[ Page 1791 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Railcar shortage. Mr. Barrett –– 1792

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

Ministry of Economic Development studies of Fort Nelson extension. Mr. Gibson –– 1793

International boundary negotiations. Mr. Lea –– 1793

Commercial property taxes. Mr. Stephens –– 1794

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

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

Printing of "Government Agency Review." Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 1795

Presenting reports.

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

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 4) .

Committee stage.

On section 1. Mr. Skelly –– 1798

Mr. Cocke 1795 Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1798

W- Levi 1795 Mr. Cocke –– 1799

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

Mr- Levi 1796 Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1800

Mr. D'Arcy 1796 Mr. Cocke –– 1800

Mr. Mussallem 1797 Report and third reading –– 1800

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Health estimates.

On vote 125. Ms. Brown –– 1813

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

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

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

Mr. Gibson 1804 Mr. D'Arcy –– 1816

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

Mr. Stephens 1809 Mr. Mussallem –– 1818

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

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1812

Committee of Supply; Ministry of the Environment estimates.

On vote 83.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1819

Mr. Skelly –– 1822

Presenting reports.

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, two reports. Mr. Bawtree –– 1827

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Along with her, Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Howard Furby. His contribution to swimming in Canada and British Columbia was recognized last week as well. He has been a coach for 31 years. In 1955 he was the assistant coach at the Pan-Am Games in Mexico; in 1958 he was at the Empire Games in Wales as coach; in 1964 he was the Canadian Olympic team coach in Tokyo. In 1967 and 1969 he toured South Africa and the Soviet Union with a selected Canadian swim team. From 1970 to 1972 he was national technical director of the Canadian Amateur Swimming Association. In 1974 he joined the staff of the Juan de Fuca Coho swim team in my constituency as the one and only staff member. We are very pleased to have him there. I would ask the House to bid him welcome as well.

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

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

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

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker, everyone here knows that my constituency is a long way from here, but today I'm honoured with having the mayor of the city of Cranbrook, Mayor Ty Colgur, and his administrator, Mr. Jim Lamb. They are sitting in the Speaker's gallery. Would you please make them welcome?

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

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

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

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, in the buildings today on tour are 45 grade 4 and 5 students from my constituency, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Dergousoff, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

Also I would like the House to welcome a

[ Page 1792 ]

widely travelled evangelist from Aldergrove in my constituency, the Rev. Mun Hope, who, I believe, will be giving us prayers tomorrow in the House - and I hope everyone will be here to hear them.

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

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

Oral questions.

RAILCAR SHORTAGE

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give an argumentative answer. The Leader of the Opposition, I know, is very jealous of the way that the British Columbia Railway is being operated. We just released our annual operating statement from the railway, which is the best annual statement ever issued by that British Columbia Railway. And I want to inform the Leader of the Opposition that, with the 20 per cent increase in car loadings last year by the British Columbia Railway due to the great economic development that is presently taking place in this province, until there were storms in the east, which caused the shortage of movement of railcars, we moved that additional 20 per cent increase in rail loadings last year - the greatest in the history of the railway - without any shortage of railcars. So far as the operation of the British Columbia Railway is concerned, had it not been for this problem there would be no shortage of cars in the British Columbia Railway system.

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

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

B.C. RAILWAY LOSSES

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

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

[ Page 1793 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we outlay in this House to the people of British Columbia our great transportation policy, we will certainly take that into consideration. I want to point out to the member that that's not an operating loss. Most of the losses incurred by the transportation system in British Columbia are exactly that. The ferry system is a direct loss; urban transportation is a loss; the loss on the British Columbia Railway in terms of the other transportation systems is $8.5 million only. I want to tell you that he can ask me questions about the British Columbia Railway any day he wants to, because I'm proud to be able to stand. in the House and talk about the fantastic job that that board of directors is doing operating that great British Columbia Railway.

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

OF FORT NELSON EXTENSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In due course.

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY

NEGOTIATIONS

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

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

[ Page 1794 ]

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

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

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

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAXES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHEMICAL SPRAYING OF

RIGHTS-OF-WAY

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1795 ]

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

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

2, 4-D SPRAYING NEAR NIMPKISH LAKE

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

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

Presenting reports.

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

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

Leave granted.

PRINTING OF

"GOVERNMENT AGENCY REVIEW"

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

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

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 4.

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY (1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

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

On section 1.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1796 ]

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

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

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

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

MR. LEVI: Really, what I am talking about is in respect to the stated policy of the government, as enunciated by the Premier, that Crown corporations have to have an arm's-length relationship. I find it very difficult to accept that such an arm's-length relationship can exist in respect to this Crown corporation when we have the minister who has now told us that he doesn't see anything wrong with participating in financial decision-making on the board and at the same time making recommendations in cabinet. That does not do anything for the principle enunciated by the Premier that we have an arm's-length relationship. I would strongly suggest that he should reconsider his position in respect to this dual role because it does nothing to demonstrate an arm's-length relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1797 ]

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I would hope we couldn't get into a debate on percentages of who accelerated more than....

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

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

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

MR. D'ARCY: The minister has made evident, I think, what most people know already. I suppose to get very specific on the borrowing, the minister has already told the House the projects which this money will be spent on -the completion of Seven Mile, which is in my riding, the completion of Site One on the Peace and other ongoing work, completion of the power house installations at Mica and so on. Is the minister telling us that he is likely to come back with the same kind of percentage increase next year for which, in the case of this particular borrowing increase, would mean $1 billion or more authorization for the year following the anniversary date of this bill going through? Is that what he's telling us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. MUSSALLEM; Mr. Chairman, in my mind, it isn't a question of whether Hydro is borrowing. The question is their need to borrow. I think the line of questioning of my hon. friend is not on the right track. The question really is: is Hydro being efficient in its borrowing? And this is under investigation at the present time by the Crown corporations committee and by various other agencies of government. I must say, as far as we have found to date, that the borrowing has been efficient and Hydro needs to borrow. Hydro will not build dams unless we, the public, demand more power. As long as we demand power, Hydro must meet our demands. We could not

[ Page 1798 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it has been discussed in the United States and, in fact, the Office of Management and Budget has looked into environmental assessment and review procedures and found out that in many cases these procedures save utilities money. In fact, it's worthwhile to allocate some of the project funding or borrowing, as the resolution would have done. It is worthwhile to allocate a part of that money, or a very small percentage of that money in this case, to intervening groups or to an environmental assessment and review procedure that somewhere down the line will save the Authority money. We've seen some of the studies that came out in the Revelstoke Dam cabinet appeal. The study that the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) read out, for example, by a UBC economist showed how money could be saved somewhere down the line in Hydro's borrowing by providing a small amount of funding to these intervening groups.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1799 ]

example, their share of their total revenues paid towards local taxation and water rentals, grants, et cetera, which would include the proposal the member is referring to, is 7.38 per cent. In Hydro Quebec, this same relation ship is 3.59; in the case of Ontario Hydro, it's 2.32.

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

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

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

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

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

MRS. WALLACE: I think that one of the problems we are facing in this bill is that the terms of reference that Hydro has relate specifically to providing an adequate source of power. There is nothing in their terms of reference that really specifically points them in the direction of conservation or alternate uses. The minister has indicated that they are doing some of those things. That is probably very commendable. But I think that until such time as we have a closer relationship between the activities of the Energy Commission and the Hydro authority, we are going to be faced with this kind of bill every year. The minister has indicated that maybe that is not going to be the case, but he certainly hasn't said that we are not going to have another borrowing bill next year. Every year they come along and every year they get bigger and bigger. As long as Hydro is charged strictly with the responsibility of assuring an adequate energy supply for the province, we are going to be faced with these increasing amounts of dollars coming before us.

