[ Page 6175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Information programs. Mrs. Dailly –– 6175

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Hall

Mr. Barrett

Provincial Debt Repayment Act (Bill 14). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6177

Mr. Stupich –– 6178

Mr. Cocke –– 6179

Mr. Mussallem –– 6179

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada (Bill PR401). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 6180

West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill PR402). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 6180

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 6181

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 21). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On section 17 –– 6181

Mr. D'Arcy

Third reading –– 6181

Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act (Bill 17). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On section 5 –– 6182

Ms. Sanford

On section 20 –– 6182

Ms. Sanford

Mr. King

On the amendment to section 21 –– 6184

Ms. Sanford

Mr. King

On section 23 –– 6185

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to section 23 –– 6185

Ms. Sanford

On section 35 –– 6185

Ms. Sanford

Report –– 6186

Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 18). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On section 12 –– 6186

Ms. Sanford

On section 16 –– 6186

Ms. Sanford

Third reading –– 6186

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On section 2 –– 6186

Ms. Sanford

On section 5 –– 6187

Ms. Sanford

On section 6 6189

Ms. Sanford

On section 8 –– 6189

Ms. Sanford

Mr. King

On section 10 –– 6190

Ms. Sanford

Ms. Brown

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

On vote 106: minister's office –– 6190

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barber

Tabling Documents

First Citizens' Fund administration annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6198

Appendix –– 6198

MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The saying of prayers in this Legislature is of special significance to each of us in our own way. However, the prayers are special today because they were said by Jim Robertson of the Oaklands Gospel Chapel. Jim and his wife are celebrating their sixtieth wedding anniversary. Those who have seen Jim would guess that either he was a child bridegroom or that they should give great credit to Mrs. Robertson because of his extremely youthful appearance and his vitality. I thank him for sharing his special day with the members of this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on my behalf and that of the opposition, may I add my words to Jim Robertson, who is a friend to all of us. His example and his words are not only publicly expressed in this chamber but are also expressed privately to all of us. We deeply appreciate that. We wish to tell him, as in an old Hebraic saying, that he's only halfway there; it's 120 years that he has to fulfil.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the gallery today are three people, two of whom are from the state of California. They are visiting our House for the first time. They have been brought to our Legislature by a British Columbian, Mr. Maxted. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Oral Questions

INFORMATION PROGRAMS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. Would the minister advise why his high-profile communications deputy, Douglas Heal, has issued a memorandum saying that he reports to the Premier rather than to the Provincial Secretary, when we know that his statutory responsibility is to the Provincial Secretary?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member did not identify the communication she is referring to, but I think she is referring to the objectives of the program of the Deputy Minister of Information Programs. It is no secret that this activity, as was the case with the person who previously held that office, is an effort to coordinate the public information programs of all of government, whether it is the Premier's office or that of any minister. I think it is incumbent on him to respond and coordinate, for the benefit of the people receiving the information, all of the information programs going out of government. I think it is quite obvious that he wouldn't be performing his duties as information director of all of government if he wasn't also relating to the Premier's office.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, that really is not a satisfactory answer. The question is: why is your communications deputy reporting to the Premier instead of to you?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thought I said that the function of this office is to coordinate all public information from all offices. I think it is to his credit that he would want to be well informed on the programs, announcements or plans emanating from the Premier's office. Mr. Speaker, you could expect that this gentleman would be consulting with any ministry providing advice for assimilation or coordination of information going out. I don't see why the member would take exception to the fact that he has access to or communication with the Premier. Is that objectionable?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can try to find out if the Provincial Secretary's deputy has any relationship to his minister, and whether the minister, who is supposed to be in charge of communications for the government.... Under his ministry he has been given the deputy in charge of communications. My next question to the minister is: if you are supposed to be in charge of communications, can you tell us why you are not a member of the communications planning committee?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think I would suggest an answer to that question by way of a further question. Is the member suggesting that this office should not have access to the Premier's office along with any other minister's office?

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY: Can the minister tell us if calls coming through to his deputy to do with the area of communications are relayed to the Premier's office or to his office?

MR. LEGGATT: I'd also like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. At the present time your deputy, Mr. Heal, has spent some $15,000 of the taxpayers' money for a repackaged TV news service. Could the minister advise the House whether he's seen fit to obtain a legal opinion? I'm not asking for a legal opinion, but has he obtained a legal opinion as to whether he and his deputy are now in violation of the Canadian copyright laws?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think the member is referring to news reports dealing with a video-tape service — or whatever name is applied to this — on news information. The newspaper articles alluded to the question of legality of this service. I think that is a question to be determined by the supplier of that service, whether he's supplying government or a multitude of other clients. I'm informed that he has many clients. The whole question of attempting to monitor television newscasts is a matter which is being questioned by the media right across North America. The question of the legality of it is certainly a matter of concern to the supplier of that service. I might say that as far as my ministry is concerned, the only service being supplied is essentially a news-clipping service. In effect, it supplies the government with a log of the programs which this service has been able to monitor. It's impossible for anyone, whether an opposition or a government member, to monitor all television news. It's the same as a news-monitoring service for the printed media, radio and so on. All that is being supplied is a log of the services being monitored. If a minister needs to know more about a particular news item, he can obtain information and respond properly to what is being said from time to time.

[ Page 6176 ]

MR. LEGGATT: No doubt the minister knows that he's now the consumer of a service. As the consumer of a service which appears in violation of Canadian copyright law he has a duty to uphold the law of Canada and not to conspire with a supplier in violation of Canadian copyright law.

Did the minister himself order this video news service or whatever they call it, or was it someone else? Was it the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) or the Premier who, in fact, ordered Mr. Heal to obtain this particular service?

Would the Provincial Secretary tell the House — bring us into his confidence — why he is doing this? What is the purpose of the news service? Why do you need this kind of little clipping, censor or whatever kind of thing you'd call it? What's the purpose of the thing, if it isn't to doctor the news?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd just like to ask the member how on earth one doctors the news. Has he some experience in doctoring the news? What the member seems to be questioning is the access to news and to what is said in the news for members of the government and this House. I see no reason, with the impossibility for members of this House to have access to the news.... News is a very brief and fleeting thing on any given day. It's impossible for any member to see the news. To suggest that members of this House should not have access to what is being said on the news so they can respond properly and understand what has been said is, I think, a ridiculous assumption.

MR. HALL: I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary if he talks to Mr. Heal before he comes in here to answer questions in question period.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I consider that a facetious question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, question period has limited time.

MR. HALL: I'd like to ask the minister another question. When did the minister instruct his public relations deputy, Mr. Heal, to assume supervisory duties in the Knowledge Network?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The entire mandate of the deputy minister for public information programs was a decision of all government, including what his entire area of responsibility would be, primarily in the coordination of public information and updating the quality of it in terms of what people want to see. I think we should all agree that there's a great need for this in this province. Many people have been saying to government that we must improve the message that goes out in terms of public information. The decision in terms of his mandate was a decision of all government.

MR. HALL: I'd like to know whether the minister has now decided to use censored or edited news clips that he's ordered from the various media services of the province on the satellite network in the north, for example.

HON. MR. WOLFE: If I understand the question, the answer is clearly no. This service only provides access to a verbatim tape of what might have been said in the newscast. It isn't an edited or revised version.

MR. BARRETT: We have now had an announcement from the minister that there has been a change in policy. This House and the people of British Columbia were told that the Knowledge Network would be a purely educational program. When the minister says that it was a government decision to have Mr. Heal take over the Knowledge Network, I want to know when that decision was made and why it wasn't announced to the people of British Columbia that they were setting up a propaganda department.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this ministry, insofar as it is represented in that service through the deputy minister for public information programs, is offering a service to various ministries. Insofar as the service it might offer to the Knowledge Network is concerned, I think the question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

MR. BARRETT: I put the question to the former boss of Mr. Heal — not to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, but to the person who accounts in this House for the taxpayers' money expended in this job. That's the minister; it's in his vote. The question to this minister is: are you under total and complete control of your deputy or not?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I've said before, the gentleman in question and his office are responsible to all of government. My ministry services his office. If you're asking specifically about the Knowledge Network and his expertise in that regard, I think your question should be directed to the minister responsible for the Knowledge Network.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that ministers do not service the offices of employees, but that employees service the offices of ministers. If the minister is not prepared to tell this House that he is or is not the boss of Mr. Heal, then let the government be honest enough to tell us exactly under whose daily orders Mr. Heal is. I say that the minister is giving up his responsibility and the Premier is calling the shots on Mr. Heal.

I want an assurance that no taxpayers' money is being used for propaganda purposes under that minister's office.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the guidelines for questions clearly say that question period is not an opportunity for a questioner to make a speech, regardless of how short that speech might be.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As I've said before in this House, what the leader of the opposition just said is so typical of the NDP. Mr. Speaker, the jackboot, strong-fist approach to who is boss of whom in the government — continually the same approach — just doesn't happen to be the way these ministers approach their job and their responsibility in association with people who work for them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 6177 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL DEBT REPAYMENT ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the Provincial Debt Repayment Act, it is necessary to point out precisely how this aspect of government in the 1970s, and now with the bill into the 1980s, came about. The purpose of Bill 14 in this year's legislative program is to provide for the annual instalment of the repayment of the provincial government operating debt — or dead-weight debt — brought about by the deficit in this province's budget culminating in the fiscal year 1975-76. It is important that we cast our minds back to that particular time in British Columbia history to remind ourselves that the overall deficit in the provincial accounts in the fiscal year 1975-76 was $405,186,243. After applying the unappropriated balance in the revenue surplus account, which amounted at that time to only $143,738,453, a deficit of $261,447,790 remained for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976.

This deficit was financed by way of a debt instrument which was restructured in 1978 to a ten-year instrument, with an annual repayment of $26.1 million for the first to ninth year, to ensure ultimate retirement of this debt. While it is a very short bill — in committee stage we will see one section, a preamble and title — it speaks volumes about the circumstances which this province found itself in and which this newly elected government found itself in at the end of 1975 and into 1976.

I repeat that the original amount of the debt was $261,447,000. The effect of the payment which is before us today in Bill 14 is to reduce the amount outstanding to $183,147,790, retroactive to May 1, 1981. The semi-annual interest payments on this provincial debt in the fiscal year 1981-82 are provided for in the Ministry of Finance main estimates, which were dealt with in Committee of Supply just a few days ago.

Soon after being appointed to the position of Minister of Finance for the province of British Columbia, I set about determining if it was possible for the province to secure the highly coveted triple-A credit rating. It would not have been possible for us to do that were it not for the work undertaken by my immediate predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). It would not have been possible for us to secure the credit rating without the efforts of the Premier and all ministers who have served since December 1976. I use the phrase "highly coveted," which might seem a little trite. The fact is, when I was able to announce the first triple-A credit rating — there are two credit-rating agencies housed in New York who examine all international credits — it was obvious that that had been sought for many years in the province of British Columbia by the former Premier, the late W.A.C. Bennett. I'm sure it would have arrived had he remained in office after 1972. Clearly it was sought also by the socialist administration in the years 1972-75, at the time when the now Leader of the Opposition served in a dual position that he indicated he would never take — Premier and Minister of Finance,

Much has been said about the triple-A rating. I think it is important that we reflect on it for just a few minutes, because while those who would wish it had happened at some other time — i.e. 1972-75 — tend to say that we speak of it too much, it is one of the most significant financial developments in the history of British Columbia. It's the first time we've secured the highest credit rating on international markets, through the firms of Moody's Investors Services and Standard and Poor, both of New York.

At the time our presentation was made to these two firms and at the time when senior representatives of both firms came to British Columbia, they conducted a most exhaustive review which lasted, in both instances, for a good number of days. There was an exhaustive review of such widely diverse things as pension funds which are under the control of the province, superannuation matters and the status of the provincial economy and the provincial government's accounts. They met with the auditor-general, with senior staff not only in the Ministry of Finance but in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, with other ministries and with the ministers responsible for such Crown corporations as British Columbia Hydro and British Columbia Rail; I mention only two, but it was a good review of a number of Crown corporations. In other words, when the senior representatives of these two internationally recognized rating firms — Moody's and Standard and Poor — returned to New York in early 1980, on the basis of the information we had taken in a comprehensive document and the answers received to questions they posed while they were in British Columbia meeting with government and Crown corporations officials they had the most complete picture of the financial prosperity and the health — underline "the health" — of the province of British Columbia.

