, the rate is reduced to only an increase of 4 per cent. Now we think that that's partly because of the fact that we've really got an ongoing dialogue with the doctors. They've taken part in the seminars. And there has been a promotion around this particular area.

I would like to congratulate the home-and-school people — you know, the old PTA, who are now the

[ Page 1419 ]

home-and-school. They have been promoting the Department of Health booklet — the one we published that was put together by a group of students a year or two ago — "Rhythm and Blues," and the home-and-school people are pushing that publication into many of the schools in the province, or certainly into the hands of students, which is good.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you having a problem reporting?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, we are having.... Not too much. Reporting has improved, but it is still not what we would like it to be. The big problem we have, I think, is the whole question of school boards who have their heads in the sand around the questions of sex education or any information with respect to anything around sex education. So, you know, they just say nix to any new and innovative programmes, and in that way protect their children forever from good advice. That's unfortunate.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of our dental survey, which was a pretty comprehensive study, the indications are that too many dentists are needed — far, far too many — to carry out any denticare programme.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, it is something in the order of another 1,200 that would be needed — and could they be regionally placed? We only have 1,200 to begin with. So we are looking at alternatives, together with the College of Dental Surgeons.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Fluoridation?

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, well, that is something that I think this province has decided over and over and over again. Since Ralph Nader we have done some samplings. Since Nader came out on the other side of the issue, it is very bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very bad?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that your policy?

HON. MR. COCKE: Nader took the position that it's a human rights thing.

Anyway, getting back to the area of chronic care, Mr. Chairman, we know what that situation in the province is. It is not an area that you can just very quickly move in on and satisfy the need. Right here in my hand — I had to laugh .... It is just unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is out of the House. But in my hand I have a booklet. I asked the department, after reading in the paper about the lack of facilities that are being developed under this new government, and how they used to develop facilities....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Unfortunately for that good Member, you know, he is so far off track it is not funny. There is $194 million in projects right there, and that is not including any of the BCMC projects. That's $194 million in approved projects of hospital-building in this province.

Mr. Chairman, so much of that is still chronic care; Abbotsford, 75 beds extended care; Burnaby, 147 beds extended care; Campbell River, 25 beds extended care. I'm not talking about acute care.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, this is extended care only. The chronic-care system was supposed to have been put to bed by the former government. But we are still working to try to catch up where they left off, and they left off nowheresville, obviously, because they started that programme in 1967 or 1966.

Chilliwack, 77 beds extended care; Comox, 45 beds extended care; Coquitlam, 150 beds extended care; Cumberland, 50 beds intermediate care.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: In any event, Mr. Chairman, there are a book-full of projects, a book-full of programmes, to the tune of $194 million, and I would suggest to you that that's a programme that is moving, and, Mr. Chairman, a government....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Don't make remarks over there. You were in power for 20 years, and we wondered when something would happen. Now it is beginning to happen in the health care field. Ask those people involved in the delivery of health care if that isn't the case.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, time certainly won't permit my.....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not, because it is only 5:58 p.m., and I can hardly do it.

Time won't permit me lengthy questioning, a lengthy investigation, of the management of this portfolio. However, there is just one brief point I do

[ Page 1420 ]

want to raise. It has to do with a letter I received from the administrator of the Queen Victoria Hospital in Revelstoke.

I had written a letter to the Minister on February 27 for which I haven't even received acknowledgement. It has to do with the psychiatric facilities for that community and adjoining communities. I'll just read three of the paragraphs from the letter — it's a fairly lengthy letter so I won't read the whole thing — from the administrator of the hospital in Revelstoke. He says — and there was a petition attached by many concerned citizens in the Revelstoke area:

"As a matter of interest, and perhaps background, a team of mental health workers stationed in Vernon provided travelling and consulting services to our community. Due to budget restrictions and/or caseload, these professionals advised us that as of the middle of February, they would no longer travel to the community."

No longer would they come to Revelstoke.

HON. MR. COCKE: I already answered that question. We've advised them that they are going to travel.

