[ Page 8975 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Royal assent to bills –– 8975

Land Use Act (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 8975

Tabling Documents

Auditor-general's special report on the expenditures of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, January 6, 1981, to March 31, 1982

Mr. Speaker –– 8975

Police Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 68). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 4 –– 8975

Mr. Macdonald

Division

Third reading –– 8976

Land Title Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 70). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On the amendment to section 11 –– 8977

Mr. Nicolson

On the amendment to section 12 –– 8977

Mr. Lorimer

On section 61 –– 8977

Mr. Leggatt

On section 80 –– 8978

Mr. Macdonald

On the amendment to section 80 –– 8979

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Macdonald

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

On vote 45: minister's office (continued) –– 8980

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Kempf

Mr. King

Appendix –– 8991

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to ask the House to welcome a colleague in social services and a good friend and neighbour from the province of Alberta. We have seated on the floor of the House today the Hon. Bob Bogle, who is the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this morning from that great little oasis of the north, Fort St. James, are His Worship, Mayor Jim Togyi, his wife Ellen, and their sons Emery, John and Michael. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery today are three fine gentlemen from the city of Kamloops: Dr. Alf Floyd, Mr. Marvin Munro, and Mr. Terry McQuillan. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the building and that he will be approaching the chamber shortly. Perhaps we could stay in our seats and welcome him when he arrives.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his seat in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Election Amendment Act, 1982

Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982

Urban Transit Authority Amendment Act, 1982

Wildlife Act

Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act

Court Order Interest Amendment Act, 1982

Water Amendment Act, 1982

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1982

Fire Services Amendment Act, 1982

Vancouver Centennial Celebration Act

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982

Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953, Amendment Act, 1982

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Introduction of Bills

LAND USE ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Use Act.

Bill 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to orders of the day, hon. members. I table the special report of the auditor general of British Columbia on the expenditures of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from January 6, 1981, to March 31, 1982.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 68, MR. Speaker.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I raised this in second reading. It's a simple little section, All it says is that it's self-explanatory; that's the note. It says: "striking out 'consultation with the council' " — that's the municipal council — "and substituting 'consultation with the commission' " — that's the Attorney-General's own commission.

Next year he'll have one: "after consultation with myself."

It's like R.B. Bennett. who used to hold a cabinet meeting when he was walking down the street; he was consulting with himself.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I know, but that's the way we're going. We're moving towards centralization and control. This is a petty little nibbling away of municipal powers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're overparked.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, God! I don't want to get my car towed away again by that bunch over there. They persecute you and harass you. You talk about sexual harassment. What about the harassment from this government that I've been receiving?

There they are, Mr. Chairman: the centralizers, the heavy hand of the state. This time they're just picking on municipal councils throughout the length and breadth of the province of British Columbia. Why do they do it? I don't know. I think it's just a little gratuitous insult to the municipal councils out there, eliminating their right even to be consulted with respect to the appointment of representatives on their own police commissions. That's what the minister is doing, He's worse than the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), bringing in the land bill to allow the Spetifores to get away with murder. That's what it is, isn't it? No. It's not as bad as that, but it's the same direction.

This should not be accepted, Mr. Chairman. It's ridiculous.

[ Page 8976 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I find it unusual that the second member for Vancouver East would take that position. The present provision in the Police Act requires, with respect to a majority of positions on a police board — namely, three of the five — that there has to be consultation with the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. Consultation means just that.

The practical aspect of the matter, as the second member for Vancouver East well knows, is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council acts upon recommendations of responsible ministers. Consultation with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council effectively becomes consultation with the Attorney-General prior to his making recommendations with regard to the appointment of members of the police board. Therefore what he is accusing us of doing is in fact what takes place today.

The practical aspects of the nomination of persons as members of a police board have been that the Police Commission, which functions independently of cabinet and of the Attorney-General, has carried on the consultations with the municipal councils. We are therefore simply putting into statute what the practical process is today. Indeed, we are taking this authority with respect to consultations and the responsibility further away from cabinet than was ever the case before.