I would not suggest today that there are not some jurisdictions, states or provinces which enter into a deficit operating situation from time to time and therefore would not qualify for a triple-A. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is not entirely correct to suggest that a triple-A rating would be granted by one of these two firms only in the event of balanced budget. On the other hand, it is clear that that is a very important consideration on the part of these two organizations when they are analyzing whether a credit — in this case the credit of the province of British Columbia and its principal Crown corporation, British Columbia Hydro — is to be raised from a double-A, as it was, to the extremely important triple-A. We will never know. Nonetheless, I submit that on the basis of the spend, spend, spend attitude of the socialist administration between 1972 and 1975 a request for a triple-A rating would not have been granted. I cannot prove it, but all I have learned about the intense detailed review which is conducted by these firms suggests to me that an effort to obtain a triple-A rating during those approximately three and a half years would not have succeeded.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I invite the member to take his place in the debate if he has anything to say.

We have here another payment to retire the debt accumulated by that party when it was in power from 1972 to 1975. On the basis of what we've been able to learn since, and what I'm sure my predecessor in this portfolio learned, we find that there was generally an uncoordinated approach to the spending programs of individual ministries. That was one of the fatal aspects of the NDP administration: turning a very healthy surplus into a very worrisome deficit on operating accounts. It is essential that ministries be required to communicate with each other and that ministries, through central agencies such as Treasury Board, be very carefully monitored.

[ Page 6178 ]

As my predecessor said, never again in British Columbia can we have a debt on the annual operating account. I have said that you move into deficit spending gradually and very easily. It would be easy for Treasury Board to ignore certain requests, to grant all requests which come through and to permit ministers to spend without reporting on the amount they are spending or to exceed their estimates. The movement into deficit spending in any jurisdiction, province or state is easily started, and it's a very slippery slide down with very little opportunity to return. Let it never happen again in British Columbia, and let us continue to balance our budget, as we must and as this government will through difficult times and easier times.

I move second reading of Bill 14, Provincial Debt Repayment Act, the 1981 repayment of a debt incurred by that party when it was in power from 1972 to 1975.

MR. STUPICH: It has been said that figures don't lie but liars have been known to figure. I'm not suggesting that the Minister of Finance is lying, but I am saying he is applying very selective memory in his recitation of the history of the debt and very selective information with respect to the achievement of the triple-A rating, of which we were all proud. I'm sure the Minister of Finance, if he were speaking in any forum other than this or a political meeting, would not pretend for one moment that a triple-A rating is won in a period of a few months, or even two or three years. It's a measure of the financial standing of the province of British Columbia, something that goes back not one or two years but one, two and three decades. It takes that long to achieve a triple-A rating. It's a history of three administrations at least, and perhaps even further back than that.

The spend, spend, spend attitude of the NDP administration.... Mr. Speaker, I thought even you should have smiled at that. This is the administration that this year introduced a budget that is a 20 percent increase over last year's budget — a far greater rate of increase than anything ever achieved by the NDP administration. What is it going to? What are the figures that we're not told about? How much is in that budget? There's the hidden figure for northeast coal development, for example, that the minister has been something less than candid about. There's the money that is going into all these monuments to the Social Credit administration. You talk about our spend, spend, spend attitude. Nobody has been able to come anywhere near approaching the spend, spend, spend attitude of this administration since the 1979 election when they came perilously close to losing, and they're now determined they're going to build so many monuments in the hope that the people will forget the mess that they made of running the province.

Never again a debt on an annual operating account. They talk about debt. This is the administration that sits in office in a year when the contingent liability — the debts guaranteed by the people of this province on behalf of the Crown-owned Crown corporations — will reach the figure of $10 billion. And they say never again. Ten billion dollars. Not only that, but to make sure that they didn't run into so-called debt on their so-called annual operating accounts, they have created a number of new Crown corporations, each one of them with borrowing power and each one of which has borrowed. Accounts which were previously in what the minister calls annual operating accounts are now taken out of annual operating accounts — budgetary expenditures — and are shown as expenditures of several Crown corporations.

Among them are: the Transit Authority, which is now borrowing in its own name; B.C. Buildings Corporation, which is now borrowing in its own name; B.C. Systems Corporation, which is now borrowing in its own name; B.C. Ferry Corporation, which is now borrowing in its own name and selling its ferries to eastern financial interests; and the universities financing authority, which borrows money to build universities and secondary educational institutions.

All of these amounts were previously in what the minister called the annual operating accounts. By taking them out of the annual operating accounts it's so much easier not to have a debt. You let somebody else do the borrowing, you guarantee it, and you say: "That's not our debt. That's my brother's, my father's, my mother's — it's somebody else's debt. It's not mine; I don't owe it. I'll guarantee it, and each year I'll collect taxes from people to make sure that those Crown corporations have enough money to pay it, but I don't owe it. It's not my debt."

The minister uses very selective memory in talking about the debt accumulated under the NDP administration. He might have referred to the Clarkson, Gordon report — the first compilation of that debt. Even that report, which the Premier told us was going to be a full audit of all of the operating accounts of government and all of the Crown corporations.... As a businessman he knows full well that a full audit of such a complex system of accounts could not be done in a six-week period. He knew that. He knew when he presented the Clarkson, Gordon report that it was not an audit, that it was nothing more than what the report itself said: an adding together of all of the information that was supplied by the Minister of Finance, the various ministers and the heads of the Crown corporations. That's all it was. They added all those figures up, and by adding the figures that were given to them by government they came out with a total that was $540 million not $405 million, as I recall it. I didn't realize this bill was coming up soon enough to look up the research, but I believe the figure was $540 million. Even by instructing the ministers in those three and a half months under this Social Credit administration after the election of December 11, 1975, even when the ministers were told: "Get rid of all the money you can before March 31...." Hospital grants were paid and hospitals were writing or phoning in and asking: "How come we got this money before March 31? We weren't expecting it until August. Why are you sending it now?" The farmers were asking: "How come we're getting farm income assurance money in March that we didn't expect until April, May or June?" The government ministers were obviously instructed to pay out as much money as they knew they were going to have to pay out and to get rid of it before March 31 in order to make the deficit as large as it possibly could be in that three and a half months they had to cook the books. That was the advice.

Even with that, they were unable to get it up as high as the Clarkson, Gordon people reported it would be completely on the basis of the information that the ministers fed to them. That's what Clarkson, Gordon said. With respect to the various figures that were used by the government in creating that deficit — the various figures that Clarkson, Gordon people were told to put into the report to add up and come up with that deficit figure — Clarkson, Gordon also had the honesty.... They had to be completely candid. They're in a bit of a different position than the Minister of Finance. He needn't be completely candid. But Clarkson, Gordon had to be in putting their name to that kind of report. In all honesty

[ Page 6179 ]

they had to say that the decision as to whether any of these amounts should be paid out by March 31 was a political decision. It was purely and completely a political decision as to when these amounts should be paid out: whether they should be paid out on March 31 and thereby made an expenditure against the year ending March 31, or whether they should be made on April 1 or later and thereby made an expenditure for the following year. That was one question.

The second question that was purely political was whether or not these Crown corporations would borrow the money on their own, raise it through their own levies or be given a grant by government, or whether the politicians would decide that a grant in the amount of $175 million would be given to ICBC, for example, on March 31. It was a purely political decision as to whether that should be done by grant — the money coming from the taxpayers as opposed to coming out of the pockets of the people who are paying premiums. Clarkson, Gordon said that. The Minister of Finance forgot about that — selective memory. He made no reference at all to the fact that the whole of the $267 million or $271 million — whatever it was — could be accounted for by grants that were purely political as to the timing and as to whether they should be grants out of consolidated revenue or whether they should be moneys raised by the Crown corporations themselves.

This whole exercise is a political battle. We've discussed this to quite an extent in estimates, and I have no particular desire to get into it again in detail today. I would not have, except that the minister started a purely political discussion on what is a purely political bill. I'm pleased that he is reminding us how devious this particular party can be in trying to present figures and in trying to cook the books — how desperate they are to try to persuade people that they are doing a better job than appears to be the case and how desperate they are in trying to remind people that some six or seven years ago the government in office at that time was not doing a good job for them. They're afraid the people may have forgotten some of the things that they didn't like. They're now bringing this whole thing up year after year to try to persuade people that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, they actually are doing a good job for the people of British Columbia. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, they're still trying to persuade the taxpayers of British Columbia that they're worth re-electing. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that they're not. You know what the attitude of the people will be in the next election when they get an opportunity to say to this bunch: "You've been there too long for the people of British Columbia; it's time to go. Go!"

MR. COCKE: I would like us to view Bill 14 in the context of what it really is: a piece of political propaganda that comes up year after year. If the government was serious and if the government was not trying to do a deceitful thing, it would have been brought up as a bill in the first place; one bill which would have given the people of B.C. the opportunity of paying off this so-called debt. But no. How is it brought up? It's brought up in the same bill and the same amount each year to give the government an opportunity to do what a man by the name of Goebbels did years and years ago. His theory was tell it often enough and it becomes the truth in peoples minds. We don't accept this abysmal piece of legislation as truth. We accept this piece of political propaganda for exactly what it is — just that. Why the time of the House should be wasted, year after year, as we are doing now, is beyond my comprehension and the comprehension of any thinking person in this province.

They talk about debt. This year in this self-same budget, it is announced that we will be going $1.59 billion further into debt under Social Credit. As the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said, much of this new debt is going to be a brand-new Crown corporation. A lot of it is going to be in B.C. Hydro, to be sure. A lot of it is going to be in the B.C. Railway, you can be assured. But there are brand-new Crown corporations that this government set up in order to hide behind a Crown corporation rather than face up to fiscal responsibility. I think that if the people in our province are as naive as our Finance minister thinks, then it's a very sad state of affairs. We have a huge budget this year. All through the budget debate, this side of the House has been pointing out areas such as advertising, enormous amounts; areas such as building occupancy, enormous amounts; areas such as computer services, enormous amounts that could have been cut. It's over $60 million to date. I think that for the government to continue on with this line, year after year, even after having an intervening election, is beyond my ken.

When are they going to get serious? When are they going to try to sit down and say the province has been governed by Social Credit from 1952 until now — that's more than 29 years — except for 3 years and 4 months. That era of light, when the people finally had access to government, was a fine hour, and not the kind of hour that this minister is trying to draw us into and trying to make us feel badly about. We don't. We look out at those services — province-wide ambulance, old-age incomes, Pharmacare, very fine programs that were introduced by a government who thought far more of people than they did of monuments.... What a contrast! Today we're spending billions of dollars, and much of it is not even known to date because the decisions are made behind closed doors.

Mr. Speaker, how can we be asked to take this bill seriously? All I can suggest — and it annoys me no end — is that this propaganda machine, about which we heard today in question period — where one person has become the czar of government information.... Now we have the same kind of news, and part of that news service will be delivering this line across the province. But that new government "news service" will not be giving the answers that the member for Nanaimo gave very clearly and simply. It's another shocking day in the history of our province.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I echo the words of the hon. Minister of Finance when he said: "Never again will this government go into an operating debt. Never again will we spend the people's money to pay interest. Never again will we saddle the young and the future of this province." That's our clarion call. I will remind them of the day we came to government in 1975. The programs we saw in effect would be impossible to carry on with the input that was coming in. We saw the ferry system in a state of disrepair and $54 million in debt. We saw ICBC debt-ridden and practically at a solid stop. The only transport to the north was through trucks on the Fraser Canyon highway. That highway was in disrepair; it was almost impassable in places. Never again will this government go into debt for operating cash, because it saddles the future with expense.

When will they finally understand that contingent liability is not debt to the province of British Columbia? That's a very weak and pointless observation. Let's just take Hydro as

[ Page 6180 ]

an example. Never mind school financing, which gives the schools of the province a triple-A rating. Never mind that which is vital. Never mind the Municipal Finance Authority that gives the municipality a triple-A rating. It gives them a rating, because otherwise they may not even have a single-A rating. Never mind all that, and take that interest debt off the shoulders of the people of the province of British Columbia. Let us simply talk about Hydro. They call Hydro a debt.

I want to explain a little, if they will just listen. If this government said that it came to the conclusion to get out of Hydro and sell it, people from all over the world would line up to buy Hydro at ten times the debt of Hydro. We could operate the government for the next ten years, but the rates would go up. Is that what they want? Do they want Hydro to be privately operated? No, because this is a public institution that's operating well. That's what they're asking for. Hydro is not a debt. I'm only speaking of Hydro now. As I said, I'm not speaking of the municipal board of authority; I'm not speaking of any of that. I'm saying that Hydro is not a debt on the public in the province of British Columbia.