MRS. JORDAN: Do they get paid or not?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, they get paid.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I posed the question because I wrote a letter to the Minister on February 27 and I haven't received a reply from the Minister. There's concern in the community. There's concern in Golden as well, regarding travelling to Vernon, 165 miles away. There's a further revealing thing, and one of the reasons why there seems to be some problems here. In one of the paragraphs, it says:

"On another side of this issue, our medical staff had submitted to Dr. Tucker approximately a year and a half ago a proposal whereby community psychiatric nurse counseling would be available to the community attached to the medical clinic but available for both out- and in-patient service as well as covering the community in the areas such as the high school, et cetera. Dr. Tucker approved this matter in principle. There it did stay.

"On our own, and based upon some pressure received from public meetings in the community, the hospital took up the situation, approached Dr. Tucker again, and he advised that this was not to be his responsibility under a new re-organized programme, and to await developments. In turn, we awaited the announcement and found out that a Dr. Elliott was in charge of this type of community programme and, in speaking with Dr. Larson on the telephone, he advised us to resubmit our material and go from there.

"Frankly, after a year and a half of waiting for something to do, we are somewhat hesitant to take up the matter again. However, it has been decided that we will approach it through the submission of our estimates for the year 1975. We will make a special appeal or ask that budgetary moneys be made available to the hospital and in turn we will achieve the end result which is community psychiatric nurse availability. Counseling is the prime concern — that it is community-controlled and attached to the medical clinic where, indeed, the majority of contacts are made."

Now I'm wondering if the Minister could tell me just what the situation is there in view of the fact that I haven't received a reply to my letter of February 27 as to whether these services are still available as before, and whether there has been a necessity on the part of students in Golden to travel 165 miles to Vernon because of the fact that there are no dollars left. I'm wondering if there's going to be a resumption of this lack of financial support for these services in the northern part of my constituency. We've experienced the problems in the southern part of my constituency as well, from the services provided from Cranbrook.

HON. MR. COCKE: The services have been restored, not to the same extent, possibly, because of the hours that are available to these people. They negotiated a reduction in hours, but we will build them up to the same service, and more so, as soon as we possibly can.

As far as the person working in medical doctors' offices, we like the idea. The only problem is, it's very difficult to tie a government-paid person to an entrepreneur. That's where the difficulty has always been in the whole question of this health-care thing. It's something that I'm informed is being endeavoured and we'll certainly hope to get it in there.

MR. CHABOT: Do you intend establishing an office in Revelstoke for the provision of services in the adjoining communities, such as Mica Creek, Golden and Sicamous, and south of Revelstoke as well?

HON. MR. COCKE: We intend to expand the services to Revelstoke, yes.

MR. CHABOT: Do you intend establishing an office for mental health services out of Revelstoke?

HON. MR. COCKE: Off the top of my head, I'm not going to tell you what we're going to be doing the

[ Page 1421 ]

day after tomorrow. What I am saying is that we're going to be providing the service somehow or another.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you must know. You've got dollars in your estimates.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Presenting reports,

Hon. Mr. Levi presented the 1974 annual report of the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Nicolson files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

APPENDIX

4 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With reference to the Home-acquisition Grant—

1. What is the total number of grants made under the Act since its coming into force?

2. What is the total amount of money granted under the Act since its inception?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. As of February 1, 1975, the number of grants made were 104,942 and the number of mortgages issued were 61,059, for a total of 166,001 grants and mortgages.

"2. As of February 1, 1975, the amount of money granted under the Act for grants was $65,200,000 and for mortgages was $225,400,000, for a total of $290,600,000."

5 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. Have any British Columbia parity bonds been taken into Provincial accounts since September 15, 1972?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, what is the total amount of parity bonds held in Provincial accounts as of February 18, 1975?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. $23,141,000."

6 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. Were any bond issues authorized by the Government in 1974 for school construction and, if so, in what total amount?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what was the total amount of those bonds floated, (b) when were they issued, (c) what was the amount of each issue, and (d) what was the interest rate of each issue?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. Yes, $61,815,000.

"2. (a) $61,815,000; (b), (c), and (d) February 8, 1974, $9,487,000, 7.53 per cent; April 10, 1974, $10,197,000, 7.61 per cent; May 9, 1974, $10,000,000,

[ Page 1422 ]

8.01. per cent; May 10, 1974, $4,469,000, 8.01 per cent; June 4, 1974, $7,124,000, 8.45 per cent; August 8, 1974, $10,000,000, 9.05 per cent; December 9, 1974, $10,000,000, 9.07 per cent; December 10, 1974, $538,000, 9.07 per cent; total amount, $61,815,000."

