[ Page 8941 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Election Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 13). Report. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Third reading –– 8941

Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982 (Bill 35). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 1 –– 8941

Division

Third reading

Police Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 68). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8942

Mr. Macdonald –– 8942

Mr. Nicolson –– 8943

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8943

Land Title Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 70). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8944

Mr. Macdonald –– 8944

Ms. Sanford –– 8945

Mr. Nicolson –– 8945

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8945

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

On vote 45: minister's office (continued) 8946

Mr. Cocke

Land Use Act. (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Discharged –– 8951

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call report on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 13, Election Amendment Act, 1982, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS –– 26

NAYS — 18

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

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that one hon. member did not respond who should have responded to this call. I take this opportunity to bring it to your attention, because I just heard from a member of the opposition who just casually walked in and didn't hear a bell either. I'm telling you, sir, that I am very dissatisfied with the system of calling votes in this House. Should there be the possibility of what happened today and two or three members did not respond, it could be a serious matter. Your Honour should consider the fact that the divisions cannot any longer be taken for granted.

MR. SPEAKER: In the absence of a motion, the Chair cannot proceed any further.

HON. MR. GARDOM: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to introduce to all members of the House one of the Assembly who is, today, celebrating his forty-first birthday. His horoscope states that he possesses a sense of showmanship; he is articulate, dynamic, creative, sensual and stubborn. I can assure you that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and I can attest to the stubborn aspect. We would all like to wish a most happy birthday to the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), the Deputy Chairman.

Committee on Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL DEBT REFINANCING ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 22

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I missed the previous vote. I want the vote taken again, because no bells rang in my office.

MR. LEA: Ditto.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair has no authority to comply with the request by the Minister of Highways, which was seconded in tone by the member for Prince Rupert. I will undertake to bring this matter to the attention of the Speaker, and we will try to resolve this ongoing problem.

Title approved.

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

[ Page 8942 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in committee it was brought to the Chair's attention that problems with the division bells are being experienced by members on both sides of the House.

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

Bill 35, Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In rising to move second reading of this bill, which provides some necessary but minor amendments to the Police Act, may I indicate to the House that the circumstance which required consideration of this bill this year was the conclusion of negotiations with the federal government for the renewal of the contract for the use of the RCMP as the provincial force and, for many of our municipalities, as the municipal force in this province. Those negotiations were concluded in September 1981, and as a result of those negotiations it was found that clarification and some improvement was required in some sections of this bill. So saying, while I may perhaps be offending against the rules of debate, I should advise the House that the Police Act, having been enacted in this province in 1974, is the subject of a major review. It is my expectation that I will be bringing before the House in the 1983 session a major revision of many of the aspects of that bill, particularly those which deal with the handling of citizens' complaints. We believe there are some serious procedural problems which arise from the way in which the legislation is presently worded. This particular bill, however, does clarify some sections by rewording, indicating the responsibility of municipalities for the provision of police services, and this is in itself directly related to the RCMP contract negotiations.

One section, for the first time, gives to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, the opportunity to provide or reorganize policing in any municipality, area or region of the province. I hasten to say that it is not the intention to use this provision to bring about any of the indicated opportunities there are for merger or metropolitanization of police in some areas of the province. That is something which I believe should be taken under the most careful advisement by those municipalities which have their own police forces. I would be happy to discuss with those municipalities the process by which that might be undertaken and the identification of the advantages from such a move. But that's not the purpose of this legislation.

We have in this province, for the RCMP, 43 municipalities who contract for their services. As a result of the recent census, seven additional municipalities are now obliged to provide policing within the boundaries of those municipalities. The federal government, up to this day, has taken the position that it does not intend to expand the number of individual municipal contracts. We believe they should rise to 50. The federal government takes the position that they should remain at 43 separate contracts and that the province and the municipalities who have a responsibility for policing should utilize the provincial force for that purpose. This can be accommodated, and as a matter of fact, in several instances we believe that this offers us a new opportunity with respect to the delivery of police services in some of our outlying municipalities and their surrounding communities.

We have, over the past two or three years, identified a number of small municipalities which find themselves in the unfortunate position of being the commercial core for a much larger area. They are obliged to maintain a police force, and in many instances the necessity for that police force and its business is affected by the size of the surrounding community, which makes no contribution to the cost of those police services. We have been in discussions with Deputy Commissioner Venner, who is the commanding officer of RCMP E division, and we are currently developing three models whereby we can use the provincial force in combination with municipal forces and thereby bring about a better delivery of police services and a more cost-effective police servicing unit. These will not be imposed upon any municipality, but we will, when these models have been fully designed, be inviting some of the mayors of municipalities who find themselves in these circumstances to meet with us for the purposes of discussing the provision of police service in this way, in the hopes that we can, by agreement, enable the provincial force to be deployed into municipal situations and, at the same time, expand the patrol activities of those municipal forces to include the community which may be just beyond the boundaries of a municipality. This will, we think, be a move toward regional policing in rural and semi-urban areas. We do not believe that this concept can be used in the large urban centres, but with very large police subdivisions in this province, in each subdivision of which there are a number of municipal forces, we are satisfied that through regionalization we can provide a better police service through the more appropriate deployment of all resources, financial as well as personnel.