We have to watch that we do not arrive at the debt syndrome. Quebec has it, with a debt already of $17 billion. This budget they have today has a debt of $17 billion and an additional $3 billion deficit, totalling $20 billion in all. That's acceptable to the people of Quebec. That's the debt syndrome. The great province of Ontario has it already, with a horrendous debt of $1 billion more than the last budget, and the government was returned to power. In this country we are arriving at the debt syndrome. That is the fuel of inflation. That is our problem. We must not fuel inflation. That minister will run this province's operating responsibility without the future of debt. It is a sad day when we try and mislead the people of British Columbia and try to tell them that the Crown corporations of British Columbia are debts for their children. They are the greatest asset this government has at this time.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR401, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING
MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY AND
MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA

The House in committee on Bill PR401; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the Chair.

Bill PR401, An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR402, Mr. Speaker.

WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND
LIGHT COMPANY, LIMITED, ACT, 1897,
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Mussallem in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chair may have omitted section 5 in the recital of the sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's exactly what the hon. Clerk is telling me at this time.

Section 5 approved.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is the rule in this House that if a Chairman inadvertently omits a section and has to go back to it, he must either obtain leave from the House in order to do so, or it is a dropped order and has to be returned in the whole at the next sitting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't yet declared the bill passed. I'm still on the bill at this time.

MR. BARBER: Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, you require leave in order to return to section 5, so that we may or may not grant assent to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What rule or regulation are you speaking of? What standing order?

MR. BARBER: This has occurred a couple of times before, and in each case, when the Chairman has inadvertently omitted a section, he has requested leave of the committee or the House to return to the otherwise dropped section.

MR. HALL: I think that if you read the bill carefully you'll find there are only two sections; we've been out of order since you've been in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think you're right. I'm looking at the bill; it's right in front of me.

MR. HALL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish you'd consult with the Clerks, because I think I'm right.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, would you kindly not interrupt the Chair. Order, please.

[ Page 6181 ]

Hon. members, the Chair wishes to make this correction: there are only two sections to the bill. To excuse the Chair, there are an awful lot of numbers here that I hadn't seen before. In the meantime, we have passed the bill in beautiful order.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we passed a bill under your firm, authoritarian leadership which contains seven sections, a preamble and a title. What we have before us is a bill containing two sections, no preamble and a title. That's a matter of record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: There is a preamble.

MR. KING: All right. There are two sections, in any event.

Mr. Chairman, I would think the only remedy would be to ask leave to reconsider the bill, because clearly it does not contain more than two sections. To be precise for legislative records, I don't know how we can pass this bill under the guise of it containing seven sections. For the Clerks' assistance in giving you valuable legal advice, the main problem I see in terms of obtaining leave to reconsider the bill is the fact that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has instructed me never to give leave in the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if you'll bear with the Chairman again, with my full apology to the House, we've passed sections 1 and 2 — and we passed the others superfluously; we didn't need to pass them. It makes no difference. It doesn't alter anything. We passed the preamble; we passed the title. The Chair rules that the bill has passed.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment — the two sections, the preamble and the title.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR402, West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL LAND TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5. Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 21.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we see this bill has a number of what are described as consequential amendments. I can remember some bills like that, where the minister involved claimed they were consequential amendments and they certainly weren't. However, I would agree that in this one they are.

In section 17 we see once again substantial power given to the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I would ask the minister if he could give the committee a fairly quick explanation as to why all these powers are necessary and why greater detail cannot be spelled out as to how the section of the bill would operate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Rather than giving the minister powers under this section, it gives the officials of the branch the power to make regulations that they deem necessary. I might just say that that power has been with them, or at least been exercised by them, over many years, at least as long as I can remember. The problem here is that the legislative counsel and officials in the Ministry of the Attorney-General's branch have said to us that many of the things that the officials have been doing in the branch over the years may have been ultra vires because the power wasn't contained in the act. In this instance, we are putting into the act the opportunity for them to make and vary some of the provisions in regulations that they have been doing for many years. I can assure the member that this section doesn't give the minister any more power at all through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Sections 17 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 21 be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6182 ]

POWER ENGINEERS AND BOILER
AND PRESSURE VESSEL SAFETY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would ask that section 2(3)(d) be deleted and the following substituted. That amendment has been placed with you on the order paper. I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 5, the member for Comox.

MS. SANFORD: Actually, it's section 3, Mr. Chairman. There was some question raised the other day by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) with respect to trains. The minister promised to bring that information back. I believe that the section went by before he could bring the information back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As members know, it's impossible in committee to give leave. However, with assent of the committee, we can allow a certain latitude on the question on section 5.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There were a number of questions asked when the bill was debated during first reading. I have answers to a number of those questions. With respect to the question raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the short answer is that it covers only stationary plants and does not cover the engines, as I suspect the member may have known. May I take the liberty of reading the answer which I secured — not having a railroad ticket, unlike the member.

"The proposed legislation covers stationary power plants on railway premises. For rolling stock safety services are the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways under the Railway Act. Wherever pressure vessels are involved on railway premises, the Ministry of Labour inspecting power engineers ensure the design is correct to the standard and certify the manufactured product. The Ministry of Labour inspecting power engineers also deal with the stationary equipment on provincial railway properties and provide a similar service to the railways under federal jurisdiction where requested by them and where the feds do not have qualified personnel."

The legislative editors did not feel that there was any need to include in this legislation specific clauses pertaining to railways as an exclusion, as it was self-evident by the scope of the relative acts. It was referring, of course, to the Railway Act. I hope that answers the question.

Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Section 17 is amended by deleting "type of certificate" and substituting "class of certificate." I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

MS. SANFORD: I have a motion on the order paper which would delete section 20. I would like to explain that before the House gets an opportunity to vote on it.

Section 20 gives the possibility for strike-breaking. If you read the section carefully, you will find that the chief engineer of a plant or the owner of a plant may permit a person who is not qualified under this act and the regulations temporarily to operate any equipment that is in the plant and to which this act applies. It seems to me that you're going to give the owner of a plant authority to permit any unqualified person in that plant to operate that equipment. That certainly leaves the option for strike-breaking if in fact there has been a dispute at the plant and the regular people who are qualified are out on the picket line. I would like to have the minister comment on that before we vote on it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, after reviewing the Orders of the Day I took the member's proposal, and all I saw was: delete section 20. I did manage to secure some notes on that. I don't think that particular question with respect to strike-breaking is really a consideration one way or the other.

I might mention that section 20(a) of the new bill is essentially the same as section 23(3) of the existing act. Both the new and old sections recognize that there are extenuating circumstances — emergencies such as illnesses or other unavoidable causes — where it becomes necessary in the interests of public safety for plants to operate or continue to operate without the attendance of a power engineer for temporary periods where certain predetermined precautions have been established. I think that is eminently reasonable. The new clause actually tightens up the provisions by involving the director and the advisory committee, as well as the owner and chief engineer, in setting out the conditions where for short periods the exception to the rule can be applied. I'd like to repeat that that is now in the present legislation.

This concern was raised, I might tell you, by only one segment of the power engineers during the committee deliberations. After being thoroughly aired, a motion to delete or change that section was defeated by a large majority.

For the benefit of members in the House, I'd like to cast back to some of the comments during an earlier reading. There is a committee and has been a committee consisting of 33 members representing all unions which were involved and management, as well as a number of associations. To be very candid, I think those people are the ones who know and understand the working of boilers and pressure vessels. As I believe I mentioned earlier in the House, when this particular

[ Page 6183 ]

issue was presented to them it was passed 29 to 4. Really, who are we, when we're looking at consensus between the parties on legislation which has now been worked on for five years, to turn around and propose an amendment deleting a section which they themselves have thoroughly aired and wish incorporated within the bill?

I'd like to give an example. I don't think you can attribute any intention to the government for the purposes of strike-breaking. What's at issue here is the matter of safety. For example, in the interests of the welfare of the public, a hospital power plant in an isolated location is permitted to remain in service, with certain predetermined safeguards, when the shift engineer becomes ill or is involved in an accident. So I think that there has to be some flexibility. I would respectfully suggest that the real safeguard in here involves the chief engineer and the advisory committee itself, which has supported this proposal for a considerable period of time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister relies very heavily on the wording of the safety committee that was advising him, and keeps referring to the fact that this is a safety bill has nothing to do with anything else. But when there is a dispute at a plant, this section could be invoked under the guise of safety — which is what this bill is supposedly all about — and the owner can bring in unqualified people, which in effect is strike-breaking. The committee may have been very concerned about safety, but I don't think that they adequately considered the dangers involved in wording of this type in legislation. The minister just glossed over it and said: "It's really not strike-breaking one way or the other; that's not a factor, because we're talking about safety." But the point is that the wording does allow strike-breaking to take place under certain conditions, and that's what worries me. That's why I've brought in this amendment to delete this section.

MR. KING: I appreciate the comments of the minister and my colleague. I also am quite prepared to accept the minister's assurance that the government has not introduced this section with any improper motive in terms of strike-breaking. But I think the concern of my colleague the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is that there is a loophole here that would not act as a safety measure but could be used as a strike-breaking device, and to that extent be inconsistent with the intent of the entire bill, which is to bring one standard of safety. Her amendment is a good one. The alternative would be for the minister to stipulate precisely what is meant by "temporary."

We on this side of the House certainly appreciate that there could be an illness or some unforeseen emergency that would require that that boiler be kept operating for a short period of time by someone who was not a qualified certificate-holder, but surely that could be nailed down to four hours or one shift until a replacement could be found. Even in the isolated areas where a boiler is in operation around the clock, there is always a pool of qualified people to operate that boiler, as well as relief staff. I can't see the kind of emergency that would require an unqualified person to operate it more than four hours or one shift at the most. If it were restricted to one shift, then any concern about the strike-breaking aspect would be removed. I submit there would still be adequate flexibility for those isolated emergencies which the minister has explained.

I would suggest very strongly to the minister that he consider that. It may not be his motive to provide the loophole, but employers caught in the heat of a labour dispute will often use statutes to serve their best interests in ways not contemplated by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before proceeding I think the Chair should advise that the amendment to delete a section as is written here, "delete section 20," would be out of order, because the same result is achieved by voting against the section. The following amendment, to add section 20(a), does not fall into that category.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In view of the ruling I still feel entitled to make two comments with respect to those items raised by both members.

With respect to management using legislation in its favour in difficult circumstances, I would respectfully suggest that that works both ways. I'm concerned about what the member raises, and I would take that under advisement to see whether or not something could be looked at. It won't be in this particular bill, but I will, because there's certainly no intention whatsoever. It would seem to me that if someone were in effect exploiting a particular provision in a statute to do this, the objections would be well-founded. I will take your comments. That's about all I can do, in view of the fact that the motion has been ruled out of order.

MR. KING: I could offer the minister another amendment, or he could move one of his own volition. Be that as it may, I just wanted to comment very briefly on the minister's gratuitous comment that trade unions may violate or use a statute to their own advantage. Anyone may, but the point is that the minister didn't really need to offer that gratuitous comment, because this statute deals with a provision which would offer an improper advantage — one not conceived in the legislation — in this case to the employer. If we were debating a matter before us that through sloppy legislative drafting offered an improper power to a trade union, then the opposition would identify that for the minister too. It's a matter of some common sense in legislative draftsmen. All I'm suggesting is that the minister perhaps nail down what would be temporary emergency conditions where an unqualified person could operate this boiler. From the point of view of industrial relations and of safety it would seem to me a prudent step to nail it down to a prescribed period time — probably not more than one shift. That doesn't threaten anybody.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: One comment I would pass is simply this: when I look at the number of people who were involved in the advisory committee responsible for putting forth this legislation, I would be very surprised if the issue which is being addressed by both members opposite was not raised. I would be astounded if it wasn't, particularly in view of the number of unions involved.

MR. KING: Too bad they're not here to debate the bill.

MR. LEA: What do you think?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Never mind what I think, Mr. Member. I think this is a good bill.

[ Page 6184 ]

Section 20 approved.

MS. SANFORD: Section 20 has now been passed. We opposed it.

I stand to move an amendment adding section 20(a) standing under my name on the order paper, I have already explained the reason for adding this particular section to the House, at length.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, prior to moving the motion, I think we should first dispose of section 20.