7 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

"1. With respect to any pension funds under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, what are the shareholdings, if any, in each pension account up to February 18, 1975?

"2. For what price was each share held purchased?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. (a) Bank of British Columbia common, 51,055 shares; (b) British Columbia Telephone common, 200,391 shares; (c) Canadian Pacific common, 1,200 shares; (d) Imperial Oil common, 300 shares; (e) International Nickel common, 450 shares; and (f) United Accumulative Fund, 36 shares.

"2. (a) Bank of British Columbia common, see Schedule A; (b) British Columbia Telephone common, see Schedule B; (c) Canadian Pacific common, $16.50; (d) Imperial Oil common, $42.37; (e) International Nickel common, $31.87; and United Accumulative Fund, $5.12."

[ Page 1423 ]

"Schedule A — Bank of B.C. Shares

[ Page 1424 ]

Schedule B-Details of B.C. Telephone Stock (Since September 1, 1972)

[ Page 1425 ]

[ Page 1426 ]

¹ Warrants.

8 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister: of Finance the following questions:

With respect to the Succession Duty Act—

1. What were the monthly collections during 1974?

2. What number of estates were involved?

3. What number of estates were valued below $100,000?

4. What. number of estates were valued between $200,000 and $500,000?

5. What number of estates were valued between $500,000 and $1,000,000?

6. What number of estates were valued over $1,000,000?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. Net monthly collections were: January, $1,755,805.60; February, $1,956,501.99; March, $1,076,614.59; April, $1,576,914.73; May, $3,411,580.55; June, $1,940,674.23; July, $1,629,570.38; August, $2,212,369.50; September, $2,783,255.90; October, $2,133,501.69; November, $1,548,315.82; December, $2,232,742.03; total $24,257,847.01.

"2. 13,926.

"3, 4, 5, and 6. Detailed statistical information not maintained."

10 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

With respect to the Provincial Home-owner Grant, what was the aggregate of grants paid to each municipality by the Provincial Government in 1974?

"The Hon. David Barrett stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return up to date.

"Home-owner Grants paid for 1974 (summary): Cities, $36,479,797.04; municipalities, $40,744,576.24; towns, $2,340,427.42; villages, $2,688,770.72; total, $82,253,571.42 (figures as of February 21, 1975)."

13 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

In each school district in the Province which has rural components, what were the total sums collectable under the Public Schools Act in each rural component for the school budget-year of 1974?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"Total sums collectable under the Public Schools Act were as follows:

[ Page 1427 ]

14 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

With reference to funds received under the Canada Pension Plan: What was the total amount received by British Columbia during the calendar year 1974?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"$182,279,000."

15 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

With respect to funds received under the Canada Pension Plan: What is the total amount received to date by British Columbia?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"$1,129,908,000."

38 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Housing the following questions:

1http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2013/03/house-across-from-westboro-baptist-rainbow-pride-paint-job.php?ref=fpb. Did the Provincial Government purchase land for the purpose of establishing a "Land Bank" for the provision of low-cost public housing since January 25, 1973?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) who were the vendors, (b) what was the price per acre paid in each case, and (c) what is the total cost of the purchases to February 15, 1975?

The Hon. Lorne Nicolson replied as follows:

"1. Yes. Land was purchased for the following purposes: Future development, immediate development in subdivided parcels, and development of housing.

[ Page 1428 ]

"(a) and (b) Acreage:

"Registered subdivided lots:

¹ Ten lots. ² Improved.

[ Page 1429 ]

"(c) $11,441,912.

"NOTE — The above answer excludes properties purchased in the Burke Mountain area of the District of Coquitlam, where a land assembly program is currently under way."

46 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With respect to the Real Property Tax Deferment Act —

1. From June 5, 1974, to the latest date for which information is available, how many individual applications for tax deferment have been received?

2. What was the total number of tax deferral applications approved?

3. What was the total dollar amount on tax deferment approved?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. 1,650.

"2. 1,353.

"3. $404,446.80."

56 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

With respect to all pension accounts under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance: What was the total amount of funds available with respect to all accounts between January 1, 1974, and December 31, 1974?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"$116,500,000."

59 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Housing the following questions:

1. What were the total number of units of housing actually constructed by the Department?

2. What was the total cost of all projects actually constructed by the Department?

The Hon. Lorne Nicolson replied as follows:

"1. Dwelling units are not actually constructed by the Department of Housing; units are built for the Department by the Dunhill Development Corporation Ltd. and private contractors.