There is only one other aspect of the bill which may attract the members' attention. We will deal with it in committee. The members of the House should be aware that the RCMP officers are presently protected by their force with respect to civil actions; or, if they are charged with an offence which occurs in the discharge of their duties, they can be compensated for the costs of defending such charges in those instances when they have been acquitted. This has never been a right extended fully to the municipal forces. They do have the right of the existing Police Act with regard to civil actions, and there is provision being made at this time to ensure that with respect to offences the employees of police boards are accorded the same level of protection as is presently accorded to the RCMP.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the Police Amendment Act.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the heavy centralizing hand of this government in this little bill. It was not enough for the Attorney-General that he had my car towed away this morning when I was at breakfast; he has now stricken out of the laws of the province of British Columbia the right of municipal councils to be consulted with respect to the appointments to their police commissions. I will just

[ Page 8943 ]

revert to that in a moment, because in terms of the rest of the bill, I am inclined to accept the Attorney-General's assurances — I'm reading between the lines in making this suggestion, and I'd like to see it spelled out more fully — that there is no additional financial impost being imposed under section 3 of this bill on the municipalities in terms of police contracts.

The formula is complicated. I think it has risen in negotiations with the federal government since 1975, when it was 50 percent for the first five officers, to 56.81 percent. I am concerned that the municipal share as against the provincial share not increase. I notice that this bill provides for equal payments by the two parties — municipal and provincial — and I would like the assurance of the Attorney-General that there is no additional impost on the municipalities in terms of their proportion of the new costs.

But in the other section that I won't refer to in any detail.... I think it's a pity that the municipal councils should not be consulted about who goes on their police commissions; that was in our law. At the moment there are five members on the municipal police commissions; the municipalities have two — usually the mayor and one other — and three are appointed by the provincial government. Now the consultation with respect to those three is with the B.C. Police Commission, of which there has been no head for a very long period of time, because no one has been appointed to that position.

Leaving that point aside, why should the provincial body be the one to be consulted, and not the municipal Councils with respect to appointments to the Police Commission? That's not a very large degradation of municipal authority, but it's a fairly substantial one. In effect, all members of the municipal police commissions are presently appointed by the province of British Columbia through their own Police Commission, without consultation with local authorities — not all, but the three. I think that's a big mistake, and that particular section should be taken out of the act. If not, I intend to return to the matter at the committee stage of this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister, in his opening remarks, touched on matters that are both in and outside of the bill. What I would like the minister to touch on, when concluding debate on second reading, is whether anything in this bill addresses perhaps the most serious problem in the policing of the municipal police forces of this province: that is, implementing some of the recommendations of the royal commission on municipal policing costs. There are 12 municipal police forces, I believe, in this province. Those municipalities bear a disproportionate share of costs because they do not come under the RCMP policing agreement. This was well brought out, probably over three years ago, when the commission report was brought down.

I think the municipal police forces perform at a very high standard in this province. If there were some difficulties with some of the municipal police forces many years ago, they have been remedied by innovations such as the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, the police academy and the B.C. Police Commission. Indeed, I'm not sure that the minister has even reappointed a head commissioner. The position has been vacant, to my knowledge, for quite a number of months. I haven't noticed that he has filled that position.

I would like the minister to indicate if somewhere in this bill, hidden in some kind of legal jargon, is the solution to the unfair treatment of municipalities that have their own municipal police force. I think that same report showed that these municipal police forces were very cost-effective. Certainly their statistics, as compiled centrally here, show that their performance is very good and efficient.

Speaking for the Nelson police force, the number of resolved cases per number of cases reported or opened is exemplary. Some very dramatic work has been done by that police force. One case involved the breaking, entering and robbery of a jewellery store by some thieves from the United States, who went back over the border. Our police force, in cooperation with the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit and authorities in the United States, was able to effect an arrest, bring those people back for trial, and recover the stolen loot. All this was done in a most dramatic fashion, in spite of the fact that it's only a 15-person police force.

I hope the minister can assure me that this problem is solved within this bill. or can give some assurance that it soon will be. I think it's an unfair choice that municipalities have to make in providing their police services. Every year municipal councils start a rumble and say they'll have to get RCMP services because it's costing too much to maintain their own municipal police. I believe small is beautiful. I think it's better to have several municipal police forces in this province coordinated through facilities such as CLEU, or in terms of training, such as police academies, so that we can have uniform standards of not only investigative techniques and other things but also training in public relations in the community and keeping them up to date in all of the techniques.

I think that we can have the very best by having a well-coordinated series of municipal police forces throughout the province. The choice should certainly not be predicated on the disparity between the two financing formulas, whereby the municipalities that have municipal police forces pick up virtually 100 percent of the cost.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate may I say to the member for Nelson-Creston that, first of all, there never was a royal commission with respect to police services in the province. I think he's referring to the task force with respect to police costs.

There is no provision in this legislation which will alleviate what some of the municipalities who have their own forces identify as an unfair burden with respect to the provision of police costs. However. I don't share that view. They fail to take into account that the RCMP in municipalities which are policed by the RCMP also have a federal area of responsibility. It is on that basis that we've been able to ensure that the federal government make its contribution towards the services which those police officers render in their federal policing role, as opposed to that which is rendered to the municipalities in those roles which fall under the administration of justice in the province of British Columbia. Let me hasten to add — and I wish to share with the member for Nelson-Creston his expression of satisfaction with and appreciation for the way in which the municipal police forces have discharged their responsibilities in the 12 communities which have their own — that those communities are served by excellent police forces. Let there be no hesitation about that — just as are the municipalities and regions of the province served by the RCMP. We have in this province a total police service delivery system which is unequalled in Canada. Every citizen in this province must be properly aware and appreciative of that circumstance.