I think the time has long passed when we should be looking at the direction we are giving to Hydro. We should look at changing some of their responsibilities and perhaps adding to the area of concern that they must consider. Hydro cannot move independently, forever going on building dams and undertaking these high-cost projects, installing more and more of this land-consuming and resource consuming type of venture without having to face up to some of the social consequences. That is what is happening when they are looking at an isolated direction with no broad, overall picture being encompassed by Hydro. I would suggest that the minister should be looking at some change of terms of reference for Hydro so we will not be faced with these large amounts coming in all the time. We should look at some other types of things that Hydro can be doing which won't be so expensive, and look at those alternative sources that I know I can't talk about because the amendment is ruled out of order.

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

What I really wanted to ask the minister

[ Page 1800 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

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

[ Page 1801 ]

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

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

The other question I wanted to raise with the minister has to do with health insurance premiums. It's interesting to note that in B.C. we are third highest in our rate of charge for health coverage. Only Ontario and Quebec are ahead of us. We are third, then Alberta, and the other six provinces make no charge - none whatsoever. Now in a province as relatively well-off as is British Columbia, it seems strange to me that we are assessing people at such a high rate in proportion to what they're charged in other provinces. I'm wondering whether or not the minister is looking at this particular issue, and whether or not he is prepared to make any reduction in the health insurance premiums here in British Columbia. Those are the two questions I would like to hear the minister comment on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry I confused you.

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

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

[ Page 1802 ]

MRS. WALLACE.: Anyway, j just one comment on the situation of the first member for Victoria. I think this should be drawn to the minister's attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Oak Bay continues.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1803 ]

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Did it happen in Victoria?

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

Not too long ago a 52-year-old man, a constituent of mine, required a very serious operation to unclog - an unmedical term - the carotid artery in the right side of his neck, which I understand is the main artery that carries blood to the brain. This man was suffering the early symptoms of a stroke; he was suffering temporary blindness. His doctors ordered him into the Royal Jubilee Hospital for this very serious surgery. He was booked to go into that hospital on January 29 of this year. One or two days prior to that operation he was informed that he could not go into the hospital because there was not a bed for him. This man was then rescheduled for surgery on February 16. He could not be put back on an anti-coagulant drug because, as I understand it, patients mu t come off of that drug well prior to the operation. A day or two prior to his second date for surgery he suffered a stroke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not mine.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Keep going.

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

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

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

[ Page 1804 ]

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

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

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

MR. STEPHENS: If you're collecting questions, let's try this: some time ago, your colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , made two conflicting statements, and I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, which of these two conflicting statements made by the Minister of Education is accurate. With reference to the hospital at UBC, he said firstly: "This is not an ordinary extendedcare hospital. This is where the young people will be coming to learn the problems of the infirm." Subsequently he said: "The extendedcare hospital was never built as a teaching hospital; it was built as an extended-care hospital." I would like the minister to tell us which of those two statements of the Minister of Education is accurate - whether it is or is not to be used as a teaching institution. If it is to be used as a teaching institution, when can we expect that to commence?

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

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

Interjection.

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

MR. KAHL: Please, don't.

MR. GIBSON: No. with my hayfever, I won't do that today. I could recite a verse from "The Walrus and the Carpenter, " which is as relevant to this debate as....

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 125.

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

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

In particular, I want to get details in one specified area and that is his plans for preventive medicine on the alcohol and drug abuse side - and I'm talking here particularly of advertising. Treatment programmes are one thing. But by the time you get to the treatment programme area - and we cannot, because of the tabled legislation, discuss the heroin treatment area in any event - you've already got the problem. What we want to do in our society, I think, is to avoid those problems insofar as it is possible. It is very questionable to what extent the treatment programmes have worked or are going to work in any case. We want to be optimistic on it. But the other day I was looking at section 64 (a) of the Summary Convictions Act - which, I assume, is the responsibility of the Alcohol and Drug Commission - which provides a compulsory treatment plan for chronic alcoholics. I see the minister is shaking his head.

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

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

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

MR. GIBSON: ... compulsory treatment for

[ Page 1805 ]

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

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

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

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

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

Now to some extent this is being done in the field of alcohol - advertising against alcohol use. I would like to see much, much more. The minister told us in the House last year that a major programme was being put together. I'd like to know details of what's been done to date and what the plans for the coming year are. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but contrast the amount of advertising concerning alcohol abuse - related to the huge revenues of alcohol for the government - with the amount of advertising which is done on lotteries, which, frankly, I think is a little disgraceful - the amount of advertising that's done on lotteries to invite people to put their money into what is, in effect, a gamble and a regressive form of taxation. There is a tremendous amount of advertising on that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the last two speakers. First of all, for the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, I think the same kind of comparison that I made last night could stand true with the problems of alcoholism as well as just a general preventive medicine theme that faces the government at the present time. There's a breaking point there somewhere, where you have to start coaxing money away from the active treatment side to get it into that prevention. The demands on the money that is available for us to spend for people services is so great on the treatment side that it's difficult to get over that breaking point and start getting money into where it can do some of the good that you're talking about. The alcohol programme is no different from the general health programme in the province.

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

[ Page 1806 ]

alcohol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But first, there have been some advertising programmes already developed. Counterattack is one through the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) ministry, and it's been most effective in terms of drinking and driving, and the BATmobile programmes.

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

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

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

The other programme which has now been announced and has just recently received approval from cabinet is a $2 million programme for advertising only. It will be based somewhat on the very successful Saskatchewan programme called AWARE. It's been most successful in that province and it's well done. I think we can adapt it quite well to the provincial scene. It's not going to be under the Ministry of Health. Rather, it will be under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs because that's where the alcohol is and we felt that it might as well go there. It will be directly tied exactly to the revenue taken in from alcohol. So I think the proposal is that there be a few cents put on a bottle of whiskey that will be directly directed to the alcohol advertising programme . It will be a very strong programme. I don't know when the start of that is. I would expect this summer, but the consumer services minister will be up for estimates soon and I think he can give us more details on that.

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

[ Page 1807 ]

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

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

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

It's starting to work. Some of our better companies now - Finning Tractor is one that comes to mind; some of the major lumber companies; Weyerhaeuser in the interior has a tremendously good programme starting now.... It's made very clear to the employee that help is available and if you wish that help, come on forward. It will be kept in confidence and we'll make the help available for you. Secondly, if the situation doesn't improve, there comes a time when the crunch comes and both with the concurrence of union and management, the employee is told this problem is getting out of hand. "Your work is suffering. You used to be a great worker but now we're not getting the production out of you. The help is available. Take it or else I'm afraid you will have to lose your job."