MS. SANFORD: I was worried that you were going to go on to section 21.

On section 21.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, I will say "so ordered" on section 20 and recognize the member for Comox on the amendment of the order paper.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: I now move the amendment of section 20(a) standing in my name on the order paper, which adds the whole list of classifications of engineers.

We outlined the reason for this very clearly the other day. It's the tendency of this government to do everything by regulation, including this whole classification which goes on for a couple of pages outlining the classifications of engineers. These regulations, as you know, Mr. Chairman, are drawn up behind the closed doors of cabinet. There's no discussion in here. There's no one to hear the discussion about why they're adding this or withdrawing that. It's government by regulation. We object to it very much. I'm putting the list of classifications that appeared in the previous legislation back in this bill.

If there's a need to add more classifications, then certainly the minister can go ahead and do it. We are here for at least six months of the year, it seems to me these days. So surely, if there is the need to add further classifications, a six-month period is not too long to wait in order to make the necessary changes. Before, they were always made once a year. Years ago we sat in this House for only six weeks at a time. Any changes that had to be made were made in that period of time. Then the people had to wait until the following session. If we're here six months of the year, it's not too long to wait to add further classifications if that is necessary. We object to all this legislation by regulation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass? The noes have it.

MS. SANFORD: The minister was up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not see the minister standing. If the minister is speaking to the amendment....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We listen over here — listen to the group. Maybe that's something you should have remembered a few years ago.

Again, I refer to those who were responsible for bringing the legislation forth. It was quite acceptable to put it in by way of regulation. This question was raised during an earlier reading. I might add something here. I'm reading from some comments which may demonstrate why change by regulation when required is the better route to go, particularly because of the changing technology in industry. That's not in dispute. That certainly wasn't in dispute by the people who deal with this problem on a daily basis. It says: "In the matters of certificate classifications, plant sizes were reviewed to advance and get inter-provincial uniformity and reciprocity. These activities are sponsored nationally. They're monitored provincially by the committee of power engineers and educators" — not by MLAs. The changes were recommended. One in particular was the third-class certificate, which had plant size amended as far as our act was concerned. That amendment was better reflected in regulation. It was accepted by the committee involved. It would be far better to do it by achieving that consensus and proceeding administratively through regulation.

The question really is that, with 50 to 100 pages of regulations, that bill would be in constant turmoil. As a matter of fact, when the recommendations come forth, they don't come into cabinet and the cabinet makes a decision on the size of a boiler. The recommendations come from those who deal with them on a daily basis.

The consensus of those who are involved in this is that technology is changing so rapidly that unless the system is capable of leading with respect to safety concerns rather than following after the fact, consumers will be denied access to the latest in safety measures. It seems to me that those matters can be addressed by regulation. Where requirements relative to equipment-classification certificates are entrenched in legislation, the time lag in bringing about change would be such that the public would be subject to many hazards and complications before the system could respond.

If I might make a suggestion, let's look at the act which is now in place. It contains nineteenth-century material. This government has been in power — and members opposite were in power once too — and I never saw any changes occur. Do you recall any? It's the same legislation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No. Rapidly changing technology brings with it many new dangers. They ought to be addressed. There's an alert system and an advisory committee represented by all people in industry. They will make suggestions with respect to any regulations to provide a forward-looking approach to deal with the advent of those changes. That's not an unreasonable request either.

Before I sit down, the member made a proposal to include redundant and obsolete classifications. She just threw out the old bill. We've got a logging donkey engineer. When did you last see a logging donkey engineer? When did you see a boiler operator, class A and B, and a class of plant for third-class power engineers? That is only one example of the value of having regulations which will be subject to due process and under continuous review by industry and labour through the advisory committee.

MS. SANFORD: I explained to the minister that the list that I brought in was the list that had been contained in this bill for I don't know how many years. If the advisory committee suggested to me the number of classifications they wanted in here, I would bring them in and put them in the bill.

[ Page 6185 ]

I don't have that advice. The minister has the advice and knows what all of these classifications are supposed to be. He knows which ones to take out and which ones to add. They should be done here in this Legislature, not in cabinet. He cannot understand that, and I give up.

MR. KING: I'm not prepared to give up yet. Something the minister said concerns me a little bit. I just want to try to get across to him that, yes, we understand; we respect the need for technical advice with respect to specialized fields, professional acts and so on. But that's different from this Legislature becoming a rubber stamp for any professional association or any other group which has a special statute governing its function. For the minister to suggest, as he seemed to, that "the technical committee has advised me on this matter, so how dare the opposition or anyone else question the best advice of those specialists," is close to being contemptuous of the function of the Legislature. I don't think the minister intended that. But he should perceive that there is a responsibility on him — the minister and the sponsor of the bill — to familiarize himself adequately with the contents of the bill, technical or not, so that the Legislature is assured that we are not being asked to rubber-stamp and validate in some statutory way an abuse of power or some other breach of right by a professional organization which may be invidious to the public interest. That's what the Legislature is here for: to scrutinize and ensure that we don't give blanket endorsation to any group that is not responsible to this Legislature. For the minister to suggest to my colleague that, "how dare you question what this professional committee has deemed in their wisdom to be appropriate," comes close to contempt of the Legislature. Perhaps the minister hasn't been around too long, but he'd better understand that he, as the sponsor of that bill, has an obligation to give answers in here. If you don't understand the bill well enough, Mr. Minister, then I suggest that you take it back and get your technocrats to spend some more time with you, until you are conversant enough to answer for it before the Legislature.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

MS. SANFORD: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper — section 2(1), line 2, changing the word "may" to "shall."

If we are going to have improved safety, then I think it must be an obligation that these inspections take place, rather than giving the discretion to whoever. I think it is important that this change be accepted by the House. It used to be an obligation; it used to be "shall." It has now become "may." I think that is a step backwards in terms of protecting the public.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering if there is going to be any particular advantage in having formal investigations or detailed studies of minor incidents. I wonder if that is realistic in view of the number of inspectors that would be available, the number of people. By using the word "may" it's possible to accept certified reports and data, as opposed to conducting detailed on-site investigations. Really the proposed change is that if there is a decision that an accident requires investigation, then the investigation shall be carried out. The concern that I would have with it is that you're placing a very onerous burden on the administration of the legislation, just with respect to the manpower involved. Surely there is a report coming in on anything, but the chief inspector may, in view of any major problem.... I think there has got to be a certain degree of discretion; otherwise there will be bureaucrats running around on a number of items.

MS. SANFORD: If the minister looks at the wording, section 23(1) says: "Where in the opinion of the director it is necessary to investigate an accident...." If it is his opinion that it is necessary to investigate an accident, then surely he shall investigate it. But we still have that discretionary power. It says: "Where in the opinion of the director it is necessary to investigate an accident, the director...may investigate the accident." That doesn't make any sense. We certainly are not recommending that every small incident be investigated, but where it is the opinion of the director that it is necessary to investigate, then surely he shall investigate, if we’re going to have any safety.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll accept the member's comment on that, particularly after rereading this section. I accept the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

MS. SANFORD: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, which deletes the words "power engineers" and "boiler operators" from section 35(2)(e) and (f).

This amendment is to ensure they are not put under regulation. This whole section deals with regulations, going all the way from (a) to (u), because the minister intends to do everything by regulation behind closed doors. It's not even necessary for the minister to accept the advice of his committee of 33. You can have this great advisory group, but he doesn't have to accept their advice. He can put anything he wants in the regulations. As long as he can get them through cabinet they're the law, and they never get discussed in here. I don't think that's a point the minister understands yet.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 35 to 42 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 6186 ]

Bill 17, Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 18.

ELECTRICAL ENERGY INSPECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MS. SANFORD: I am somewhat concerned that we are not going to have a sufficient number of inspectors in the province. The other day during second reading the minister said it was a matter of funding; he didn't have very many funds and he probably would not be able to increase the number of electrical inspectors. Way back in 1974 it was a major concern to Dr. Keenleyside, who conducted the study on electrical inspections in the province. He felt there should be an annual inspection of facilities such as schools and hospitals. I'm wondering whether or not any of that is being done: if they just get their initial inspection and no inspections take place following that, or if regular inspections of places like schools and hospitals are being done. Could I have the minister comment on that?

One other point: can he assure the House that people who do their own wiring are not going to be affected by the various provisions of this legislation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The question the member referred to was of some concern. It was also raised by another member. I'm advised by the executive director for the safety engineering services division that.... I conveyed to them the concern you had expressed about the number of inspectors and the safety coverage. I think reference was made to schools and hospitals, and I'm advised that institutions like these have now taken advantage of the reinspection services provided under annual permit. I understand that something like 45 school districts, 20 hospitals, two universities and one college currently hold the annual permits.

I'm not going to stand here and say this will never be a problem. It is a problem we've had for 30 years, and I suspect it will be a problem for another 30 through sheer numbers alone. The other question that concerned me, as I recall, was your concern about the wiring of phones.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, people who do their own wiring.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It seems to me that there is a great deal of flexibility in that. To give you a definitive answer on that one, I think I'll have to undertake to get back to you.

Sections 12 through 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MS. SANFORD: We have to reiterate that this is a section in which the government is going to do everything by regulation. We must state our objection to this section. We are very much opposed to the direction the government is taking in almost every piece of legislation. They are doing more and more behind closed doors. We are very much opposed to it, and I don't think this government really understands the implications of carrying on so much of what is normally done in a Legislature through order-in-council.

We will oppose this section, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 16 through 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. SANFORD: During second reading of this bill we indicated that we would not be saying much during second reading, because we had a number of technical things we wanted to raise which were better done in committee. So I have a number of issues that I would like to raise under the various sections.

Under section 2, the definition of the word "alter" includes the word "repair." I have some concern about including the word "repair" in the word "alter." There's quite a difference between the words "alter" and "repair." In the previous bill it was expressly prohibited from including the word "repair," because repairing leaves open the possibility of people getting a lot of junked or unsafe gas appliances. I'm concerned about this particular addition. I would like the minister to explain to the House why they have included the word "repair" in here. For instance, you can now weld cracked heat exchangers in some of these appliances, and that's not always necessarily safe. I think that adding that particular section is a step backwards in terms of protection of the public, as far as safety is concerned.

I would also like to point out that under "gas installation" in this particular section the government has completely removed the section in the old act which put the onus on the gas-fitter to ascertain before he installed it that the appliance could be used safely. Not only have they added the word "repair," they have now removed the onus on the gas-fitter to

[ Page 6187 ]

ensure the safety of that particular piece of equipment before he installs it.

The other thing they've lost in this new bill, relating to this section.... An inspector used to have the power to direct that a test be conducted if there were any question, but the inspector can no longer do that. I would like to know how the safety of the consumer is protected by adding that word "repair" — which was prohibited in the previous legislation. And who will now direct that tests be conducted where there is a question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

MS. SANFORD: No, Mr. Chairman. I know the minister is trying to get the information. I did notify him during second reading that we'd be asking some technical questions. He probably needs another minute or so to get the information that he needs.

Does the minister know why they added the word "repair" to the word "alter"? Now it also means repair. That was strictly prohibited in the old legislation. Who is going to direct that tests be conducted on these appliances which may or may not be safe once they've been repaired by welding or whatever?

I'm not sure whether the minister is ready yet, Mr. Chairman. I know it's rather technical information, but I think it's important. He has pointed out in various press releases and has proudly announced that this particular set of bills is going to improve safety in the province. I would like to know how safety is going to be improved by the addition of the word "repair," and by removing the section that gives power to the inspector to direct that tests be conducted.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Under section 2: "alter" includes "repair"; and "gas installation" means the facility or system. I'm asking questions about that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm trying to secure an adequate answer for the member. I'm in a difficult position. I've got people in my office right now who are very familiar with this, but I don't quite know how I'm going to answer. If there are a number of questions which the member has, I would appreciate being notified in advance if there's some concern — itemizing these. I have never heard about this particular item before.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it's in the bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, no, the concern. You know, there's quite a bit of language in all the bills. But if you are concerned about some particular items, to which you made reference earlier that you would be raising some questions of a technical nature, then I would appreciate being notified in advance as to your particular concerns, Madam Member, and I would try to bring some acceptable answers back to the House for you.