[ Page 8944 ]

The solution however, Mr. Member, to the perceived burden of costs that some of the municipal forces are experiencing will, I believe, be identified as we move into these models which will deal with regional policing concepts in some regions of the, province — and Nelson is one. I think that when we have been able to work out with the RCMP itself methods by which we can combine the provincial forces and municipal forces using RCMP personnel and provide a better and more cost-effective delivery of police services, we'll be able to go to the city of Nelson and say: we've got an arrangement that we'd like to consider with you. We have looked at the Nelson situation, and we recognize the unusual circumstance there, where we have a city police force and in that same city the headquarters of the RCMP detachment which serves the surrounding area. We think that we can identify significant savings which will assist Nelson in the discharge of that responsibility.

I will deal with matters raised by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. MacDonald) in committee. I hasten to assure him that the change with regard to consultation on the appointment of police board members to the commission is to make the statute accord with the practice, and is not for the purposes of taking away from municipalities the level of consultation to which they are entitled in the appointment of members of their police boards. I also hasten to say that the provision with regard to the equality of costs that he refers to is in line with the existing practice. The province is not imposing any additional cost burdens on the municipalities through this legislation. Currently, 57 percent of the cost in RCMP-contracted municipalities is paid by the municipality. The percentage of cost which we pay in the provincial force is 57 percent. The cost per officer is higher in the provincial force, however, than it is in the municipal force, so they get a benefit in that respect. Those percentages will rise by one point per year, and at the end of the ten-year contract the share of cost that we pay and the share of cost that the municipalities pay will still be exactly the same; but it will be 70 percent. In the larger municipalities it will rise from 81 percent to 90 percent over a period of ten years. These were the negotiations which were carried on during 1981. In those negotiations we had with us as part of the negotiating team representatives of the municipalities, and they have expressed satisfaction at the outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 68, Police Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In moving second reading of Bill 70, I will say very briefly that while it is bulky, there are no matters of substantive change with respect to this bill to cause the members any difficulty. The bill is being amended on this occasion to accommodate the activities which will take place over the next six months in bringing computerization to the land titles system in British Columbia. Major amendments were made in our land titles system in 1978; since that time, consideration of computerization of the land titles system has been underway. We are now in a position to identify the changes that are necessary for us to complete the work and make computerization a reality in the spring of 1983.

Computerization will have some very major advantages for the people of British Columbia. It will make more accessible the records of the land titles system, as it is now called, for examination and search. Searches will be less subject to error, and they will be faster. As well, the handling of applications for registration of transfers of property, registration of mortgages, rights-of-way, all of the business transacted with respect to property matters in our land titles system, will be expedited and simplified, and the opportunity for error reduced.

Historically, I guess we are in the third phase of the land recording system in this province. Originally records in the land registry offices, as they were known then, were kept in books laboriously written out in longhand. That changed many decades ago, with the advancements made possible when carbon paper was introduced, so that duplicate documents could be made. Establishing the record by the use of loose-leaf title books in the land registry system became the new technique. We've now to the stage where all records can be maintained on a computer system, and this enables us to move as we are doing with this legislation.

Certificates of title, and the duplicate certificates of title, which is the present system, will continue for some years. Indeed, as members who have any experience in land registry matters will know, some of the old absolute fee books are still extant. Titles still exist today in our system, the records of which were handwritten many years ago.

So there will be a transition period before we can get away from using the present certificate-of-title system. That is the reason for making extensive changes to do away with the definition of certificate of title: it's now called an indefeasible title. That is the new name of the document that will be available, even though at present the concept of indefeasibility is part and parcel of our system. The changes from the use of certificates of title to indefeasible title documents have made these amendments necessary — the bulk of them.

So saying, I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: The Attorney-General says there's no substantive change in this bill. I welcome the modernization of the land registry system so that a title will be available on printout, but I deplore the fact that in this act, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, as far as I know, the registrar is given authority to refuse a person the right to search a title. The registrar can declare that it is against the public interest for a person to have access to a title, and there is no appeal from the registrar's decision. I tried to think what possible abuses or occasions would give rise to the censorship of what are essentially public records, and I can't think of any. I can think of a commercial firm that might want to use large-scale records for mailing purposes, but the fees to search would be prohibitive in such a case, so I do not see that any commercial firm is going to take advantage of the land registry system and pay the kind of search fees that can and would be entailed by regulation for commercial purposes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What section are you on?

[ Page 8945 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Section 80. I can't refer to it because I'd be out of order, and I'm never out of order at this time of the day. But the section is there, and its language is very broad. I would ask the Attorney-General to take another look at that before the bill goes through committee. As it now stands, a member of this Legislature wishing to check the disclosure statement of another member of the Legislature in the land registry office could be refused the right to make the search by the registrar, as being against the public interest, with no appeal and no recourse.

I say these land registry records, under our torrens system, have been traditionally and always open to public access and inspection. If they are not, if that right is to be circumscribed in any way, I want to know just how. This section is very broad, and the abuses that are supposed to be curtailed by this section I cannot see as existing. I raise the matter now as a very important matter of principle, and I want the Attorney-General to respond. In particular, I want him to take another look at that section before it goes through committee.