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

I wanted to mention Interlock because Interlock is a new agency which has now been set up in the province. It's a private society not directly connected with government, but we fund it through the Alcohol and Drug Commission, which is responsible for dealing with smaller companies. Weyerhaeuser or Finning Tractor or CP or Cominco, or any of those companies can usually find the resources within themselves. They have company nurses anyway -occupational nurses and those kind of things. But the smaller companies may not have the expertise, first of all, to go into a programme like this, and secondly they probably don't have the expertise to know what to do once they do decide to get into a program and how to approach workers.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1808 ]

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

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

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

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

The long-term care programme only started on January 1,1978. While we had high hopes for that programme and while we expect it will carry with it a lot of solutions to many of the problems we now have in terms of delivery of health care, we never expected that it would do it in four months. It will take some time before the reduction of need in certain kinds of health-care delivery services is felt, because those problems have been building up for 20 or 25 years or longer perhaps. Because of the 50-cent dollars that were for too many years dangled in front of the provinces by the federal government, the emphasis in this province and across Canada has been on the building of acute-care beds only. Too many provinces find themselves in most serious difficulty now because of that.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1809 ]

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

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

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

I can just say, though, that we have to be pretty careful here as well because there will come a time when persons will need, because of their degree of infirmity, some kind of institutionalized care. There will come a time when it will not be possible for the government, regardless of the programme it has in place, to provide services in the home. It will just become either medically impossible or financially impossible. At that point, given the medical assessment that's given to us, there will probably have to be a recognition that some kind of institutionalized care will be required at that point. I think everyone would accept that. But the person you talked about now has a full-time companion paid for by the ministry through the long-term care programme.

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

I would just like, however, to say that the minister is concerned about tragedies and some abuses. In most cases I would agree that those matters could be handled on a one-on-one basis, but when the problem arises directly as a result of a shortage of beds, then it's not a matter that can be solved by a discussion in the minister's office. It is a matter which requires to be aired in this House and to be aired in a more public fashion.

The minister said that it is the doctors who set priorities for the hospital beds, and that may be true. However, when the beds are not available it puts the doctors in a very, very difficult position that no doubt this doctor found himself in in the case I mentioned. There is no way to solve that problem unless this government provides the relief that is required. I understand that yesterday the latest count in the Royal Jubilee showed that of 560 acute-care beds, 120 were occupied by intermediate-care patients staying an average of three months. I understand also that the average stay of an acute-care patient is about nine or 10 days, so there still is a very, very pressing problem in that hospital.

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

[ Page 1810 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That is correct.

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

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

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

The member for Oak Bay has the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 1811 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, a final series of questions on this particular note is to ask the minister what actions he is taking regarding the allegations made in certain quarters of inadequate nursing services at the Vancouver General Hospital. Certainly it has been the position of some of the nursing staff that the services are inadequate. It has been the position of the administration and board of that hospital that there is a labour relations problem, and hence it is internal. I don't want to second-guess either of those agencies. I would like to know, first of all: has the minister met with either the complainants or the board and the administration, or both? If so, is he satisfied that there is only a labour relations problem and there is no health care problem in that most important health care facility in the province of B.C.?

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

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

[ Page 1812 ]

HON. M. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, regarding the situation at Vancouver General Hospital, I am satisfied and I have confidence in the administration at Vancouver General Hospital. I have asked that if the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia has grievances dealing with the nursing administration situation at Vancouver General they should deal with the administration of that hospital. I have been assured by the chairman of the board of the hospital that they are more than willing to meet with the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C. If you were watching in the past week, you would have seen it announced that the medical staff at Vancouver General Hospital has urged the nurses to do the same thing, to meet with the administration and to solve their grievances at that point.

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

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

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

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

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

The training programmes were directed toward upgrading volunteer personnel. There are 396 students who have successfully completed the AMA-1 course; 62 in Vancouver completed the AMA-2; 29 in Vancouver and Victoria completed the paramedic course. Special courses were held for high risk infant transport and fulltime ambulance staff was increased from 413 to 433. We hope to continue to increase those numbers of full-time ambulance personnel. Provision has been made for the purchase now of 70 more units for conversion to ambulances and the purchase of some six additional window-vans. Also we've purchased a couple of four-wheel drive vehicles for service in some of the hard-to-service areas. So yes, that program is being expanded, Mr. Chairman, and we will continue to pay attention to the needs of the emergency services programme in the province.

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

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

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

[ Page 1813 ]

expected to be completed in February, 1979.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is being discussed.

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

The second thing I want to ask you is whether there has been any indication of psychiatrists ripping off the system or abusing it in any way that would give rise to this kind of decision, because in fact what it will result in is setting up a situation of mistrust between doctor and patient. I want to know if there are any reasons why the ministry has suddenly decided to embark on that policy.

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

Now there has been extreme- pressure from the public on the ministry to have some way of the person who gets the service being involved in the service, and we've looked at a number of ways. At one time patients' bills used to all be sent out to them. That was most unwieldy and most expensive and it was stopped. This has been a proposal made for us as a very simple way in which the patient can feel a part of the system. It can alleviate any fears the patient may have. We don't have any evidence of anyone ripping off the system, and you can rest assured that if this programme comes into place, and I expect it might, there will be no requirement for patients to be giving the, kinds of information that you're concerned about.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There already has.

MS. BROWN: Yes, there already has been.

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Peter Rolston.

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

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

[ Page 1814 ]

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

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

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

With reference to what the Medical Services Plan will or will not pay for, the minister may be aware that medical examinations required by third parties are normally not paid for by the Medical Services Plan. But it seems to me that when that medical examination is required by a third party that happens to be the government, it is only right, particularly when it relates to the problems of senior citizens, that the Medical Services Plan should pick up the bill. I've had some recent correspondence with both the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Labour on the subject of what happens when a person over 70 is required to obtain a medical checkup as a condition of continuing to hold their driver's licence. This causes difficulty in a lot of cases. People say: "Well, this is an expense that I, as a person over 70, will have a little trouble meting, yet I want to continue to hold my driver's licence." I've had some correspondence with the Ministry of Labour on this, as I said, in addition to the Ministry of Health. The director of the human rights branch has advised me as follows:

"The director of plan operations, Medical Services Plan, advised that the basic philosophy of the plan is to provide coverage for medical care required by the individual and that medical examinations required by a third party are not covered. I can appreciate the basic philosophy of the plan. However, it seems to me that the situation raised by your correspondent is a very special one. The need for a driver's licence is not incidental or a minor matter. It can be of crucial importance in terms of a person maintaining a job, fulfilling essential needs such as getting groceries, getting to the doctor, et cetera, and sometimes, particularly in the case of an older or handicapped person, in being able to maintain independence and staying out of an institution.

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

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

I'd like to ask the minister this specific question: of the alcoholism cases under care or treatment in one way or another by the Alcohol and Drug Commission at the moment, how many of them arise from diversion as a result of section 64 (a) of the Summary Convictions Act, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a section that provides for compulsory treatment of chronic alcoholics? What number of cases of the current caseload would arise from that section 64 (a) ?

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

[ Page 1815 ]

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

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

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

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

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

I'll tell you something that concerns me very much, Mr. Chairman. Even if this issue is resolved - and I gather the committee that is working on it has not met since April 24 -presumably some kind of face-saving agreement will be worked out between the ministry and the University of British Columbia. I'm concerned that that face-saving agreement will make the suggestion that audiologists and speech therapists trained at the University of British Columbia up until that time haven't been properly trained. I would hope that any announcement that is made will make it very clear that the programme that has been followed at UBC up until the present has produced competent professionals. Or, if the ministry is not prepared to say that, then I think they should give chapter and verse as to why not. I'm concerned with the shadow that this whole business has cast across those who have received, in my view, perfectly adequate training at the University of British Columbia.

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

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

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

MR. GIBSON: How about the Greenburg report?

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On the question raised about the cases diverted into alcohol programmes of the Ministry of Health through the Alcohol and Drug Commission by way of section 64 (a) of the Summary Convictions Act, I would expect none. Most of those people, if there had been diversions - and I don't know whether there have or not recently - would not be diverted directly into a programme operated by the ministry. At least, that was not the practice in the past. I think most of them went to Miracle Valley, operated by the Salvation Army, or one of those programmes. So I have no way of knowing where those people come from. I can only tell you that every facility we have, operated by anybody in British Columbia, is full and we could use lots more.