"2. See above."

73 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With regard to recent borrowings outside Canada for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority in the amount of $300,000,000—

1. What was the commission, in dollars, paid by the Province or B.C. Hydro for each issue described above?

2. To which individual, firm, or agency was any such commission paid?

3. What were the expenses, in dollars, incurred by the Province of British Columbia or B.C. Hydro for each issue described above?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. (a) $100,000,000 10 1/4 per cent bonds, Series DN, 1999, $875,000; (b) $100,000,000 9 3/4 per cent bonds, Series DV, 1982, $750,000; and (c) $100.000,000 8 5/8 per cent bonds, Series DW, 1985, $750,000.

[ Page 1430 ]

"2. (a) Paid to the First Boston Corporation, New York, for pro rata distribution among underwriters as named in the prospectus for Series DN, 1999; (b) First Boston (Europe) Limited, London; and (c) Credit Suisse White Weld Limited, London.

"3. (a) $161,300; (b) miscellaneous expenses not yet received; and (c) (i) discount on sale, $500,000; (ii) miscellaneous expenses not yet received."

74 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With respect to funds, including reserve funds and some derived from Consolidated Revenue in any manner whatsoever, invested or deposited by or on behalf of any department, agency, or enterprise of the Provincial Government in or with any credit union in British Columbia—

1. What is the total amount so deposited or invested on behalf of each Provincial Government department, agency, or enterprise at the most recent date for which figures are available?

2. What credit unions have received such investments or deposits and what is the total amount so held by each at the most recent date for which figures are available?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. $13,000,000.

"2. B.C. Central Credit Union, $13,000,000."

76 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With regard to the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund—

1. Have any grants been made from this fund since March 1, 1974?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, how many grants have been made?

3. What has been the amount of each individual grant, and to which community, incorporated area, or regional district?

4. Are any commitments for payment from this fund outstanding?.

5. If the answer to No. 4 is yes, what are the commitments, in dollars, and to which communities, incorporated areas, or regional districts?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. Seven.

"3. Village of 100 Mile House, $13,110; Corporation of the City of Victoria, $242,512.99; City of Vancouver, $30,244.36; Corporation of the City of Nanaimo, $1,429; Corporation of the City of North Vancouver, $17,265; Corporation of the City of Rossland, $3,000; Corporation of the District of Saanich, $217,000.

"4. Yes.

"5. City of Dawson Creek, $9,072; City of Duncan, $15,778; City of Duncan, $27,573; City of Duncan, $28,954; Town of Esquimalt, $10,464; Town of Fort St. John, $3,544; Town of Fort St. John, $22,600; City of Kamloops, $10,652; City of Kamloops, $187,513; District of Kitimat, $74,000; District of Kitimat, $3,630; District of Kitimat, $6,024; District of Maple Ridge, $38,667; District of North Vancouver, $129,193; District of North Vancouver, $13,350; City of North Vancouver, $5,970; City of Prince George, $4,237; City of Prince Rupert, $4,930; Town of Smithers, $19,030; City of Vancouver, $339,826; City of Vancouver, $127,200; City of Vancouver, $63,000; City of Vancouver, $268,927; City of Vancouver, $46,130; City of Victoria, $755,487; City of White Rock, $155,043."

[ Page 1431 ]

108 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Housing the following questions:

1. Since the assumption of the control of Dunhill Corporation by the Provincial Government have any land properties been sold to private developers?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what was the recorded appraised value of each property at the time of takeover by the Provincial Government and (b) what was the sale price with respect to each transaction?

The Hon. Lorne Nicolson replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) and (b) Lac la Hache and Okanagan property, appraised value, $85,694, sale price, $102,000; Richmond residential, appraised value, $1,800,000, sale price, $1,800,000; No. 3 Road, Richmond, appraised value, $100,000, sale price, $130,000; Vulcan Way property, Richmond, appraised value, $265,000, sale price, $265,000."

131 Mr. Schroeder asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

What were the amounts of capital expenditure for school construction in each of the calendar years 1970 to 1974, inclusive?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1970, $43,085,200; 1971, $53,987,077; 1972, $48,759,763; 1973, $57,404,497; 1974, not available until audited financial statements from all school districts for year ended December 31, 1974, are received."