MS. SANFORD: I want to ask the Attorney-General a quick question in relation to his comments about the computerization of the whole system related to land titles. Right now, we have been collecting boxes of forms which people have been filling out when they declare their citizenship, when they purchase land in this province. I'm wondering if this new computerized system will enable the government, with a moment's look, to tell us the extent of foreign ownership in the province, the number of acres involved — the extent of foreign ownership of farmland, for instance. How valuable will this computerized system be in terms of determining that kind of information?

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to second the comments made by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). I have used the open access, before ever being an elected member of this House, in order to reveal the extent of foreign ownership of land in the Nelson area. It was at my expense, both of time and money for fees. I brought out for the first time the extent of foreign ownership of lands under the ownership of Darkwoods Forestry in the Nelson area.

I think of the way this change could affect people coming to grips with one of the greatest threats to our sovereignty: that is, the loss of control of the ownership of our land. When we look at the benign neglect of this government in arresting the incursion of foreign capital buying up our farmland and other foreign capital buying up our downtown real estate, we are going to be tenants of German and Hong Kong capital. If people are even denied, by the instructions and pleasure of the government of the day, the right of investigating and getting factual information as to the extent of this type of ownership, I think that we are selling out our birthright and that this very subtle and insidious change in legislation will be selling out the long-term interests of British Columbians.

I don't know what the short-term goal is. The minister has given us no evidence of people abusing the system as it presently exists. We can only conclude that the motivation is not in the interests of British Columbians, but in the interests of some special pressure group which has asked for this change. I've never been approached by the registrar of titles complaining about this particular practice; in fact, the former registrar of titles was very proud of the modified torrens system. The now-retired registrar of titles in the Nelson area, Bill Sutherland, was very proud of the modified torrens system as it presently exists. I would hope that the minister would take a very careful look at that effect of this particular piece of legislation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate, may I say that the experience of members with respect to the land title system as it has functioned in this province and as it functions today with respect to the matter of searches would justify some of the things which have been said. But they have failed to take into account — and I'm surprised, because the member for Nelson-Creston prides himself on having some knowledge of computer technology and its use, that they would not recognize this — the abuses which are possible to the land title system once we move into the area of computerization.

Commercial firms and people who want to write books about some areas of the province would use the land title search system in a way that is not in the interests of the land title system, holding up legitimate business in the land title system while the system itself is being used to provide extensive searches. You can or will be able, under this new computerization system, to go and make a request which will show every property in respect of which there has ever been a builder's lien filed. That's not necessary for the proper use of the land title system, but this is the capability of the computer system. It is because of that that the director of land titles — not the Attorney-General, but the director of land titles and his experienced staff; he's done his work with the active assistance of Mr. Terry Carlow, who is well known in the land title system — recognizes that they had to have some opportunity to control what could be abuses.

Now the struggle over the section — and this is the one which is objected to,. or raised in the course of this debate.... But, Mr. Speaker, for the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to say that this authority can be exercised without challenge or appeal indicates that he hasn't read the law. May I simply refer him to section 291 of the Land Title Act, which provides for an appeal from the decision of the registrar, summarily to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: Sure!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Don't say you don't have any right to appeal. If the registrar.... There are seven registrars of titles in the province of British Columbia and, as the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has said, like Mr. Sutherland, they are highly experienced, highly qualified, competent people who enjoy the respect of the people of their areas of the province. Seven registrars of titles are all that we have. In my experience — 32 years at the bar — I have never, ever heard one registrar of titles being criticized for the exercise of the very large amount of authority that they have today. You talk about refusing searches in the public interest. The registrar of titles has enormous power today; he can refuse your application and send you off to court to get an order to force him to accept it. But they don't use this authority in an irresponsible fashion; they're highly trained, skilled people in land title matters, and they attend to their business. Therefore this argument is specious.

To the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), yes, the move to computerization will enable us for the first time to be able to deal in an accurate, speedy way with regard to this question of foreign ownership. That will be fed into the computer, and

[ Page 8946 ]

we'll be able to keep tabs on it and make decisions based upon accurate knowledge, which we've never been able to do before.

The final thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I find it passing strange that the members of the opposition would be so interested in the Land Title Act, because most of their members, if my recollection serves me right, are against private ownership of land in this province anyway. Now they're the great champions of your right to go in and search somebody's title. The difficulty that they have, Mr. Speaker, is that they see some scheme behind everything that is done to provide modern advance in our system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want names?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes — do you want names? We'll be happy to provide them. I wouldn't put them on the record, but maybe you'd like to stand up and tell us what your position is, Madam Member for Comox, with respect to private ownership of land in this province. However, you'd be out of order if you did so.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Bill 70, Land Title Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 45: minister's office, $222,410.

MR. COCKE: There are a number of topics I want to cover today with the minister. I'd like to talk about the loan to the Royal Columbian Hospital, but I'll do that in a few minutes. Firstly, so the minister can do some homework, I'm going to ask him a few questions.

As a basic proposition, it's suggested that one of the prime objectives of a ministry of health is to ensure that there is maintained in the province a balanced and integrated system of health-care delivery. I doubt if I'll have any argument on that score. Therefore it should follow that the ministry should regulate and control the nature and extent by which new beds and services are brought into being. Similarly, in times of constraint, if beds and services are to be curtailed, it is the Ministry of Health which should orchestrate such matters. I suggest that they're orchestrating matters such as this in a way that's divisive and coercive. That's why I'll get to the Royal Columbian Hospital in a few minutes.