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

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

[ Page 1816 ]

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

We are also concerned that the doctors are not in some of the places where we really need the service, and that's in the hard-to-service areas of the province. We've seen a couple of attempts by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, for instance, to attempt to relocate physicians. Those attempts were thwarted for one reason or another, and for good reason I believe. The college is now not able to fulfil that role and the British Columbia Medical Association I don't think was set up to fulfil that kind of role. So I think it's a policy that the government has to establish and that's the reason that we set up that committee.

I just want to say that British Columbia, in regard to the medical teaching unit at UBC, has traditionally graduated less than its share of medical practitioners compared to the rest of Canada, and we hope to make the possibility available for British Columbians to graduate in their own province as much as possible. We've already begun discussions with the other provinces, who will adjust their output of medical practitioners as ours come on stream in some of the other teaching hospitals across the country. So those discussions are already underway to look after that possibility.

The question of preventive medicine is a long one, and it's one I've subscribed to and the ministry subscribes to. We are doing what we can in order to develop preventive medicine measures. We do not pay for annual checkups, I guess for a number of reasons. First of all the medical plan was set up as a crisis intervention plan to make sure that nobody in our province or anywhere in Canada, for that matter, was faced with crippling medical costs because of a disease or an infirmity of one kind or another in a family. It has been the policy of successive governments that it was not set up to pay for things like annual checkups. Since that time, there's been a tremendous controversy among the medical profession itself about whether or not annual physical. checkups are as beneficial as we once thought they were. Some - perhaps even the majority of the medical profession - now are saying; "Hold on, let's take a new look at this whole business of annual medical checkups. Perhaps we'd better find a more rational way of people ensuring that they find out what the state of their health is." By no means is there any degree of consensus among medical doctors in North America now about the efficacy of annual checkups.

The matter of third parties is one that we've been concerned about. The same answer is true there, I guess, but I think it would be fair for us to say at this point that perhaps we can take another look at some of the problems encountered by senior citizens, particularly in regard to drivers' licences. I'll undertake to take another look at that.

There is a problem with preventive medicine - that we do not get carried away and that we know what we might be in for if start paying through our medical plan for "preventive medicine." It would be crazy of us if we just all of a sudden shifted the load from sickness delivery over to preventive medicine, and we found ourselves paying just as much for preventive medicine as we were paying before for the delivery of health-care services -sickness-care services, if that's the way you wish to put it.

I do not know how far we're supposed to go with that, but I could just tell you that the people from the Medical Plan came to my office one day with a bill they'd received from a physician who had provided and this is as close as I can remember it "for counselling services with a deep religious flavour." I don't know whether we're supposed to pay for that kind of stuff or not, because if we do then I guess we'd better pay for your jogging suit - I see you out after the session every night - and we'd better pay for my tennis lessons. That's all preventive medicine, so we'd better be careful how much we thrust on to the backs of the taxpayer. As taxpayers, we'd have got bad measure for our money if we'd started paying for my tennis lessons.

MR. D'ARCY: From what I've heard about his tennis ability, I would certainly concur that the taxpayer would be poorly done by if we paid for those lessons.

If the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the minister are finished discussing the question of the payment of the medical examination for seniors, I would point out that my colleague from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has a bill before the House to cover that matter. However, I'm glad the chairman has shown indulgence in having it discussed. I'm not going to carry on too much longer because my colleague on the other side from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has agreed with the

[ Page 1817 ]

minister that there really isn't much point in having annual medical checkups any more than there is much point in debating the Health ministry estimates past 5 o'clock.

For the fourth time of asking, I'm wondering if the minister can tell the House what he has authorized for capital expenditures for hospitals, at least in the last two fiscal years, even if he doesn't have a figure for the first four or five months of the present regime: between December 1975 and March 31,1976. Surely that must be available without my having to put a question on the order paper. One would think that that information would be available by making a phone call to the ministry; I'm absolutely amazed that it is not. I'm amazed that this government that prides itself on being economic janitors doesn't have that information readily available.

Once more I have a few comments on Vancouver General Hospital. What the minister has told us is that Vancouver General is not a hospital like the others.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm glad to hear him agree with that. A few months ago he agreed that the children's cancer hospital was not a hospital like others. He apparently agreed yesterday that perhaps the Cancer Institute was not a hospital exactly like others and therefore cannot operate properly with the same kind of postage-stamp staffing and administrative formula. Certainly I was not casting any aspersions on the Vancouver General Hospital administration or board, any more than anyone was casting aspersions yesterday on that board or administration.

What we know about Vancouver General Hospital is that it is a third-stage referral, which means that people whose conditions are so serious that they cannot be treated at either an ordinary acute hospital or the second-stage referral regional hospital are referred to it for medical and surgical reasons. It means that the people who have been referred there from other units are in fact likely to be substantially in need of greater services than the ordinary acute-care hospital. Because of that factor, in all probability you do need some special consideration and some special formula. Certainly I would concur with the minister that physically it is not the easiest hospital to administer because it is huge and because of the nature of its design or non-design and the fact that it has been added on to over a period of half a century or more and also the fact that it is extremely old. I would like the minister to tell the House whether he seriously considers the fact that this particular hospital may need - and I'm not asking him to be exact at this time -specific considerations other than the kind of postage-stamp staffing complement and using the same formula that applies to most acute hospitals around the province. Again I would submit that the staffing formula which may be adequate in various areas such as Trail, Lillooet or in any of the other major acute hospitals around the province is probably not adequate in the Vancouver General because it is in fact a third-stage referral and because of the limitations of its planned facility and just because of its outright size. Primarily I have two questions: what is the authorization for capital expenditures, and can the the minister tell us whether he has any considerations regarding special treatment for Vancouver General and the people who are referred there because they are probably the sickest people in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What was that last one again?

MR. D'ARCY: The Vancouver General is a third-stage referral and it is the largest hospital in the province. Presumably no one is going to be referred there unless they need treatment at a third-stage level.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I agree with that. I don't know if that is the question, but I think I said that the board of administration of the hospital has employed a firm, Medicus, to come up with a total staffing programme for the hospital and to review the existing staffing programme, not only in terms of total numbers but also in distribution. When the nurses met with me last they said to me that they are not upset with the total number of people who are physically at VGH but that perhaps they should be re-deployed. If that is there, I would expect that this very sophisticated study will point that out. I've said that it should be in the hands of the hospital by the end of this month.

MR. D'ARCY: You will be discussing it with them when it is available?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I expect the hospital will bring it to me, because obviously there will be recommendations in it. At that point I think they will come to me. In fact, I know they will. It should be fairly shortly.

I don't have the exact details over the last ten or eight or seven years of what we've

[ Page 1818 ]

spent and approved in hospital borrowing for the province, but I would be happy to give it to you. We'll make it available to you and I'll send it to your office. I can say that the approvals that we've got in the next seven year period are: 1978-79, $143 million; 197980, $145 million; 1980-81, $122 million; 198182, $101 million; 1982-83, $82 million; 198384, $80 million, and then 1984-85 - which is only preliminary and just beginning to be receiving approval - some $32 million, for a total of $707 million over that seven-year period.