I think that the thrust of what they were trying to get at with respect to the word "alter" was to allow some flexibility. If we're going to be very rigid about it.... It seems to me that if we go into section 6, as an example, where the word "alter" is used, where it says, "No person shall install or alter house piping, appliance or a vent, unless he meets the prescribed conditions and qualifications," I think that maybe we ought to know that it's just as important to have a repair covered by inspection as it is an alteration. I repeat that item: repair covered by inspection as it is an alteration, depending on what you define a repair to be. How are you going to establish that?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I don't really accept that explanation, although I appreciate that the minister is in a difficult position. I'm hoping that people will have heard his voice in his office, and will come rushing down to assist him in giving the answers. Perhaps I can get some more specific information from the minister on this at a later time. I am concerned about it, because I don't think that the safety aspect is improved one bit in this section.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MS. SANFORD: The minister just made reference to this section. What it really does is again diminish the level of safety, rather than improve it. What's happening here is that the section allows the inspector to inspect or not inspect. It says that installation is to be done according to the act, the regulations and the code. That's quite clear. But they've also given the Lieutenant-Governor.... We're discussing section 5, which substitutes a new section called section 6(1): "No person shall install or alter house piping, an appliance or a vent, unless he meets the prescribed conditions and qualifications." But then it also says under section 6(3) that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI can exempt anyone from complying with section 1.

So no person shall install, alter, repair or do any of these things, but then any person or class of persons can be exempted under section 6(3). In section 5(a), again by regulation, anyone can be excluded from needing to comply with section 1. So what are these new regulations going to do? Are they going to exclude everybody? What you have here is no permits — they don't have to issue permits — no records, no inspections and no legal responsibility for anybody. What kind of increased public safety is that, if you don't have to have any of these provisions? Can the minister advise how safety is improved through section 5, which adds section 6(1) to the legislation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the example passed on to me is that there are a number of times when a homeowner will do repairs to his or her own home. The question then comes in: for a homeowner to look after his work does he become a gas-fitter? There are certain rules and regulations to be complied with. That's really why an exemption has been given. For clarification I repeat: if you wish to repair your own home, is it necessary that you have a ticket? I think perhaps that's being rather hard, so we're suggesting that for the purpose of somebody doing repairs in his own home an exemption be given. That exemption is given by way of regulation.

MS. SANFORD: The numbering here is a little confusing, Mr. Chairman. Does section 5 include all the way down to...? Several other sections are really included there. There's a separate contractor section, if you've noticed. Would that be part of section 5? I'm assuming that.

[ Page 6188 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is part of section 5, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Then I shall speak on section 5, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know what the bonding will be for the contractors. In the past it's been set at $2,000. That was set in 1954, and it's far too low. It's going to be set by regulation. Can the minister advise what level the bonding is going to be set at?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The bonding is not being changed. It still remains at $2,000. I think that the member makes a valid point. I will make note of that and pass on your concerns.

MS. SANFORD: This is another part of section 5. I'm pleased that the minister is going to look at that bonding, because a lot of inflation has taken place since 1954.

On section 5, I'll refer the minister to the new section 8 that's being added to section 5. In the new section 8 it requires that a contractor or gas fitter notify an inspector or local inspector. In other words, there are times in this section, if you look at part (b), Mr. Minister, that the gas inspection branch will not even know that some of the installations have been made. It's not clear whether a permit is required or not for these excluded installations. I'm assuming that some of these excluded installations, whatever they're going to be, would be more than just the homeowner making some repairs to his venting system, or whatever.

Here again I think we're losing some protection. If the gas inspection branch doesn't know that these installations are going in, how are they possibly going to ensure that all the rules and regulations have been met? Can the minister comment on that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Perhaps by rereading the new section 8 again, the member could place herself in some portion of a city or some rural area of the province where something has happened — a concern over a broken line or whatever it may be. Surely anyone is entitled to have that repaired forthwith and not have to wait for an inspector. This section provides that flexibility, allowing whoever wanted to do the repairs — the homeowner or whoever it may be — to file with the inspector after the event. I think that would seem to be reasonable. I think the section says: "is permitted by the regulations without notification or authorization of an inspector or local inspector." That is the situation, I suppose, that the section is trying to address.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not sure that it requires that it be filed with the inspector once the changes have been made. To me, the section does not state that. But be that as it is, do you agree with me?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If you read further you'll find that a permit is still required, but the permit is also after the event.

MS. SANFORD: I don't think we're communicating on this one, Mr. Chairman.

What I would do under this same section is move on to the new section 9(1), where it says that the inspector may inspect appliances and gas installations. Here again, we've gone from "shall" to "may." Under Bill 17, the minister agreed that there is a problem with the inspector "shall" inspect. He did accept an amendment. I don't have an amendment written out at this point to change "may" to "shall". I'm hoping that the minister can quickly write one out and ensure that these inspections do take place so we can have at least the level of safety we were used to before.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The reality of inspections.... I think if we're sufficiently candid with each other, we'll find that many occur and many do not occur. That is, I think, a fact. The question really is: are you going to be placing upon government the mandate to tell the electorate everything shall be inspected? The fact is that it's not now and it never will be. I think the legislation reflects a certain degree of honesty as to what actually is occurring outside.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I did not like that answer. Because there is sloppiness now in investigating and carrying out inspections of gas installations doesn't mean you change the legislation to reflect the sloppiness. If you're going to improve the safety, then you ensure these inspections take place. If the minister is saying there are some very small units that don't need to be inspected, he can state that in his legislation. You can't have this kind of discretionary legislation where the inspector may, if he wishes, just because some inspections are not being carried out now. What we have now is that the inspectors are not required to inspect, and they're not required to issue any certificates of inspection; so what are they required to do? I wonder if the minister would clarify that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, if everything were mandatory we could probably triple our staff. Secondly, what happens when a contract is submitted, the contractor's bonded, the job is being done and he has to return to the site on every conceivable occasion? Tell me, is there not some responsibility that could be placed upon the contractor? That's what happens now in any event. I don't see us in government turning around and putting in sanctions: you shall do this, you shall do that. It'll never come to pass or be implemented, just through the number of people required to administer it. Not only that, I wonder about the validity of repeat inspections on one set of premises every time there's a change. Certainly there's some responsibility upon the contractor. They're bonded, whether it be a materials or performance bond. It's answerable this way, and that's a precaution as well.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister has ever considered charging for these inspections if necessary. He's talking about tripling his staff. I don't know how many staff members he now has acting as inspectors, but it reminds me of what Dr. Keenleyside said in his report on electrical safety: "Making a profit out of providing a poor service in relation to public safety verges on immorality." I have to agree with that. The least we can expect in a province as wealthy as this is that we have safe installations of appliances that relate to something as volatile as gas.

It's not good enough. If the minister requires permit fees, or whatever else, in order to increase his staff, that's what he should be doing. He should not be changing the legislation from "shall inspect" to "may inspect," as we have seen happen in this particular section. What are the inspectors

[ Page 6189 ]

required to do now? I wonder if the minister could clarify that. They're not required to inspect, and they're not required to issue certificates.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to fees, fees were increased roughly 40 percent last Christmas. Secondly, you can increase the fees and the inspections and you might as well have somebody living on the premises full-time. There's the state in the bedroom again, and I'm not really prepared to support something like that.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MS. SANFORD: Here we've put in a new section 11. In this case it seems that the owner of the premises, not the installer, is the one who's going to be required to correct or have a deficiency in the gas installation corrected. I'll refer the minister to the section. I know he wants to look it over. This is subsection (c): "He may order the occupier of the premises, if any, and the owner of the house, piping, appliance or vent to comply with this act and the regulations." So if you get someone to come in and install some gas equipment and the inspector later on finds that it's deficient, then it's the owner who has to pay some other gas contractor in order to ensure that he complies with the inspector's recommendations. I don't think that's good enough. I don't think the public should be required to pay for that — the person who owns the place. I think it should be the person making the installation who should be held responsible. This section makes the owner or the occupier responsible. I think that's a mistake. Could I have the minister's comments?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think the section is driving at what is to happen when the installation has been completed and then determined not to be safe. Who is going to be responsible for cutting off the energy supply or shutting it down? Surely if an inspector finds that it's not safe, it's incumbent upon him to do something about it. I don't think that's unreasonable.

MS. SANFORD: He's talking about shutting it off. We're talking about the repair. There's something wrong with it, and it's got to be fixed. Yet it's the owner who's left with the bill and the responsibility for repairing it under this section.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The real question is if a permit has been issued, I presume that the contractor would be responsible. I would imagine the law of the land would be most appropriate in the case law. If you're finding some old premises, surely there's some responsibility for the buyer. I would suspect there's some onus on him in buying the premises.

MS. SANFORD: The wording is very clear. I'll refer the minister to it again: "He may order the occupier of the premises, if any, and the owner of the house, piping, appliance or vent to comply with this act and the regulations." That means spending whatever money is required to bring it up to the standard required by the inspector. It's the owner of those premises who must pay that bill, not the installer of the gas appliance. I think it is the gas installer who should be held responsible. We're getting him out of the picture entirely, because the act says: "order the occupier of the premises to live up to the regulations."

MR. KING: On a point of order, I wonder if the advisers could answer the questions. The minister seems singularly incapable of answering the questions even with advice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. KING: I wonder who they are, Mr. Chairman. Do we have proper advisers on staff in the House, or are they friends of the minister? Would the minister introduce his staff? We've never seen them before.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With us today is Elizabeth King, who is a legislative counsel. Also I have Wilf Lawson, who is the director in charge of safety standards.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister could advise us who the chief inspector is now for the gas safety branch.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Bill Montgomery.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister could then advise us why all of the correspondence that comes from Mr. Montgomery's office says "director, gas safety branch." There has never been any reference to him as chief inspector, and I'm wondering if he's been designated as such.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm advised he's designated chief inspector under the act.

MS. SANFORD: Who designates him?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He is the chief inspector under the act, but for the purposes of administration he is referred to as a director.

MR. KING: I just want to ask the minister what this amendment means to section 14. Would the minister explain that? Mr. Chairman, this section says section 14 is amended by numbering it as section 14(1) and I wonder what it means. The minister must know. Surely he wouldn't introduce something to the Legislature that he wasn't familiar with. I just ask him for a brief, concise, erudite explanation of what this section means.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, it concerns temporary appointments for less than 60 days.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have an amendment which amends the proposed section 15(1) "by adding 'or designated' after 'appointed.' " It's standing under my name on the order paper [See appendix.]

[ Page 6190 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that refers to local inspectors in particular, and it seems to me that they have done away with most of the authority of these inspectors. They removed sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, and it states in section 7 in the old bill that gas fitters shall obtain a permit and that a gas fitter shall notify an inspector, and then section 9 states the duties of a gas fitter. But these are eliminated, and they're never replaced by anything. So what happens to a gas fitter under these sections? What qualifications or certification does he need and where does he get it and that sort of thing, if the local inspector doesn't have any authority under this particular section? It's only the provincially appointed inspectors who are going to have any authority.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Why is that not all set out here? To hell with it. I'm stopping this thing. I've had it with this bill. This thing is going out.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 106: minister's office, $205,728.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, last week — I think it was Thursday afternoon — the Minister of Health, in responding to some questions raised by me, confessed: "The program that I particularly covet is the infant development program." I had hoped that having done that, the minister was then about to release to this House a report in which this very fact has been recommended. You may not know about this report, Mr. Chairman. The minister has had it in his possession for some time, as have the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). None of them has seen fit to release this report or even to table it in the House, so that it would be possible for all of us to do an in-depth analysis of it and either support or negate some of the recommendations in it.

I want to fill the House in, first of all, on this report. In the fall of 1979 the provincial Interministerial Children's Committee decided that one of its priorities was to initiate a comprehensive provincial review of services to the severely handicapped child. I would imagine this was in preparation for this year, which, as we know, is the International Year of the Disabled.

Four specific concerns were supposed to be looked at, the first of which was the fragmentation and poor coordination of services directed to this particular group of children in our community; secondly, the rapid expansion in the nature and scope of services provided by the government, voluntary agencies and other professionals; thirdly, the problem posed by the increasing demand by parents and others for greater integration of severely handicapped children into the public school system; and finally, the need for clarification in the policy concerning provisions of long-term care for children.

As you can see, it was a pretty in-depth and very serious study that was about to be embarked upon. It would include very valuable information for all people working with disabled children, the parents of disabled children, community groups involved with disabled children, or, indeed, anybody at all who was interested in the services to and the plight of disabled children in our community.