Section 41 of the Hospital Act clearly states the very sensible fact that hospital administrations must receive written approval of a minister before making an increase or decrease in the space used for housing patients or in the number of beds ordinarily maintained for patients. I understand that there was a court case, and the supreme court saw the wisdom of that and dealt with that particular aspect of the act.

In light of that, will the minister answer these questions? Why, in its April 7, 1982, letter to all public hospitals, did the ministry leave the onus on the hospitals to decide which beds and services they would retain in service? Why didn't the Ministry of Health discharge its obligations and give some leadership and direction with respect to what to close and what not to close? As a result of the initiative's force on hospitals, how is the ministry able to discharge its prime responsibility of ensuring the maintenance of a balanced and integrated system of health care? I suggest that the ministry has lost all control as a result of its eagerness to slough off its responsibilities to the hospital boards.

It's interesting, in view of the fact that I've been talking about centralization.... Centralization with this government and this ministry stops when it means that there's going to be public flak or response to their initiatives. I suggest that what we have here is very powerful and strong control from the standpoint of fiscal and economic matters, but to try to defuse the reaction to the initiatives of the Ministry of Health. I wouldn't mind hearing what the minister has to say about that.

I have another one that the minister can deal with, and that's regulation 7 to the Hospital Insurance Act. I quote:

"The deputy minister may, at the end of any period, make such adjustments in per diem rates paid to general hospitals or rehabilitation and extended care facilities throughout the period as he deems necessary to properly reimburse hospitals in respect of the cost of providing the services and treatment rendered to beneficiaries."

I believe the intent of the legislation is clear: that hospitals will be reimbursed for their reasonable costs of providing care. How does this minister reconcile the statutory requirement with the change of direction which was taken, without prior consultation — to my understanding — with the BCHA and its membership hospitals, whereby the ministry predetermined a grant, not in the way that the regulation in the Hospital Insurance Act determines it should be, but a grant payable to each hospital for 1982-83, instead of an approved budget for 1982-83? I quote from a rather lengthy letter to hospitals on April 7, 1982, signed by Gary Cardiff of the Ministry of Health. First there's a title saying: "Operating grant and related policies, to make you aware of the amount of funds allocated to your hospital as a grant, and to related financial policies for the coming year."

How come the ministry finds itself operating outside its own legislation and regulations? I know that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) gives advice on law and probably went over a gave a little advice; I hope he doesn't give advice on circumventing our own regulations, circumventing our own legislation. Would it be too much trouble, if there's going to be a change, for the ministry to bring forward new legislation?

Mr. Chairman, in the past the Ministry of Health has approved the annual operating budgets of hospitals, and the hospitals have been free to spend the approved amount in accordance with their own priorities; this is known as a global budget. In his May 1982 special report from the Legislature, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) states, on page 2: "This year's budgets to hospitals have been provided on a global basis; that is, each hospital is free to spend its grant according to its own priorities." For the time being I'll ignore the obvious conflict between budget and grant and ask the minister to reconcile the Finance minister's statement with the statement contained in the April 7, 1982, letter to the public hospitals, which said: "Funds approved for other operating expenses cannot be expended on labour costs." That was part of Gary Cardiff's letter.

[ Page 8947 ]

There is so much confusion out there, Mr. Chairman; is it any wonder we find chaos? My question to the Minister of Health, although it should probably be directed to the Minister of Finance or the first minister: are the hospitals still on a global budget system or not? How does he reconcile the two positions I've mentioned?

There's an interesting footnote to this whole granting situation. In a special report prepared by the minister for the Social Credit caucus....

MR. MUSSALLEM: How do you know?

MR. COCKE: I know because that's what it says on it. If you didn't read it, it was prepared for you, and I would recommend it as bedtime reading. I'm not sure that it will cheer you up if you read it the way I read it, but in any event you might read it.

MR. MUSSALLEM: How did you get it?

MR. COCKE: I got it in my usual way. One of your members came over and handed it to me, and said: "I think it's good reading."

It's interesting to see how the grants, budgets or whatever they might be are constructed. For instance, let's look at Vancouver General. They have a gross expenditure of $169,467,637. That's up 8.77 percent. How's that put together? The ministry's liability to that hospital is $149,569,187, which is a 7.72 percent increase, Guess what they're supposed to do with their other income — from the cafeteria, parking lot, per diems and other services? That has gone up 17.33 percent. The ministry decides that the income they have to raise goes up 17.33 percent, but the contribution from the Ministry of Health goes up 7.72 percent. I can go on with reams of them, and I'll do some more of that when I get to the Royal Columbian. I would like to have an answer to the whole budgeting question.

Yesterday I spoke a little bit about the joint funding study. This, again, is a really confusing situation to me. We've had previous Ministers of Health holding out the joint funding study as the panacea which would cure all the situations in the Ministry of Health's finances. It was called a joint funding study because of the shared interest and participation by the ministry and the B.C. Health Association. Initially, it was a steering committee with representatives from the Ministry of Health, BCHA and the Treasury Board. That's the way it was constructed to begin with.

We were told yesterday by the minister that the steering committee has been disbanded, and that there is no continuing involvement or participation by the BCHA. As a matter of fact, be said that that was of their own volition. I understand there's a strong possibility that the reason the B.C. Health Association withdrew was because of the fact that they were totally frustrated. Obviously then the joint funding study as such is a dead duck. The minister may pretend that the study is continuing in some other form, but I suggest that this is evading the issue we've had before us for some time, and I'd like to know the following. What has been the total amount expended by the Ministry of Health and the B.C. Health Association on this study? What precisely did the study produce? I suggest that, for one reason or another, the study proved to be a complete waste of public funds. If not, wouldn't it be appropriate that the minister tell us how much was expended and what came out of it? We're studying ourselves to death. Sometimes I wonder why.