I will have our staff prepare it for you and have it sent to your office.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, just a word for just a minute. I think every member in this House will want to compliment the minister on his news release of May 23, entitled Nutrition Byline. I think this is a very smart and capable thing and I want to commend the minister on it, and I hope that he will continue along this line. We're talking about preventive health care and this is directly preventive health care. If people know what to eat and how to eat.... Coming from the Ministry of Health, I regret that so little notice has been made about this very important news release. It even points out on the back page, regarding rice, that, during research on rice, it was discovered that the vitamins which we so often talk about.... We just don't get enough of this kind of thing. I do hope the minister will continue. I send him my compliments from the constituency of Dewdney and I'm sure every member of this House will do the same.

MR. COCKE: That was a marvellous endorsement of Nutrition Byline, except that we can recall that this is the same guy that drank Fraser River slop at the mouth of the Fraser. I don't really think that he was all that nutrition conscious that day. In any event, he's a good old whip, he really tries hard. Standing on the pontoon of that airplane drinking Fraser River water was almost more than most of us could bear, particularly at that time, when New Westminster had five sewer outfalls going into the Fraser just above where he was having that little drink.

MR. SKELLY: He recycled it in the House.

MR. COCKE: You know there's only one other guy in the province who was ever his equal. That was the then chairman of Hydro, who drank 2, 4, 5-T to prove that it was no more damaging than Pepsi-Cola.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in his 90s and still going strong.

MR. COCKE: I know, it added that dimension that he had long needed.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister a very simple question dealing with the whole question of prevention. There is a kind of new area that people are getting into; as a matter of fact, a number of doctors in British Columbia are involved in what they call a holistic health programme. I cannot give you any value judgments. I do know this, that a number of them have contacted me since I was minister and they've got some very interesting information.

It strikes me that the Minister of Health might at least open his door to them - once. When they contact him, they, of course get a letter saying: "Thanks very much for the contact. We would like you to go and see Dr. Jones in Vancouver or Dr. Smith or whoever." That's all very well and good but there are some people, including Dr. Boese - who's on the faculty at UBC - who are most interested in this particular area. They are affiliated with a Denver group. I'm not suggesting they be put on medicare or anything else; I am suggesting, however, that the minister have a look at what these people are doing and give them a half an hour. What has he got to lose? I wonder if the minister could indicate to us whether or not he would meet with this group in the near future.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, anytime; all I need is to be asked. I have met with a number of doctors who are providing what they call holistic medicine. The two young physicians who have a clinic in Victoria have met with me in my office, and we had a long discussion. They have never asked to be included in any of our medical plans - at this point, anyway. Perhaps they might sometime in the future. I've met with some who are practising on the Gulf Islands. I have met with a number of them from time to time. All I need to do is have a request and I'll meet with anybody - including you.

MR. COCKE: You know, the minister is very glib. He says he will meet with them. But he got a letter from me asking whether or not he would meet with the group, and then a letter from the group pursuant to that and they were referred to one of his doctors in Vancouver.

Now I know you are busy, and I'm not going to discount that, but if we send you another request, if you would read it yourself this time I would very much appreciate it.

[ Page 1819 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say to that member that there's never been a more open door in the Ministry of Health's office than there is right now. It's very, very seldom that anybody is ever turned away from a meeting with me, because I meet with everybody I possibly can. I would like to say that from time to time someone wishes a meeting and it is impossible to set up a meeting for perhaps a month or six weeks or seven weeks because the calendar is simply booked full. On those occasions it's more practicable to say to that person: "If you'd like to talk with somebody in the ministry right away, then here's who you should be talking with now." That does not close the door to a meeting with the minister. Iove said I'll be happy to meet with them, and I meant it, and I will.

Vote 125 approved.

Vote 126: administrative and support services, $2,629, 019 - approved.

Vote 127: branch support services, $3,339, 570 - approved.

Vote 128: public health programmes, $34,622, 592 - approved.

Vote 129: mental health programmes, $17,863, 005 - approved.

Vote 130: special health services, $9,856, 065_- approved.

Vote 131: other health care expenditures, $6,281, 860 - approved.

Vote 132: hospital programmes, $609,588, 881 - approved.

Vote 133: government institutions, $61,134, 726 - approved.

Vote 134: forensic psychiatric services, $4,136, 440 - approved.

On vote 135: Alcohol and Drug Commission, $10,619, 966.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I notice that we are talking about $10,620, 000 or thereabouts for the Alcohol and Drug Commission, which has to date seems to me to be a boondoggle.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Tell me why.

MR. COCKE: We've got the legislation before us that tells you why.

Vote 135 approved.

Vote 136: Medical Services Commission, $211,613, 000 - approved.

Vote 137: emergency health services, $24,775, 037 - approved.

Vote 138: long-term care programme, $120,457, 272 - approved.

Vote 139: building occupancy charges, $31,593, 289 - approved.

Vote 140: computer and consulting charges, $7,700, 983 - approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

On vote 83: minister's office, $131,756.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have some general comments about the Ministry of the Environment.

The ministry, by its very nature, relies heavily on its regulatory powers, and because of this influence it has on the citizens of the province by way of regulation, this influence has been of considerable concern to the ministry and to the government over the past year - the influence upon the citizens of the province and the effects these regulations have on citizens. Attempts have been made and attempts are- continuing to review and to eliminate where necessary such regulations that may impose an undue hardship upon citizens or that simply have reached a point where their usefulness is outdated, where it no longer serves the well-being of the citizens.

To this end, a number of developments have taken place. Additional staff have been placed in land management investigations, particularly, and in water resources. Eventually the regional offices will be able to handle most of the inquiries rather than the head office in Victoria, as the situation has been for many, many years. Expansion of the regional office is taking place. Additional staff are being placed in those offices and, as I said, eventually most of the decisions will take place at the regional level rather than head office by way of referral to Victoria.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, I outlined a number of organizational changes within the ministry and offered the latest information on a number of programmes. I'd like to further report on some of these ongoing programmes and possibly indicate some future directions being

[ Page 1820 ]

undertaken by the ministry at this time.

Some specific items. last year I mentioned the coal development guidelines, providing for the environmental impact assessment in association with coal development throughout the province, and these guidelines were issued. And last year the linear development guidelines were produced and issued, and these guidelines provide a planning framework for assessing the environmental and social impact of major transportation developments including pipelines, highways and other developments which fall into that: category of linear development guidelines. These guidelines have proved to be of significance to not only the developers but to the various government agencies that are required to consider such proposals and deem permission to be granted in many circumstances and issue permits and so on. These guidelines have proved to be very popular, because they are spelled out in a fairly concise manner. We have found that the persons responsible for such developments are probably more distraught when they don't understand the rules, rather than if the rules may be somewhat cumbersome. If they have an idea of what they are expected to perform, they feel that they are in a much better situation.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The four-stage review is similar to the coal development guideline procedures and it has so far permitted us---a good working relationship between those proponents -and --the government agencies responsible. We are looking into a similar process for major developments contemplated for the province such as port developments or any type of development. The development might be a pulp mill or it could possibly be dam locations in the event of future dams, or any other major development. We're hoping we can develop a process similar to those guidelines I mentioned.

Last year I advised the House that we had entered into an agreement with the federal government for the development of a joint management plan for the Fraser River and estuary. A number of significant initiatives have been taken in this area and studies are still underway - as they seem to always be underway.

In March of last year I announced that mandatory environmental impact assessments would be required for any proposed development or use of the submerged lands generally known as Sturgeon Bank and Roberts Bank, from Point Grey down to the Peace Arch Park. This would encompass the foreshore and lands covered by water in that area outside the dyking system for the most part, and we have had no difficulties with this direction since it was introduced by way of order, although there has been a certain amount of pressure from some of the landowners who would like to see some action develop, possibly by way of purchase of their properties.