It was a pretty high-powered team that was put together and began its work in January 1980. Some of the members were: John Talbot, coordinator, division of planning and development, Ministry of Health; Phoebe Brock-Dunbar, Ministry of Human Resources representative; and Stephanie Stull, special education teacher from Victoria, Ministry of Education representative. The Ministry of Health also placed Dr. Sam Sheps, pediatrician, division of population pediatrics at UBC, on this committee.

In addition to these four members, there was a steering committee made up of senior ministry representatives who were supposed to provide assistance to the team. It was a pretty heavy-duty steering committee. The chairperson was Dr. Gerry Bonham, now on his way out the revolving door which has come to be part of the history of the Ministry of Health. While he was still with the Ministry of Health he was a chairperson. Marilyn Epstein, director of special education, was a bureaucrat put on by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Human Resources bureaucrat was Hugh Saville, executive director. At that time, the team was given one year to do its study, to develop its methodology, to collect and analyze data and to write its report. For all intents and purposes, the team met that deadline. What we have is a report of something over 500 pages in length. It's very well researched. It's obviously not well received, because it's gathering dust on the shelves of all the three ministries involved — Health, Education and Human Resources.

It dealt with some pretty basic things. It states:

"The major objectives of this study were to describe the number of severely handicapped children and adolescents in the province by their physical, mental and sensory disabilities; to identify the services required to maintain these children in their own communities; and to recommend the role, responsibilities and interrelationship of the three ministries, voluntary agencies and parents in regard to services for these very severely disabled children."

One of the things the research group did which was of special interest to everyone was to come up with a very excellent definition of exactly what "severely handicapped" or "severely disabled" meant. They broke it down into a number of areas: mobility, self-care, speech and communication, learning and self-direction — that means the ability for independent living.

This is the interministerial group who put this committee together. The only reason I'm going into such detail about this particular report is because it is an excellent report. It's a

[ Page 6191 ]

report that should have been tabled in the House, should have been made public and should have been referred to the legislative Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources for study by all the elected representatives here, with input from government members as well as opposition members and more input from the public at large. As I said before, I'm also going into some depth because I'm quite sure that a number of members have not seen the report and are not even aware of some of the very excellent recommendations it touches on. I'm quite sure that none of the members in the back bench have seen the report. The only regret I have is that since I only have one copy, I cannot table it with the House. Because it is nearly 500 pages, including tables, statistics and one thing and another, it would be prohibitive in cost to try and Xerox it to share it with everybody.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This very excellent committee worked out some general working objectives for themselves. Some of the general objectives were:

(1) Identify the number of disabled children.

(2) Design a functional classification of disabled children and adolescents.

(3) Identify and describe the basic support services which were required.

(4) Develop an inventory of existing services for these children.

(5) Analyze and review the detection, assessment, surveillance, treatment and follow-up of these children and adolescents.

It was an incredible mandate. It was a job that needed to be done, was being done, and was done very well indeed.

(6) Analyze the range of services provided in our schools, with particular emphasis on reviewing the classroom support services.

(7) Review and make recommendations concerning the present organization, responsibilities, funding and coordination of services provided or funded directly or indirectly by the various ministries.

(8) Review and make recommendations on the degree of parental involvement in the planning and provision of services.

Everyone would have wanted to have participated in the debate on the findings and recommendations of this report. I'm hoping that in responding to my question the minister will explain why this report was not tabled in the House, why this report has not been made public, and why this report has not been referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources for some public input, discussion and analysis. However, some of the major issues that were identified and examined in the report were, as I said before, the whole question of the integration of severely disabled children into the classroom, the resources that exist for the disabled older adolescent leaving school, the whole question of residential care of the child in the community, the whole question of the knowledge and experience of the professionals who are working with severely disabled children, the question of family-support services for these children to make it possible for them to remain at home, and the leadership and direction at the provincial, regional and local levels in coordinating services for these children.

I just want to say that every time the word "handicapped" is used in the report I am substituting the word "disabled." I don't want the minister to accuse me of reading from a false document. I am taking liberties certainly with the word "handicapped," since the disabled people themselves have indicated that they recognize that they have disabilities but that these disabilities do not always handicap them, and that they certainly see a difference there.

Specifically, as the report deals with the Ministry of Health — and I want the minister to comment on it — it said that it thought the Ministry of Health should have as its priority the prevention of handicapping conditions, and that an evaluation should be conducted to identify the most effective ways and means of preventing these conditions. Earlier in this debate, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talked about the fact that the Ministry of Health concentrates so much of its energy and time on sickness and not enough of its energy and time on health and the prevention of disease. As it affects health, certainly the most important finding in this report is its feeling that the priority of the Ministry of Health should be in the preventive end of the delivery of service, preventing handicapping conditions. It certainly sees that as number one.

It then went on to some specific recommendations about monitoring and surveillance. I'm sure that when the minister comes to talk about it he will go into great detail about the use of community-health nursing, and hospital and community health teams. There is one recommendation in it having to do with assessment and monitoring of the new-born I want to share with the minister; it's an experience which I had. Recently when I was travelling to eastern Canada, on the same plane with me was Dr. Segal, whom I'm sure the minister knows very well. Dr. Segal is a very well-respected pediatrician in the community. We started talking about preventive health and the care of new-born babies. Dr. Segal expressed his dismay and alarm at the fact that there is a particular device which hospitals now have for monitoring new-born babies who are in some kind of stress, and considered to be at risk, that is so sophisticated that it's possible for the monitoring device to be used at home and possible to discharge the babies younger to the parents as long as this particular monitoring device can accompany them home. It's not a very expensive device.

However, they have been told that to hold the line financially, rather than purchase a sufficient number of these devices to discharge more of these infants, and thus free up acute-care incubators or cribs or whatever it is that babies in hospital stay in — I don't think they stay in beds when they're that young — they are keeping the babies in the hospital longer than necessary because they can't take the risk of discharging the babies without this particular device. I'm not a doctor, which is one of the reasons I cannot recall the exact medical term for this particular monitoring device, but I'm quite sure that the ministry has a number of people on its staff who know whereof I speak and are aware of Dr. Segal's concern that fiscal decisions are overriding in this instance good, sensible economic and health decisions. In fact it's much better for these babies to be discharged earlier into the care of their parents than to keep them in hospital. It's also less expensive. Certainly with the social and psychological development of the baby and the whole bonding theory that psychologists tell us about, it makes more sense that the babies should be discharged at an earlier date. However, as I said before, this is not possible. In the long run it's costing the

[ Page 6192 ]

ministry more to keep these children in longer than they need to be. Also it's not in the best interests of the child.

One of the other recommendations made is that the three institutions of the Ministry of Human Resources should phase out their role of diagnosis and assessment of the severely disabled child. I can't speak too strongly in support of that recommendation. As I raised with the minister earlier, why on earth the Ministry of Human Resources is practising medicine without a licence I've never been able to understand. They have absolutely no business performing diagnosis and assessment functions. That is a responsibility of the Ministry of Health. By hanging on to it, the Ministry of Human Resources is accepting a lot of blame for the job not being done as well as it should be done and also a lot of the expense which would be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. Again, I want to repeat that the priority of the Ministry of Health should be a preventive one, certainly where these particular children are concerned.

The other recommendation made — and one which the minister says he covets — is that the infant development program should be transferred from the Ministry of Human Resources to the community health branch of the Ministry of Health. Again, I cannot speak too strongly in support of this. There are all kinds of historical reasons why it started out with the Ministry of Human Resources, but there certainly are no reasons and no justifications that I'm aware of why it should remain there. It's not being handled to the best of its ability under the Ministry of Human Resources. I don't know how much clout the Minister of Health has. I suspect that one of the reasons this report has not been tabled in the House and has not been released for public scrutiny is the battle ensuing between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) over which programs remain where. I'm not a betting man myself, but if I were, I wouldn't put my money on the Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a betting person.

MS. BROWN: I'm not a betting person either. I never take risks, Mr. Minister.

If I can give any assistance to the Minister of Health to wrest control of the infant development program from the Minister of Human Resources, please call on me, Mr. Minister. Believe me, I will give you my undivided attention and all of the assistance which I can muster and bring to your aid. I believe that the infant development program should be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. Of course the recommendations list a number of reasons why that should be the case.

Another area in which I'd be very happy to help the Minister of Health is in the recommendation that funds be transferred from the Ministry of Human Resources special needs day-care program to the special programs branch of the Ministry of Education, and that school districts should apply for the funds for individual and group programs. Again, I think that's an excellent recommendation.

I don't want to create the impression that I'm leaking this report because I think it's politically titillating or anything like that. I am discussing this report because I am concerned that these excellent recommendations are being fought over behind closed doors without any input from the community at large or from other members of the Legislature. As I said, if the report were not so large — nearly 500 pages in length — and so expensive to Xerox, I would Xerox copies for every member of the Legislature and call a meeting myself of the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources so that we could discuss in some depth the findings of the report and certainly come to the aid of the Minister of Health, who needs all of the help that he can get at this particular time.

There is a timetable that goes with this particular report, and the timetable is that the study and steering committee should become a permanent subcommittee of the Interministerial Children's Committee as of spring 1981. My question is: has that been done?

Question number two: the ministries were to agree to transfer programs and prepare their budgets appropriately by spring 1981. Has that been done? Has the transfer taken place and the House not been alerted to this, and have the budgets been prepared appropriately?

By summer 1981 staff were supposed to be assigned to work with the provincial committee to implement this report. Has that happened? Have staff already been assigned to this committee to work for the implementation of these recommendations?

As it affects health the recommendations are that the infant development program should be transferred to Health; that the homemaker service for disabled children should be transferred from Human Resources to Health — that's the day program; and that long-term care children should come under the Health purview. Is that happening? Also the prosthetic and orthotic services should be taken from Human Resources, transferred to Health and be under the jurisdiction of the regional hospitals. Has that happened? How close is the timetable to being implemented? It may not appear that way, but we're halfway through summer 1981. It's hard to believe that. Even your tan is behind time at this particular date. By the end of summer the staff were supposed to have been assigned, the ministries and the provincial IMCC were to agree to change existing models and plans for deinstitutionalization were supposed to have been implemented. I want to know how we're going with this proposed timetable before I proceed to make any further comments on this particular report.

I would appreciate it if in answering those questions the minister could assure us that this report is going to be tabled in the Legislature, is going to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources and is going to be made public; and if not, why not.

I really would appreciate a response from the minister on this particular report.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You'll have one.

MS. BROWN: I will have one. Thank you.

MR. COCKE: The minister says the member will have one, and I hope he can bear that in mind. What we're dealing with here is a very significant and serious proposition. I particularly hope that this interministerial committee will not be set up in a loose way — judging from what I've seen transpire to date, a sort of ad hoc interministerial committee on the different overlaps that occur. I hope there is a secretariat steering operation within that interministerial committee to develop a program and put it into shape. One of the big problems I have noted is the fact that there tends to be a defence mechanism set up in the bureaucracy so that one group tends to hang on to whatever responsibilities they've had in the past, and sometimes that means the people involved suffer.

[ Page 6193 ]

I'm as pleased as punch that the report recognizes there's a need to extend the whole long-term care program to include severely handicapped children and adolescents. For too long these children have fallen between the cracks. There's no doubt in my mind that this will be taken in to be a very significant part of the whole situation. The long-term care program children — I'm talking from ages zero to 19, which is what this particular report was talking about — certainly need the guarantees. They also need the guarantee of the home support program. We've seen what's been happening to the home support program. I just hope that this program, which will be as much a saving in this particular area as it has been in the other areas of long-term care....

Specifically what the report calls for is that the infant development program should be the direct responsibility of the minister. It outlines the different ages and the different responsibilities that should be taken by the different departments. As the member says, it's a very large report, but it certainly bears airing throughout the province. If the minister feels it's too big a report to distribute in its present form, it should be condensed and the recommendations should be made public immediately. The minister should very definitely call upon the legislative committee to assist, failing their ability to put things together almost immediately. It is a very important area, and I suggest that if we ignore it for another week it's a shame. The report has been in the hands of this minister and the associated ministers for some time, and now is the time to get cracking on it. The minister indicated that he is going to talk about it. I gather that he has no definite plans at this moment, because if he had, he would have jumped up in response to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).

I'm not going to deal with it any more for the moment, because I think the minister has been asked the significant questions, and we can certainly develop anything further after his response. But I hope that we get something very quickly.