I think, because of the fact that there is such widespread use of consultants.... As I mentioned yesterday, every time a hospital gets into trouble — and my heavenly days, they're getting into it regularly — private outside consultants are called in to give a determination on whether or not the hospital is actually in the kind of trouble it indicates. We were informed yesterday that hospitals were being inspected by both external and ministry consultants. Could the minister tell me how much has been expended on all external consultants by the Ministry of Health in the fiscal year 1981-82, and what's committed for the current year?

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The Minister of Finance stood in the House and gave us the new estimates book. which is so vague. I remember when the Ministry of Health had a number of votes. Do you know how many it has now? Four, for a S2.2 billion area. But the Minister of Finance assured us: "Don't worry, its all on the computerized sheets that you're going to get." 'When you read them they are as vague, burying the facts, and as misleading, in terms of an opposition member, as one can get. I'm not suggesting the figures are wrong. For instance, I find the provincewide emergency ambulance service plan buried in community care. You can't tell how much is being expended there.

Anyway, I'm deviating. They only believe in the bottom line, and the bottom line says nothing unless you can get the facts it constitutes, what makes up the bottom line. I'd like to know what has been spent on consultants, and what's committed for the current year,

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If the ministry has a staff of competent consultants, why is it necessary to hire all these external consultants? I can recall when we had a staff that moved around, and if a hospital or any other health area was in trouble, there were people who could go out and take a look. First, what procedures are in place within the Ministry of Health to ensure some interchangeability between hospital personnel and the ministry consultants'? Secondly, how long has the ministry's own consulting, staff been away from the firing line? I suggest that after a period of, say. five years they'll have lost their credibility in the field — our own staff, if we have any left — thus making the hiring of external consultants mandatory. We're bringing them in from Ontario, from everywhere, it seems to me. Every time there's an announcement we hear of another group of consultants working for the Ministry of Health. As the ministry seems to have embarked on an arbitrary policy of approving a hospital grant, as opposed to reviewing and approving an operating budget, what steps has it taken to eliminate hospital programs staff who are rendered redundant by that action?

These are some questions that need to be answered, because they are at the very core of the Ministry of Health and its relationship with the field.

I don't know whether the minister has any intention of revealing what happened with this loan of $750,000 to the Royal Columbian Hospital to reopen — I'm told — 35 beds and one operating room. Why do you think that happened?

[ Page 8948 ]

I'll tell you why it happened: there was such a gross misunderstanding of the needs of the Royal Columbian Hospital that the Ministry of Health had to go in and bail them out. They didn't know how to do it except to loan them some money, interest free, which they have to pay back next year out of next year's budget. I am so fed up with the way the ministry treats that hospital.

Let me get to the Royal Columbian Hospital on this Ministry of Health budgeting recommendation situation that was given to the Socred caucus — their budget or grant, or whatever it might be. Their gross expenditure last year was $55 million, and this year it's up to $61 million, a 9.48 percent increase, according to the ministry. The ministry's liability was 7.73 percent. Do you know what the Royal Columbian has to raise by means of extra parking fees, cafeteria, any other income they can grab? They have to raise an increase of almost 20 percent over last year — 19.47 percent. Restraint on the part of the Ministry of Health, and the hospital has to go out and claw for money. This is the most damaging evidence I've ever seen in terms of what they're trying to do to our public hospitals. They've got them in a vise, particularly hospitals like the Royal Columbian, which carries the load for over half of the lower mainland simply because of geography. The Royal Columbian Hospital happens to be geographically located in such a way as to be most accessible to ambulances. The other night, before we saw that headline in the Sun, ambulances were being diverted again. That's what caused the crisis. I'm sure the minister checked and found that those ambulances were being diverted again from the Royal Columbian Hospital because there were no backup beds for emergency. They had to open those 35 beds to provide backup for emergency — nothing short of that.

It was an abysmal decision in the first place that led to closing those 109 beds. I suggest the reason for the loan is just a camouflage to stop the other hospitals from thinking they might be able to have access to a change in their grant or budget structure.

What do we find under those circumstances? We find a kind of marionette situation. So you fire, lay off or do whatever you have to with all that staff for those 35 beds. As a matter of fact, they had to lay off all the staff for the 109 beds. Now they suddenly have to go out and look for staff to complement the opening of these 35 beds and one operating room. It's a bad decision. But bad decisions are easily made when they're made in an arbitrary way.

There can be nothing more arbitrary than the things that have been going on in the health-care system with respect to lack of consultation. If there's anything that proves it to me.... How would you like to be St. Paul's Hospital? The ministry says: "We're going to give you an increase of 7.72 percent, but we want you to raise an additional 20.16 percent over what you raised last year."

How'd you like to be the Royal Jubilee, one of our neighbours? The ministry is going to give them a 7.74 percent increase this year. What do you think the Royal Jubilee has to raise in terms of income from all the facilities and services they provide? An additional 28.53 percent over last year. From the ministry, an increase of 7.74 percent; from their own sources of revenue, whatever they might be....

We're talking in terms of a large sum of money — $9.384 million. They've got to raise that; it's an increase of 28.53 percent over last year's 7.3 percent. That is dammed significant, as far as I'm concerned.