A similar requirement was applied to the Cowichan estuary later last year and a task force is almost completing its report. It's expected to be available by the end of next month. The final portion of the original 1974 task force recommendations stem from that report.

Mr. Chairman, at the last session of the House I introduced certain amendments to the Pollution Control Act, to allow action to be taken under what was considered or deemed to be pollution emergency situations. At that time we also improved our internal organization to deal with crisis situations, initiated discussions with the provincial energy measures component of the Provincial Secretary's ministry to ensure that, where at all possible, no duplications were taking place.

Officials involved in the programme within the ministry have been receiving two or three requests on a daily basis for assistance. Most of them, fortunately, are relatively minor.

Probably the most serious request last year was a spill of sodium cyanide near Rowley, about 13 miles north of Kamloops. An emergency was declared and action was taken very quickly to clean up and remove the material. Eventually it found its way to disposal in the State of Oregon, where they have the necessary equipment to dispose of this substance.

I'm sure that many members are concerned with the state of preparedness relative to the possibility of major oil spills. It's a situation that probably will never be totally satisfied in the minds of most people. love expressed my concerns and the concerns of the province to the responsible ministers at the federal level, and this is a continuing discussion.

In my opinion the oil inquiry, chaired by Dr. Thompson, should have continued, regardless of whether there was a specific application before that inquiry, because it's my belief that a great deal of very useful information would have developed from that inquiry. I think Dr. Thompson offered a similar comment when he felt that even though the specific application was no longer before them, it would have been well worthwhile and a favourable exercise to gather the information. The west coast is still very much a mystery relative to the information that is known on the east coast. The federal government has not

[ Page 1821 ]

expended the effort or time in developing an information bank on the west coast as they have in eastern Canada.

I suppose the reason for that has been the traditional use of that east coast particularly relative to the importation of oil. Oil has come in there for so many, many years that they have done their work; and possibly because the east coast is much closer to Ottawa than the west coast. There's more pressure and more population as well.

Mr. Chairman, during last year I announced a number of policy changes in the disposition of Crown lands for agriculture purposes. It's basically a two-point policy. Small, arable pockets of Crown land which are in themselves of such a size that they would not support a viable farm unit are made available, or will be made available, to established farmers in the area for expansion of their own unit, to allow them to round out their holdings. There's a considerable amount of pressure from some individuals who feel that it's discriminatory when they themselves should be able to acquire a relatively small parcel to farm. The Ministry of Agriculture and others engaged in that business suggest that it's somewhat foolhardy to encourage a person to attempt farming on an acreage which is simply incapable of providing them with a viable unit. Those persons who wish to engage in agricultural endeavours which are not dependent upon the soil still have the opportunity of acquiring small holdings for perhaps a chicken farm or a hog farm or some other agricultural activity that is not soil bound, not dependent on the soil or the quality of the soil.

But where Crown land suitable for agriculture is of significant size - and in the province now the major area is the Peace River area - these will be evaluated against other demands on that land - forestry, watershed and wildlife. Where a decision is reached to develop for agricultural purposes, the farm units will be advertised and disposed of by way of public competition.

Last year a number of ecological reserves were established in the province. The total went from 77 formal reserves to 91, and others are still being considered. These areas are part of a world system of natural areas which are available for research and education, and do involve specific areas of forests and other natural areas which are considered to be valuable, particularly for education and research, and in some instances as gene banks or other purposes.

The ministry continues to be involved in a large way in sound waste management practices. Times seem to be changing very rapidly in attitudes toward the disposal of wastes. In fact, attitudes seem to be changing even to the reference of such products as waste. The attitude seems to be becoming more prevalent that waste really could be regarded as a resource for other uses by way of converting hog fuel or other products from the forest industry to energy, and possibly solid domestic waste, again possibly for energy. Recycling programmes, while somewhat high-profile, by their nature are generally limited in quantity and are very, very expensive on a unit basis. But nonetheless, recycling programmes are still very much alive and are being funded.

A major new initiative in this area took place last year when a decision was made to refuse the city of Penticton's new application for effluent disposal into the lakes. They were advised that the works would not be approved and they would have to go to land disposal. This caught the city of Penticton somewhat off guard. They were not quite prepared to accept it out of hand and a great deal of discussion has taken place with them since. I believe that the city of Penticton, as do most communities within the Okanagan Valley, agree that the land disposal method is preferred over lake disposal. The problem they see, of course, is costs. They would like to feel relatively assured that the difference in cost would not be that much more. They don't disagree with the principle, even though Penticton had quite an enviable record as to the quality of the effluent discharge. Even then, it was still becoming obvious that as the population in the Okanagan grew, as their permits were modified to permit greater amounts of effluent discharge, the problem of the lakes would continue to increase. Water quality is a major concern in the Okanagan.

The city of Vernon, of course, was one of the early pioneers, if you forgive the term, in that type of disposal, and their system has worked out very, very well. Other communities within the Okanagan are following suit; others are investigating the possibility of land disposal.

The biggest problem in the Okanagan of course, by way of disposal, remains the city of Kelowna, and the costs associated with ground disposal at Kelowna are very, very high. The biggest single problem is the lack of immediately available land, and they are looking at a cost estimated at about $40 million.

The recycling programmes, the conservation, energy conservation and waste-conversion programmes are beginning to develop. We see a greater interest today by those persons who

[ Page 1822 ]

are consuming raw materials, basic materials. We see a greater interest by themselves as well as by government agencies in doing something with the waste product. The Greater Vancouver Regional District is perhaps the best area to begin large-scale experimentation, although I think enough technical information is known that it has gone beyond the stage of experimentation. The Greater Vancouver Regional District produces enough domestic garbage to probably fuel an economical unit to produce steam, or electricity, or steam for heat or converting to other energy. The Greater Vancouver Regional District as well produces enough waste materials from other substances, particularly liquid wastes - many of which are toxic - that it's quite reasonable to expect a recycling plant of adequate proportion to be located in that area, to recycle solvents, oils, and other liquid wastes that very often find their way into the sewer system and then eventually into the Fraser River.

There are other specific problems associated with those run-off materials that can't easily be collected, but we do believe that there is a combination of two steps which can go a great way to resolving some of the pollution problems associated with the Fraser River. And one of those would be a proper recycling plant. I give credit to a couple of relatively moderate organizations in that area who indeed are recycling such waste materials now. But I think the volume exceeds their capability and we are seeing others becoming interested in entering the field. There are many waste products in our society today which are developing in value, and I believe it will be not long before we find it relatively common to see most of this waste converted into other useful energy.

One of the most time-consuming programmes within the ministry this year and last year -and for many, many years past - has been the Eurasian water milfoil problem that is plaguing certain bodies of water in the province, and particularly the Okanagan water basin. I regret to say that there are approximately 16 or 17 locations in the province which have been identified as having populations of this weed - some in the Fraser system, Cultus Lake, even a golf course in Delta, at one of the water-traps. Studies on this problem were initiated as far back as 1971, and have been going on since.

In 1973 the B.C. aquatic weed committee was established by the ministry to provide a review-and-advisory function to all levels of government in matters relating to aquatic weeds and associated problems. The committee has membership drawn from the Recreation and Conservation Ministry, the Ministry of the Environment, Agriculture, Health, and the federal Departments of Agriculture and the Environment and Fisheries - as well as Alberta and Ontario, who have representations to the committee. The committee has done a commendable job aver the years and continues to be an integral part of the review programme related to aquatic weeds and their problems.