I have dealt with a number of areas which I consider to be of grave concern. I've dealt with the waste that happened at the university hospital. We've dealt with what we feel are significant shortcomings of the ministry in the long-term care program, particularly the home-care program. On the weekend I ran into situation after situation suggesting that things are not at all good out in the field. I feel that what we saw there was a mistake of this minister.

There have been other mistakes. The predecessor minister — the one before the one who's now hotlining it — made another significant mistake with respect to the drug and alcohol program. I'm not going to go through the whole heroin treatment thing again. We've gone over and over that, and we know it was a waste of money. We know that it was an absolute job done on the people of B.C. by spending money uselessly when their own White Paper indicated to them very clearly that there wasn't a big problem.

Mr. Chairman, the House Leader is getting itchy. I'd get itchy too if I was a member of a party that was party to something like what I'm going to tell you about now.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it's a laugh. It's true. The fact of the matter is that I agree with those who say it would be almost impossible to put together that kind of proposition, and who needs it? Right now, we're giving free methadone. Free methadone is far more physically debilitating than heroin, so what are you talking about? Don't give us that pie-in-the-sky, pious stuff. Anyway, this is the shock story I'd like to tell you now. In New Westminster we have a society which deals with a program called Pacifica. Pacifica is run by the Fraser Valley Alcoholism Society.

Pacifica ran their program at the YM-YWCA in New Westminster. The YM-YWCA had lots of room in there for that program. They overbuilt their facility, so they had plenty of room for this particular program. That wasn't good enough. The Minister of Health of the day and the former head of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, Mr. Hoskin, came over to New Westminster and met with the board of directors of the society. They suggested that there was a need for their own facility, and it would be built and operated for Pacifica by a private firm. The last that I can remember the Alcohol and Drug Commission was paying something in the order of$8,000 to $9,000 a month to keep people in the YM-YWCA with a proper program. For that they had plenty of room and room for expansion. They had their sheets, maid service and everything else supplied in a good facility which really lent itself to the program. There was a certain anonymity to it. When you go there, people don't know whether you're going for a meeting of the board of directors of the Y, whether you're going to work out in the gym or whether you're going to the facility for rehabilitation.

The member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and Mr. Hoskin came to New Westminster and said: "We're building our own facility." It wasn't their own. Wolstencroft agencies built that building. Wolstencroft agencies still own that building, and they rent it to the Alcohol and Drug Commission for $13,000 a month plus all the added expenses. Don't forget the $8,000 or $9,000 included everything in terms of rooms, maid service and this, that and the other. This new facility that we're now renting for $13,000 a month.... It'll go up; don't you worry about that. The rentalsman will look after nothing of this sort. It doesn't even pay for building repairs. If there's a requirement for a repair on that building, it has to be paid for by the facility. I have talked to two or three members of the board of Pacifica. You've had a number of resignations. Now you know why you've had resignations. What frustration! It strikes me that the whole drug and alcohol situation was put into such disarray by their confused thinking about where the problems were.

Just to cheer us all up, this is what they're giving now at Pacifica. This is a certificate of award: "This certifies that X has been awarded this certificate for successful completion of a program at Pacifica Centre, New Westminster. Confirmed this 30th day of May, 1980." I'm sure that everybody who receives this certificate will hang it up proudly on their wall and say: "I went through the program." In terms of what's occurred over the years, I think AA have had the most successful rehabilitation program in all drug rehabilitation that I know of. How much advice did we get from them when we got into this? How much advice are we getting now? I don't know, but it certainly doesn't sound like it. Here we have a government that talks about thrift and then goes out of their way to lavish money onto a facility that's just duplicating the potential that's in the community now. I think it's an utter shame. If it had been a government which had suggested for one minute that they might be capable of making mistakes.... But they've always been so absolutely sure of themselves, so certain about their programs, so certain about their direction. And we come up with a botch like this.

[ Page 6194 ]

So just very briefly to review Pacifica, there were plenty of rooms at the Y for all those engaged in the program. I've checked with the Y since, and they've told me there was plenty of room for expansion. However, the Fraser Valley Drug and Alcoholism Society, which controls the program Pacifica, was directed by the minister and the then chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission to move into a new facility built within three or four blocks of the Y on Royal Avenue, owned by a real estate company noted for having Socred signs during election campaigns on all their properties for sale or rent. The facility was built by an outside contractor for a particular use and then rented back to the government at $13,000 a month — plus, plus, plus. That's the kind of shocking situation that we've faced in the past. I would sure like to read all the words that Dr. Bonham had to say, before he left on his long trail to Calgary, about the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

I'm not going to get into the Brannan Lake thing. We won't rehash all that at this time. It was a major disaster, and this is just another episode in that major disaster — bumbling, fumbling, incompetence....

MS. BROWN: Ineptitude.

MR. COCKE: I guess the adjectives are endless.

But I would hope for some assurance today that this kind of thing is going to stop. I guess we're stuck with the facility; it's there. Wolstencroft would probably have to find somebody else to rent it. He wouldn't have very much success right now. I suppose we have a fairly significant lease. I would just like to know how much money was wasted in that particular situation altogether. Has the minister come to grips with the money that was wasted there?

Put that in tandem with Gillain. Overlooking the airport is a very large building that has housed a private alcohol rehabilitation centre. That program has not had the government support that it should have had, despite the fact that it was promised. I'm not at all sure whether the facility, certainly as it was originally built, lent itself to government policy — not necessarily to needs. In any event, it became a fact, and when a former minister made a pledge that there would be financial support in that facility, that was reneged on again. I wonder what's going on around here. When I compare those two facilities, they're not that incomparable. A lot of jobs went down the drain at Gillain, but there were also a lot of people searching for help, particularly here on the Island.

Has the minister looked at the facility for either a rehabilitation program or any other program to alleviate some of the needs in other areas of his ministry?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Gillain Manor was investigated as a possible intermediate-care facility. The people from the Victoria area hospitals found it to be inadequate for that purpose. Gillain Manor, though, as the member would know, was never developed as a government treatment centre. It was developed as a private centre. It was designed for so-called executive alcoholics. That's the term that was used for that. The government was approached for funding but found it very difficult to justify the per diem cost, which at that time was about $175. At one time in the past we offered to pay the going rate for any patient referred to the program through one of the other services. I'm not sure how many may have been facilitated in that way. Gillain closed, I believe, at the end of last year; I think it has since been sold.

I'd have to do some specific research on the Pacifica. I'm not familiar with that building. I only know the information that you've offered to me and I don't find any reference; I'm sure it would be available upon research.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) spoke about a report which I think is subtitled the Talbot report. It was presented by the provincial Interministerial Children's Committee to the committee of deputies responsible for the three ministries — Health, Education and Human Resources. The deputies and line managers have the responsibility of analyzing that report and reporting to their ministers with respect to the duties which have been identified within that report and any changes which may occur.

The ministries of Health, Human Resources and Education all have senior people on a committee to process that report and to report back as to what modifications would be necessary if all of the recommendations were to be accepted. The member read some bits and pieces from the report — some of the recommendations, some of the philosophy behind it, terms of reference with respect to what the report was to investigate. I can't think of the precise date the report was provided to us. I think it was explained to me a couple of months ago or maybe a month and a half ago. Since that time it has been before the senior committee for this in-depth analysis and a report back.

I expect the recommendations of the report will mean that there will be some significant changes in the procedures for the severely disabled or handicapped children. I think the report has gone a long way in identifying certain areas of concern where there was a great lack of information. I generally support the concept that severely handicapped children should have as much continuity as possible in their relationships with the various phases of their education, treatment and general growing up. I think that there is a danger in having clients, patients, youngsters — however they may be identified technically.... They should relate to one ministry for as long as possible, rather than having their cases sent back and forth between ministries. I think that a severely handicapped child is precisely that, and I think that is identifiable as a health problem first. I agree that the Health ministry should have primary responsibility for children so identified, aided and abetted by the Ministries of Education and Human Resources where their programs can fit in.

As the member said, it's a report of significant size. It's certainly an important report. I can assure you that it will not gather dust. It is being actively pursued at this time. We expect it to be condensed somewhat.

MS. BROWN: Refer it to the standing committee.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It is before the deputy ministers who have responsibility for the Ministries of Health, Education, and Human Resources. They will be making recommendations. They will be disseminating that information and relating it to the responsibilities presently held by the ministries and any new responsibilities, including any legislative changes which might be necessary if the recommendations were to be adopted in part or in whole. It is a very important report. The results would be equally important. I hope that the care which is being taken in reviewing this information will result in a better system for services to severely handicapped children.

[ Page 6195 ]

MR. COCKE: That's the trouble with this government. This minister epitomizes its total lack of responsibility with respect to the people of the province and its lack of respect for the Legislature. We have had standing committees of this House on a number of areas, and one of those standing committees — which, incidentally, under that archaic, old Social Credit government in the old days, when I was here before, sat virtually every year.... This avant-garde government never activates the committees. All it takes is a motion from one of the ministers relating what they want done with a particular report and it can be done. Witnesses can be called and people can come and give the deputies some assistance with respect to outside people.

It's far too important a subject to leave in the area where we've got it now. This is the very significant difference between this authoritarian government and governments of the past in this province. When we were in power for that three years and four months we had travelling committees all over this province. We opened ourselves up to lots of criticism. We let people get at us, and maybe under some circumstances it may have been to our own peril; but we were prepared to do it and we'll do it again.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

People should have access to governments through this kind of medium. There is absolutely no reason why this government should not be opening up these committees, and now is a good opportunity. The gentleman who just walked into the room, the Premier, is the one whose policy we are now seeing. The Premier doesn't want any committees working. He won't even let the Crown corporations committee meet — that great democratic process he set up.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You voted against it.

MR. COCKE: We voted for it, Mr. Premier, and you know it. Mr. Chairman, all we're asking for now....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask all members of the committee to come to order, please, and remind the committee that we are on vote 106.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this would be a good opportunity for the Minister of Health and for this government to show that they're going to take some responsibility and be answerable to the people. The committee on health, education and human resources should be immediately activated and given an opportunity to take a good look at this report and call witnesses from all sections of child care in this province — from Health, Education, Human Resources programs and, more important than anything, from the parents of these children. What are they afraid of?

I don't know, it's very difficult to get through to this minister. He has a relatively good record himself, so obviously he's being stifled by that government and by that Premier. That's the person who's stifling everything around here. He's choking this Legislature to death. He's choking us again in terms of our committees. I think that we're seeing democracy eroded slowly but surely in this province. When will it return? Never, as long as they're there.

MR. STUPICH: This is going to be quite a change in pace. but I have a number of items from my local constituency that I'd like to ask the minister about.

One of them is a letter from Margaret Ferguson, dated May 15, 1981, and addressed to me. I'll read part of it. It says:

"I've been requested by the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded to bring the enclosed brief to your attention.

"The Analyzing and Influencing Government Policy Committee of BCAMR presented its brief to the social services committee of cabinet on March 17 in Victoria. There has been no response to this brief, and we are asking for your support to influence government to provide the resources so that local associations can carry through the task of enabling all mentally retarded persons to live in the community in a dignified and worthwhile way."

It's probably more appropriate to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), except that when the travelling committee parade went through Vancouver Island, the Minister of Health was the only one this group could get to. They did present this brief to him at that time. I'm just wondering whether or not the social services committee of cabinet has considered this. They've had it for just about three months now. Whether they might expect some response.... They say that they've heard nothing at all in three months. I think that by now they might at least have had an acknowledgement. They say they've had no response.

The second item is a brief that was sent to the Ministry of Health. I'm going to pass a copy of it over to the minister so he'll know what I'm talking about and be able to follow it a little more easily. In the main it's asking for staff positions in the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit. I'd like the minister to comment on whether or not there's any possibility of some of these positions being filled.

The brief was addressed to the minister, and it has the support of the city council; I have a letter from the city council of Nanaimo dated April 27 expressing support for it. page 1 of the report talks about the requirement for a speech pathologist in Duncan. I wouldn't be mentioning Duncan except that the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has been ill for a week; I expect her to be off for a good part of this week as well. So, since it's part of the same Central Vancouver Island Health Unit, on behalf of the member I'd like to ask about the possibility of this position of speech pathologist for Duncan.

On page 2 of the same brief there is statistical information supporting the need for two additional public health inspectors. I've highlighted these items in the copy of the brief I've sent to the minister so he can pick them out easily. "A staff inspector and a deputy chief on staff would help to assure improved, effective and adequate services in all localities within the health district."