If the minister would like to compliment the opposition critic with an answer or two to some of the questions I've asked, I'll let him share the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yesterday during some of the discussion which took place the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) made note about style and substance with respect to debate in the House over health-care matters. The member for North Peace River, among his comments, which I think offered more substance than the other speakers on that side of the House yesterday....

MR. COCKE: There's only been one other speaker, and that's me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's you. The member for North Peace River offered much more substance in his comments to the House yesterday than the official critic did.

Among his statements, however, I'd like the record to show, at least for those few people who read it, that it is not all members of the opposite side who choose to politicize health matters relative to a specific individual. I have had correspondence and communication from members on both sides of the House — certainly from the other side — about specific cases where they've been advised by relatives or doctors of someone who may be having some difficulty in receiving treatment. The information has been brought to my attention, the matter has been resolved in most instances, and the information has not been made public or politicized for whatever purpose. It is not all who engage in that rather strange activity.

In fact, today I received a communication from a member on the other side about a problem raised in the House, albeit obliquely, the other day. I was advised by the member that apparently the problem has been resolved. That's good news to hear. It didn't turn into a headline based on a lack of information or incomplete information.

The press keep asking me why things are so dull in the debate. I don't know whether the debate is dull or what the press may have expected, but today is the day that — what do they call themselves? — the Alliance to Save Health Care in B.C. are supposed to appear in front of the assembly at 12:45. I understand that until they appear, the debate will continue to be dull. Then question period will be devoted to Health, along with the debate after these people appear. That's what I'm advised. I don't know whether it's true.

MR. COCKE: Answer some questions.

MS. BROWN: You're sick.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What was that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's what I've been advised; that's by way of answering the press, who asked me the question.

MR. COCKE: Yes, but the press don't know either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 8949 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course the press don't know everything; of course not. Very few of us do, apparently.

MR. COCKE: You're such a....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Did you wish to speak, old chap?

MR. COCKE: No, we're just loving every word you're saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the members will not interrupt the minister, and the minister will address the Chair.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Maybe the member for New Westminster would like to regain the floor. Would you prefer that, or...?

MR. COCKE: No, I would prefer the minister to answer questions.

The minister is showing in every way possible his total contempt. This morning I asked some valid questions, quietly, without fanfare — just some questions that that minister obviously cannot answer. If he can answer them, Mr. Chairman, he should have the courage to stand up and give us his answers. I'm not going to ask those questions again until such time as the minister decides he'd like to answer them, because I have a whole boxful of questions, and the minister will be sitting right where he is until he starts answering questions. This is absolutely ridiculous. We have an obligation to the people in this province who are concerned about the health-care system.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) not to interrupt the hon. member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just so that the minister can have some time to collect his thoughts, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 25

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'll speak with respect to some of the questions asked by the member, particularly about Royal Columbian Hospital and the loan of $750,000. On July 12 the board of managers accepted a proposal from the ministry, particularly from Mr. G. Cardiff, assistant deputy minister. This followed a meeting I had with Royal Columbian Hospital representatives in Vancouver earlier on June 5, at which time the administrator, the board chairman and medical representatives indicated that among the difficulties associated with their budget for the year was a particular concern about summertime emergencies and backup beds for emergencies.

I asked Mr. Cardiff. the assistant deputy minister, to dispatch someone to the hospital quickly to review the concern and to speak with Dr. Martin Smith and others about it. In July — I'm not sure of the date; sometimes it's hard to read these Telex communications — by way of a Telex communication, we received information that the board unanimously had endorsed and accepted the proposal for an advance in cash for the purposes of opening up to 35 beds. The Telex was from Dr. Martin-Smith. In part. It said:

AT ITS SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 12, 1982, THE BOARD OF MANAGERS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED YOUR PROPOSAL TO ADVANCE CASH TO OPEN UP TO 35 BEDS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE OVERFLOW OF PATIENTS ADMITTED THROUGH THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT FOR WHOM OTHER BEDS IN THIS HOSPITAL ARE NOT AVAILABLE. ACCEPTANCE WAS ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE MEDICAL STAFF.

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS EXPRESSED THEIR APPRECIATION OF THE EFFORTS OF YOURSELF AND YOUR ADVISERS IN UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION HERE. WE WERE PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED AT THE SPEED AND EFFICIENCY OF YOUR REACTION TO OUR ADVICE THAT A DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR PATIENTS WAS DEVELOPING. THE MEDICAL AND NURSING CONSULTANTS WHICH YOU SENT AT SHORT NOTICE TO REVIEW OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE THE BEST CARE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS WHO SPENT A VERY BUSY DAY — INDEED. UNTIL 2200 HOURS IN THE EVENING — AT THE HOSPITAL IN ORDER TO FURNISH YOU WITH A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT.

WE UNDERSTAND THE CASH ADVANCES. WHICH WILL START IMMEDIATELY, ARE NOT ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO RCH, AND INDEED, WE ARE AWARE THAT THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH HAS NO NEW FUNDS AVAILABLE. WE ACCEPT THAT THE CASH ADVANCES, WHICH WILL TOTAL $750.000 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR. AS DISCUSSED WITH YOU ON FRIDAY, JULY 2, ARE ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR NON-BED-RELATED COST-CONTAINMENT INITIATIVES REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE

[ Page 8950 ]

ADVANCES ARE RETIRED OR THE IMPACT OF THE OPERATIONAL REVIEW IS REALIZED.