As the members would know, in the fall of 1976, in addition to this aquatic weed committee, I appointed an advisory committee on the control of milfoil. The members of that committee are well known to the members: Dr. C.J.G. Mackenzie, Dr. William Powrie and Dr. William Oldham - all associated with UBC. The committee has produced five reports on the control of aquatic weeds in the Okanagan water basin. And in 1976, as well, at the request of the medical health officer for the southern Okanagan, I appointed him chairman of a committee of local technical officials to advise on the weed control programme.

Last session I introduced new legislation, the Pesticide Control Act, which provides for an interministerial pesticide committee to review requests for permits to be issued under the Act. The pesticide appeal board hears appeals against any decision made by the administrator under that Act. Relative to the Okanagan milfoil-associated problems, we've had seven major information meetings in the Okanagan; 38 technical meetings have been arranged by the ministry, and a number of reports, brochures and other literature have been made available and distributed in the Okanagan.

Just a quick comment then, continuing on this. As I mentioned, we believe that vigorous action is necessary to try to resolve some of the problems associated with milfoil, because it is no longer only in the Okanagan; it is becoming a provincial problem.

I have attempted to persuade the federal Minister of the Environment that it is more than a regional-provincial problem and that it is a national problem. In fact, I believe it is more of an international problem with our association with the United States and the spread of milfoil throughout North America.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to attempt to answer any questions.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to thank the minister for his introductory remarks, which took up the better part of half an hour. And that's about all. Without a doubt, I think this is the saddest excuse for a Minister of the Environment that we've ever seen in this country. He is not worth his salary and I

[ Page 1823 ]

intend to vote against it. I am giving notice on that matter right now.

Mr. Chairman, in every ministry you expect that the minister should be an advocate for his resource and should be an advocate for the best possible use and economic management of his resource. I gather the rest of the cabinet is meeting elsewhere, but there were a few ministers left in the House after the Minister of Environment began his speech, and one is the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) . He is a minister who stands up for his resource and fights for his resource in cabinet. It seems the Minister of the Environment, whenever he is challenged by the Minister of Forests, goes face down, environmental considerations are dropped and Forests retain their supremacy.

The same is true with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . He was a latecomer to cabinet; he had to burn his Social Credit card first. But that minister is an advocate in cabinet for his resource. He does well. He gets legislation passed and does well for his resource. A number of mines have closed down under his administration - a number of mines have closed down as a result of his administration; I understand they are now growing mushrooms in the old gold mine up at Bralorne. So he is making some use of his ministry and his advocacy within cabinet for his ministry and for his resource.

I don't think you can fault a minister who acts as an advocate for his resource because that's why he's appointed to that ministry. He is appointed to make maximum benefit and to take maximum benefit from the resource that he is given the responsibility to administer. So you can't fault those cabinet members for doing that every thing - and they do it in cabinet.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , for all his other faults, at least stands up for Economic Development in the province - not that he has done anything. But at least he makes statements and he advocates and pushes for the supremacy of his jurisdiction and resources in cabinet.

We are on this minister's salary and that's precisely what this minister does not do. This minister does not accept the responsibility for his resources. He does not fight for the resources that he is given jurisdiction over. It is a real problem in this province. Whenever a conflict develops between the Minister of Forests and the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of the Environment goes face down. Whenever there is a conflict that develops between the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of the Environment goes face down.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Belly up.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources says: "Belly up."

Whenever there is a supine acquiescence.... (Laughter.) Whenever there is a conflict between the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of the Environment, another conflict develops: the Minister of the Environ-ment tries to outdo the Minister of Economic Development as Minister of Economic Development and, as a result, his resource is lost completely. There are examples of that in the Cowichan estuary, for instance.

In fact, in the only speech that the minister has made in the House this session, during the budget debate, he criticized people in his own riding who are concerned about the environment. He accused them of being "no growthers" and against growth in Richmond. He criticized people who were concerned about the environment. And yet some of the environmental issues that have been taken to court out of his own riding - for example, Garry Point -were upheld in the courts. There was no support whatsoever from that minister for the resources that he is empowered or obligated under his cabinet responsibility to protect.

In fact, it is clear that the minister really has no concern for his resource. That's been clear from the time that he was appointed minister in the first place, when he expressed some confusion about his appointment. He said he didn't know why he was appointed Minister of the Environment. He didn't know what it was all about. He admitted at the time that there really was no specific Social Credit Party policy on environment. "Nielsen said most specific Socred policies on the environment have yet to be decided." That is what he said, according to the Vancouver Sun of December 23,1975. That was at the same time it was reported that he had indicated that it was not always wise to be honest or candid with the public. So maybe what the Minister of Mines says is true and what the Minister of the Environment says wasn't true.

If the Minister of the Environment doesn't know why he was appointed to that ministry, he was probably appointed by the Premier in retaliation. Because the previous member for Richmond was concerned about the environment and was widely respected throughout the province for his concerns about the environment, the Premier appointed this minister Minister of the Environment in retaliation, just to kind of rub salt in a wound in that

[ Page 1824 ]

riding. That's the real reason why he was appointed minister. Even today, Mr. Chairman, this minister exhibits no real concern about the value of the resources that he is obligated to defend and to be an advocate for in cabinet.

I don't fault the Premier for establishing the Ministry of the Environment. I think the way it was structured was a pretty good idea, because what he did - and whoever advised him to do this gave him good advice - was to combine a number of departments responsible....

MR. GIBSON: His dad advised him.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, I think he's rejecting his dad's advice these days. As a result, he's going to end up going down the tube.

A number of these departments responsible for common-property resources or for life-sustaining resources, as I like to term them, were placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment. I think that was a good idea, basically. Those resources were clean air, pure water and productive land, including agricultural land. It was a wise thing, I think, to bring all of those departments together under one ministry. Unfortunately the weak thing in that ministry is the minister himself, and that's the most unfortunate thing about that decision.

Mr. Chairman, these are the resources that have consistently been undervalued in this province. In spite of the fact that they're the resources we require to sustain life -that is, pure air, pure water and productive land - they've been consistently undervalued in this province. A lot of the problems we have now between the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , for example, and those who in the private sector would develop at the expense of degrading common property resources are because we undervalue those resources. We attach a high value to energy because there's a lot of revenue to the Crown from that resource, We attach a high value to forests because there's a good return to the Crown from that resource. We used to value mines and minerals before they appointed the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , and we no longer attach a high value to that resource because nobody is doing it in this province anymore anyway since he's been appointed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wilderness! Wildlife!

MR. SKELLY: That's a different ministry.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm sorry, I made you lose your place.

MR. SKELLY: No, somebody mentioned the wilderness between your ears. It caused me to lose track.

But traditionally we've undervalued those resources, Mr. Chairman, and as a result we have allowed them to be degraded and to be alienated for virtually no cost at all. As a consequence of that a crunch is coming. It's a simple law of economics that whenever you give something away and continue to give it away and continue to allow it to be degraded, then scarcity develops. As a result, we're developing a scarcity in agricultural land, for example.

A very small percentage of this province consists of productive agricultural land. As a result of that scarcity, a high value now is attaching itself to that agricultural land, yet the present Minister of the Environment continues to look at it as an undervalued resource. As a result, he's willing to alienate it out of agricultural production and we're losing an extremely valuable resource because the minister himself and the government don't attach much value to that resource.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about coal?