There's a lot of stuff in this brief. I don't intend to bring all of it to the minister's attention, but I'd like to flip over to the end of it, page 5, where it summarizes staff required under home-care nursing. I think I had a lot more than this marked on the copy I sent to the minister. I"m going to refer to page 3 of the brief as well, where it mentions two additional public health inspectors, a staff PHI and a deputy chief on staff. Then it gets into home-care nursing: "With an acute-care hospital bed averaging almost $200 per day during 1980 we need to provide economical and proven alternatives. For the

[ Page 6196 ]

fiscal year 1978-79 the home-care nursing program across the province saved some two million hospital-days in acute-care bed occupancy. The average cost of the entire home nursing care program across the province in that fiscal year worked out to $4 per patient-day." Down at the bottom, with reference to Ladysmith, which is part of my constituency, it says that in 1978 some 1,986 home-care visits were made. In 1979 it was 3,890. That's approximately double — 96 percent. No, I'm sorry, it's not; it's just about the same, a 0.7 percent decrease — in 1980 there were 3,862 home-care visits.

On page 4 there is a reference to Duncan. Seven out of the eleven staff positions are part-time, and the part-time workers don't want to work full-time; yet they're having to because of the demands for their services.

On page 6 it says that in the centre of Vancouver Island there is a population explosion. It's a prime retirement area. There is a soaring birth rate in Nanaimo and district. There is an increasing school population. New schools have been built and more are being planned.

"The Central Vancouver Island Union Board of Health wishes to state that failure to provide additional staff will result in the continuation of poor preventive services, such as inadequate testing of public water supplies, inspection of restaurants and immunization of children — the waiting list in Nanaimo has been up to three weeks — a cutback in nursing services to the schools, curtailment of prenatal classes and other programs, a cutback in direct care services such as the home-care nursing program, and a continuation of the lack of mental health services to the west coast of the Island."

Staff required: speech pathologist in Duncan — one full-time; public health inspection — one full-time deputy chief, one full-time PHI; home-care nursing in Nanaimo — one full-time assistant coordinator; Ladysmith — one full-time CN 2, one part-time CN 2; Duncan — one full-time assistant coordinator, one part-time CN 2; community-nursing preventive program in Nanaimo — one full-time public health nurse; preventive positions — one part-time CN 2 in Nanaimo, one part-time CN 2 in Duncan; clerical positions — one clerk-steno 3 position in Nanaimo and four and a half OA 2 positions in various places.

I'd like the minister to comment on the possibilities of getting some of these.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments from the member for Nanaimo. The Central Vancouver Island Union Board of Health presentation was one of the better presentations we've received over the past few months, and we advised them of that. They have done an excellent job in identifying in very specific detail where they feel additional positions are required. Dr. Hugh Richards, our provincial public health officer, has been assigned the role of examining their requests and determining if resources presently elsewhere or available could be reassigned to some of these areas. It is being reduced. I think that the people who presented it — Miss Lockwood — agreed with us that this really was their shopping list, and they don't expect it all at once. We agreed with them that they had done a first-class job of identification. We are trying to free up some funds.

I might also mention, Mr. Member, that throughout the province we find that some of our people, particularly health inspectors and others, are engaged in such a myriad of activities that some of the important functions are frequently not serviced just because of lack of time on behalf of the public health inspectors. We are attempting now to review all of their duties, and their list goes on and on. It would require a veritable army of people to fulfil their obligations. Our public health inspectors are expected to inspect all food premises — eating and drinking places, food stores and others; all factories and industrial camps; community-care places, schools, summer camps, housing, mobile-home parks, campsites, other housing and hairdressing places; farms, parks and beaches; swimming pools — samples on beaches and pools; surveys — sanitary and others; water disposals and public water supplies. It goes on and on. In some instances, we believe that the procedures which were very valid when originally put in place need not require the same intensity as they did originally. We are asking our inspectors and the senior people responsible if it's possible to reduce some of their heavy paper load so they can actually spend more time out in the field doing their job. We think we can do that.

You mentioned the brief from the BCAMR. I'm sorry I can't recall which brief that may have been. I think it was presented to me during the cabinet tour of the Island, and I spoke with them in Nanaimo. I'm sorry, but the brief has been assigned to a staff member for analysis and a report. I just can't say if I've received that report back. I recall meeting with an organization in Nanaimo. I presume it was Margaret Ferguson and some of the other people, but I can't recall the specific details of that brief.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if the minister could let me know who it is that has been assigned to it I would appreciate it. At least I can tell then that something is being done.

There's another thing I would like to ask about. I haven't heard much about it lately, so maybe that means it's good news. There used to be a lot of inquiries about the hearing-aid clinic in Nanaimo. I know it was set up; it still wasn't staffed some time after the facilities were made available. I haven't heard anything for a while, so maybe there is staff there now. You don't know.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd have to know the specifics.

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps you could let me know that too sometime before the end of June.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The clinic?

MR. STUPICH: Yes.

MR. BARBER: Ten years ago if someone in a position of authority had stood up and argued rationally and scientifically that protein taken from the embryo of chickens would one day be used to cure cancer, I expect that person would have been laughed at. Today, of course, that process is called interferon, and that therapy is increasingly finding acceptance in the scientific community.

The questions I have for the minister are in regard to the policy of the Medical Services Plan and its willingness to examine and to finance, if you will, more contemporary and sometimes even unconventional therapies in the treatment of cancer and other disastrous illnesses. The minister and I have looked at one another's correspondence lately in regard to a couple of constituency cases; I won't refer to them here. I

[ Page 6197 ]

know it's a very difficult matter of policy and a very difficult matter of precedent as well. It is now, of course, a matter of acknowledged and, I think, expert scientific opinion that any number of new therapies, including diet therapy, oxygen therapy, and various regimens and treatments which even five years ago would have been considered Buck Rogers stuff are increasingly, commonly and justifiably part of the ordinary course of treatment — either curative or palliative — that would be made available in cancer clinics, particular in Victoria and Vancouver. It's a tough matter of policy. I was first involved in this last December. The minister will know the case because we corresponded on it a little while ago. I want to say that the minister's predecessor, Mr. Mair, was extremely fair and reasonable in dealing with a very difficult and very emotionally charged request from a family to be granted access to a treatment that was not available in this province but that was available in another jurisdiction in North America, and that was in fact finally taken advantage of. As it happens the treatment was not useful in this particular case.

What I'd like to know from the minister is whether or not he could inform us what process of scientific review now exists within the Medical Services Plan, apart from the physician who is personally charged with doing these things, to keep up to date and current with the very latest and most hopeful advances in the treatment of cancer and other disastrous illnesses. I'd like to point out as well that it's an obligation that is felt, I'm sure, by members on both sides of the House that if these treatments and remedies are available to our people, but not necessarily available in this province, our own people should not be denied them nonetheless. There are treatments and practices, procedures and therapies underway today in Europe and certainly in the United States of America — which are not currently available in British Columbia.

Last July I was in at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. I had an opportunity to meet with one of the directors there, because of a personal and family interest I have in the matter, and to review as best as he could explain it to a layman — and I don't pretend to be anything more than that — what were the very most current, interesting, exciting and promising treatments available in the course of treating certain cancers. He presented an extremely impressive list to me. I asked whether or not this kind of material was ordinarily made available to other jurisdictions where they don't have the benefit of a Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center just down the street. He said that there are medical literature and journals, and these things are published. But he agreed that in regard to what's currently available the literature is probably anywhere between six and eight months behind. The literature that would come across our desks — I expect the deputy minister's desk as well — would in fact be about six or eight months behind, if not more. Again I want to observe that five and ten years ago if anyone described a process for extracting something we now call interferon, they would have been laughed at and ridiculed as were Koch and Jenner in their times when they developed radically new procedures.

What I want to make sure of is that the people of British Columbia are not missing the boat. What I want to find out is whether or not in these most delicate, human and understandably frightening concerns we have a policy in this province that keeps us current and that guarantees that the people of this province have access to the finest and most contemporary cancer treatments available. It's a hard matter and a hard issue. I don't propose any answers, but these are questions that have been brought to me as recently as four days ago. I'll be coming to see the minister shortly to ask his help with this one. I'd appreciate whatever advice the minister might offer in this policy area.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: This area is perhaps the one that causes most interest in the ministry. We have a medical advisory committee built into the ministry who are certainly not highly trained scientific researchers, but qualified medical people. They can at least examine many of the new programs and treatments which are identified by many organizations and from a medical point of view can at least identify the area of interest and then perhaps receive specific information from the Cancer Control Agency, as an example, if it's a cancer. We have a number of benefits under the Medical Services Plan which are in place today which some years back simply would not have been accepted as a treatment. In fact, limited though it may be, we even fund some acupuncture, which I appreciate is not as serious as some of the other problems, but has been accepted and to a limited degree is being used. Going back even further, the podiatrists, chiropractors and others now receive some insurance, although it may not be as complete as they desire.

We rely to a very large degree on the scientific community and the BCMA, who also have a medical advisory committee which in effect complements our medical advisory committee with respect to many of these procedures or new information. I would think that we in the province have as capable an understanding of the medical advances as would be available to any jurisdiction. To a degree we rely on the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications to bring it to our attention as well, and it was that ministry which spearheaded the interferon development program we have in the province. We probably are as aware of new programs which are in operation elsewhere than in British Columbia as would be scientifically responsible to be. I think we have a good team.

The member would appreciate that quite frequently a jurisdiction will not in itself set up programs when the treatment is readily available elsewhere and the incidence of disease is relatively rare. We do not advertise very much, but we do frequently send British Columbia citizens to treatment centres elsewhere. I say we don't advertise; we handle them in relative quiet for a number of reasons. We do receive pressure from people in British Columbia who would like to see the program duplicated in the province, but I think when the economics of it and the facilities required are explained they understand that it's probably much more efficient to transfer the patient to the clinic than to attempt to duplicate the services. I'm quite confident that our people have as good a handle on many of these processes and developments as would be possible.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I have a positive proposal I'd like to put to the minister. I wonder if he would consider the publication of a small pamphlet which would advise people of all of the non-traditional medical service opportunities available under the plan. As far as I know, there is no such publication available now. Podiatry, chiropractic and some of the special opportunities that do exist for people with catastrophic illness, I think are appropriately the subject of a small public-information pamphlet. It would save a lot of MLAs a lot of trouble. I do observe that especially since the

[ Page 6198 ]

tragic case of Terry Fox has become so well known, and because cancers are so prevalent. People are aware that it appears Terry Fox is at least holding his own with interferon, and each of us is going to be increasingly pressured by our constituents for access to that kind of treatment program. It is not by any means universally available in B.C. for all sorts of reasons — not the least of which is that in regard to the treatment of many cancers, it is completely unproven and may be completely worthless for all we know.

No one is recommending that this House or the government get involved in sponsoring crank and crackpot remedies at peculiar clinics south of the Mexican border. No one wants that at all. But nonetheless it is clear that the fundamental conservatism of the medical profession has demonstrably, over a hundred and fifty years, tended to go slow.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Very slow.

MR. BARBER: Very slow, as the minister interjects, and I agree with him. It's very slow in regard to the introduction of new treatments, new therapies and new remedies. There are a lot of people who would be very grateful to know, by means of such a pamphlet, how they might personally obtain access for themselves or for members of their families who are struck down by illnesses of this sort. It might well be a means of clarifying and rationalizing an area of public policy that's very difficult and very awkward. No one wants to see a cancer patient turned down because they don't know about the therapy available in Texas at the M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, for instance. No one wants to deny it to them either, but if people aren't aware, and if they don't as a general course have access to this material, then for all practical purposes they are denied. It's an awkward matter and I'd be grateful if the minister would consider that suggestion. He says he will and I thank him for that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual report of the First Citizens' Fund administration covering the period January 1, 1980, to December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

17 The Hon. J. H. Heinrich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 17) intituled Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act to amend as follows:

Section 2 (3) (d) is deleted and the following substituted:

"(d) a process

(i) in a petroleum refinery other than in a power plant that is part of the petroleum refinery, and

(ii) where the heat for the process is generated as a result of a reaction that is a part of the process or burning,."

Section 17 is amended by deleting "type of certificate" and substituting class of certificate".

19 The Hon. J. H. Heinrich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Gas Amendment Act, 1981 to amend as follows:

Section 9, in the proposed section 15 (1) by adding "or designated" after "appointed".