And it goes on with some other information.

The problem with Royal Columbian Hospital is viewed by ministry staff and me as being serious enough to warrant a very comprehensive operational audit. The operational audit began after meeting with the Royal Columbian Hospital board, its administrator and others, with respect to what appeared to be a great difficulty in developing some type of agreeable numbers for their budget. The Royal Columbian Hospital seems to be out of step with the majority of hospitals in the province. The Royal Columbian Hospital suggests the reason for that is the unique character of their hospital. We believe that that circumstance, the unique character of the hospital — as the member for New Westminster said, its access to the freeways, and the rest of it — does indeed provide the Royal Columbian Hospital with very specific circumstances, which are being reviewed very specifically by the operational audit team. That information should be available within a reasonable period of time, and may result.... As the member for New Westminster said yesterday, if it's truly an independent audit — and I can assure him it is — they would very likely suggest that the Royal Columbian Hospital does serve a unique role. There are unique costs associated with that, and that may very well be what the operational audit will show. And we're prepared to accept the results of that operational audit.

The members of the Royal Columbian Hospital staff and others, who met with ministry officials and discussed for a long time the problems of that hospital, came away with very little difficulty in agreeing on where the problems probably lie. There was difference of opinion on some specifics, and it was agreed.... In fact, I believe they recommended that an independent group have a look so as to eliminate the idea that it's either the ministry or the hospital that is right, or vice versa. Everyone agreed it would be well worthwhile to undertake the independent study. We were pleased to agree with the Royal Columbian to do that. The cash advances for hospitals apparently have been in vogue since about 1958. They take various forms depending on the circumstances of the need, but apparently the Ministry of Health has been doing that since about 1958.

MR. COCKE: They never put strings on them like they have now.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If any of my staff in the office is listening, would you see if any strings have ever been put on any loans to hospitals.

The member asked about consultants, and I think in some of his comments he was speaking of two types of consultants: outside consultants who are hired independently and those consultants who are in effect full-time staff. Presently we have three teams of consultants reviewing three hospitals. They are the Royal Columbian, as we've mentioned; the Royal Jubilee Hospital, which to some degree is similar to the Royal Columbian, only the location is the Victoria area; and the Children's Hospital. We are expecting results, of course, as soon as they complete their surveys. I don't know what the costs would be. I would have to see what the contracts say on those specifics.

One of the questions the member for New Westminster asked is: how long have ministry consulting staff been away from the firing-line? I would have to check each individual's work record to find out how long they have been employed, and specifically when they were last on the firing-line. It will take a while, but I'll gladly get the information. The next question was: what steps are to be taken to eliminate hospital program staff who are redundant? If they're redundant, I suppose steps would be taken to put them in a different position where they would be of greater use to the people.

The member brought forward some comments with respect to a statute and regulations, specifically section 41 of the Hospital Act, which says that written permission must be given by the minister for a hospital to close beds which are normally in use, or words to that effect. There was a court injunction with respect to the Richmond General Hospital. Basically the court injunction agreed that section 41 said what it said. I haven't heard back on that, because the Richmond Hospital had been granted permission in writing to make the changes they had recommended prior to that court hearing. I'm not sure of the precise dates; it depends on when the mail was delivered to the hospital.

We're advised by the lawyers in the ministry that we are following the conditions of section 41. I've been advised, although I haven't had the opportunity of personally checking, that section 41 apparently was not always used and that when hospitals were closing beds routinely in the summer, written permission had not always been granted, which leads the lawyers to have a wonderful time attempting to interpret what this section of the act says and means. I understand that hospitals in the past years, closing literally hundreds of beds during the summer months, had not received written permission to do so. So it hinges, I suppose, upon the wording "normally maintained" — whether it means what you normally have in January you must have in August, I don't know; I leave that to the lawyers. We've been advised by our lawyers that we're following the conditions of section 41, which began with the letters sent out April 7. That's the legal interpretation we've received.

A question was asked about regulation 7 of the Hospital Insurance Act. I'll have to get our lawyers to look at that and perhaps try to understand exactly what the legal question asked was and what the answer might be.

The joint funding project. The member made a statement in part that the whole thing may have been a waste of taxpayers' money. Well, I don't have the total amount which has been paid over the years for it. I understand there are contracts out now by consultants who have experience in the hospital field, working with the ministry, keeping in touch with the hospitals. Their work progresses. I understand it's about $166,000 in continued costs. I don't know what the total costs have been over the past number of years, but I can find out. There has been information extracted from the study which has already been put in place.

I'm rather surprised that it was suggested that the BCHA....The BCHA, of course, is an organization which has a president. When it speaks, I suppose it is the president who is speaking. I get confused on occasion, when the member for New Westminster says: "People in the BCHA say...." I listened to their president, who, I presume, speaks on their behalf. I'll be pleased to check with Mr. Patterson to see if he made those statements, and with his predecessor Dr. Hugh McDonald to see whether he made those statements. If they didn't, then I will ask them what the BCHA position is on the joint funding project. Then perhaps we'll know what we're talking about. Unnamed people to whom the member for New Westminster attributes authority

[ Page 8951 ]

as BCHA spokesmen are not unlike some of the usually reliable sources frequently quoted in the media. So we'll try to find out whether Mr. Patterson or Dr. McDonald made the statement and exactly what they said with respect to the joint funding project, I'll ask the two of them, if they're available. Mr. Chairman, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), I ask leave to discharge Bill 9.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.