MR. SKELLY: Coal as well, yes. There's obviously no scarcity of coal, however. Or at least nobody seems to be interested in our coal under your administration.

But on agricultural land, Mr. Chairman, this minister and this government don't attach the value to that land that it deserves to have attached to it, and as a result there seems to be a predisposition on the part of the government to give that agricultural land away, to allow other priorities to take the place of agriculture or potential agriculture in lands reserved for agriculture. That's a real problem.

The same applies to pure air and pure water in the whole question of the development along the Fraser River and the Thompson River, and in the question of pure water in Okanagan Lake, which the minister mentioned in another context, and which I hope to discuss later during his estimates. In those questions he seems to undervalue pure water as a life-sustaining resource. He doesn't attach the value to that resource that it deserves to have. As a result, there's a scarcity developing in that resource and it's going to become more and more costly to provide the pure water that people need as a life-sustaining resource in this province sometime down the line. Unless policy decisions are made now, unless

[ Page 1825 ]

the government decides to attribute a higher value to that resource of pure air and pure water, we are going to suffer and our children are going to suffer somewhere down the line. So the problem is that as a commodity becomes scarcer - and pure air and pure water are commodities just like minerals and timber -we're going to be forced to pay more and more for those commodities as a result of the lack of value attributed to those commodities which the minister is empowered under his ministry to be responsible for and to administer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: As long as it keeps snowing, we're okay.

MR. SKELLY: Most of the snow comes from that minister, but we manage to see through that.

It's a question of simple economics. There are a number of areas where we are facing a real crunch in terms of the loss of public land, fresh air, pure water and other life-sustaining commodities; this is where the minister is clearly lacking. Even in his introductory remarks he didn't really attach that much importance to those commodities which he is empowered to administer.

One case in point is the Cowichan estuary, where we are presently having a bit of a battle with a developer, who is a Social Credit bagman. He has all of the party credentials. He has forced a review through the political channels of his proposals for development in the Cowichan estuary. He has got something like six projects on line down there. The minister has appointed a new task force. He didn't have to appoint a new task force. If he attached any value at all to the estuary he could simply have stated: "We will not permit development in the Cowichan estuary. We feel that estuary lands are valuable lands." There are other alternate sites available for development. Those sites which are less environmentally sensitive and are less valuable in terms of their productive capability and their location in the food chain could be developed as an alternative to the Cowichan estuary, but the minister didn't choose to do that. He didn't take a strong position as an advocate for his resource; instead, on a straight political basis he went face down to Herb Doman and to the Minister of Economic Development and set up a new task force in that area to cloud the issue. He didn't tell the developer in that case that he should be seeking an alternate site which had less environmental impact. That is what should have been done.

The minister did pass an order-in-council requiring an environmental impact assessment on any development which took place in the Cowichan-Koksilah estuary, but it was on a totally secret basis.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Orders-in-council are secret.

MR. SKELLY: It allows the minister to make the assessment. There should be a public assessment process where those proposals for development are submitted to the public and submitted to all of the line departments concerned and are submitted to the agencies concerned. Those agencies should make their comments public, and the public should then have the right to cross-examine people through an independent environmental inquiry process. It should not be done by cabinet decree, not behind the closed door of cabinet, but that is exactly what the minister did both in the Cowichan-Koksilah order and in the Fraser Rimer estuary order.

There are other estuaries throughout the province that are in danger as a result of this minister not attaching the value to estuary lands that should be attributed to those lands, such as the Englishman River estuary in my riding, the Somass River estuary in my riding, Campbell River, Comox - a number of estuaries that are under attack now and are under threat of economic development. Those are very productive lands, extremely productive lands, more productive in terms of the protein they generate than the most productive agricultural land we have in the province of British Columbia. Yet there seem to be no overall policy by this minister covering those productive estuary lands, those extremely valuable lands. And once you lose an estuary, once you lose that productive land, then it's gone forever. Either it's gone forever or it costs tremendous dollars in terms of investment to try to restore the lands, and it's something that we should all be concerned about.

The previous member for Richmond -- and he was a good member - proposed at one time a coastal zone management Act which was under discussion in the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and under discussion in the former Ministry of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. It was a bill that was almost a white paper for coastal zone management in the province and would inevitably have resulted in government legislation. Now we have no policy as a result of the change in the government.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What happened to it?

[ Page 1826 ]

MR. SKELLY: It was under discussion in the secretariat. We were going to produce legislation out of that. What has happened then? Question No. 1, Mr. Chairman: what has happened to the discussion of coastal zone management legislation in this province?

When we were in government, a committee of this House was struck that travelled all over the province and examined the problem of streambank and shoreline management from the point of view of problems created by logging and resource exploitation. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) was on that committee. There are still some members left in the House who were on that committee. The hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was on that committee.

We produced a report and everybody endorsed the report of that committee on an all-party basis. That was a forestry and fisheries committee. We travelled around quite a bit of the province. At the request of timber companies, environmental groups, citizens' groups and municipalities we examined every possible aspect of resource exploitation along streambanks and shorelines, and came down with a good report. That report was turned over to the Environment and Land Use secretariat for further analysis and the idea was that it should be used for generation of some coastal zone management policy or legislation and that has been killed as far as we can tell when the new minister came to office and when the new government came to office.

So the first question is: what has happened in the Environment and Land Use secretariat to the examination of an all-encompassing policy for coastal zone management in the province of British Columbia? It appears to be a dead issue under this government because their major friends and supporters are the very people.... Herb Doman is the perfect example -bagman for the Social Credit Party. What he wants in the Cowichan estuary obviously he gets.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Did you say he had six applications in?

MR. SKELLY: Six ideas for development in the estuary. I will list them for you later on in the debate because I believe we will be going on. So there is no overall policy in the province to cover estuary management. If there is, I hope that the minister will get up and explain it to us. You can't protect estuaries, you can't protect that valuable land and valuable food production land simply by imposing orders-in-council here and there on a band-aid basis.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: How did your government do it?

MR. SKELLY: By using section 5 of the Environment and Land Use Act in a number of areas.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Where?

MR. SKELLY: Tsitika-Schoen.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is that an estuary now?

MR. SKELLY: I will give you an opportunity to ask questions later, Mr. Minister.

If he doesn't know that Tsitika-Schoen is an estuary, something is desperately wrong with this minister. It has, as a part of the study area, an estuary.

In a number of areas that did happen. But these are extremely valuable areas in terms of protein production. In the minister's own riding, the Fraser River estuary, by order-incouncil he imposed a an environmental impact assessment procedure that has operated totally in secret. There's no way of knowing whether proposals have gone forward to the minister under the order-in-council.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Ask.

MR. SKELLY: I have asked on a number of occasions. But there's no way of knowing because the minister doesn't make announcements.

It is the same under the new section of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which he passed last year - section 98. How does an individual who is concerned about the protection of farmland in the province of British Columbia find out if a political appeal is going to cabinet under the new section of the Act? There is no provision for public hearings. There is no provision even for public notice of applications under section 98 of the Land Commission Act. The minister has attempted to push the whole question totally into the darkness of cabinet secrecy. And that's another problem we have with this minister. He is attempting to take the environmental assessment and review procedure out of the public view, out of the public hands and to deny public access to that procedure.

Mr. Chairman, it is approaching 6 o'clock.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

[ Page 1827 ]

Presenting reports.

MR. BAWTREE: I have the honour to table two reports from the Standing Committee on Agriculture: "The Impact of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion on the Food Inquiry on Western Canada" and "The Family Farm and Capital Gains Taxation."

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.