Under this amendment, municipal councils will still be consulted. They will be consulted by the B.C. Police Commission, which has a special interest in ensuring that members appointed to police boards are persons who are knowledgeable of the responsibility of police board members and representative of the community, and are, therefore, properly qualified to take positions as members of the police board.

If the hon. second member for Vancouver East had taken the time this morning to read the comments of His Worship Mayor Couvelier of the municipality of Saanich, he would have recognized that the present method for appointing police commissioners, as provided in the legislation as it presently stands, is seen by the mayor of Saanich to produce some results which he does not think arc appropriate. By consultations with the commission, and with its assistance in finding people in the community who do have the status and high profile of which Mayor Couvelier speaks, we can provide for more effective management of the 12 municipal police forces that we have in the province — it only applies to 12 of them.

MR. MACDONALD: I have just a brief comment. If what the Attorney-General says is so, why the section at all? You say they're still going to be consulted, yet you pass a special bill in the Legislature that strikes out consultation with municipal councils. Why? Why don't you leave that in? As for finding those who have good records in a community, in terms of vigilance, law and order, and knowing the community, who knows better than the elected members of the municipal council? They're not making the appointments; at least let them be consulted. If they're still going to be consulted, as you say, why are you passing this section? Your speech is one thing and the section is the exact opposition.

I call the question. It's a bad section.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 22

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

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 68, Police Amendment Act, 1982, reported completed without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 70.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have placed on the table this morning an amendment to section 2 of Bill 70. In effect, it deletes the entire section 2 and substitutes some modified provisions. I have provided a copy of this amendment, and also copies of similar amendments to sections 11 and 12, to the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). By way of explanation, may I say that in removing the use of certificate of title from the existing statute, we

[ Page 8977 ]

found in section 15 some references to certificate of title which had not been rectified. This amendment accomplishes that change.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Section 11 has a similar amendment, which I've placed on the table this morning. It is a technical matter. The existing section referred to registration of an application; this change has been made to ensure that it applies to the registration of an instrument as well as an application.

I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I find it incredible that the minister brings in the bill, and then drops a bunch of amendments which are not even on the order paper. It certainly isn't the standard of performance that I've come to expect from that minister, at least in drafting legislation, although I might have disagreed many times with the content of legislation that he's brought into this House. I just have to take my place and register my disappointment that matters as important as this, the Land Title Amendment Act, should be brought in in such slipshod fashion, and then amended in such a cursory manner, without even placing the amendments on the order paper and allowing them to sit there for a few days.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

On section 12.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the amendment to section 12, which I've placed on the table today, copies of which have been made available to the hen. second member for Vancouver East, who I understand is a critic of this legislation. It is a rewrite of section 12 presently in the bill before us, which deals with the effective time upon which registration of a title stored by electronic means — namely in the computer — takes effect. As is the case today, it is the date and time of the application for the transfer of title and receipt by the registrar. I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. LORIMER: This is strictly bush-league. It's not good enough for the minister to say that he's given the member for Vancouver East a copy. A copy should be in the hands of every member in this House. I would suggest that the Attorney-General is asking us to vote blindly on these amendments. I don't think that anyone should be asked to do that in this House. I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name in the orders of the day, by the addition of section 17.1. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 60 inclusive approved.

On section 61.

MR. LEGGATT: There are two things happening in this House today which we must make objection to. First of all, the amendments the minister is proposing have not been placed on the order paper, nor distributed to members of the opposition. Secondly, the sections are going through holus bolus — in other words, we're taking sections 32 to 40 and 60 to 65.

How can you expect members of the opposition to follow the procedures in this House and to follow these sections — which it's our duty to do — without having a chance to look at the amendments and when you call sections with this speed, Mr. Chairman? It's impossible for us to feel in any way that we're aware of the details going through — it's a very complicated piece of legislation we're passing here today.

I want to register my objection as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) has. In view of this procedure — and I ask the minister to think seriously about this — of ramming through such a complicated piece of legislation, I would move this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have already entertained that motion. While we have, however, passed intervening business, I can entertain the motion. But, the Chair cannot help but feel that the comments by the member were partially directed at the Chair. If the member has any feeling that the Chair is trying to hurry or is doing anything that has not been done in this chamber before, the Chair takes particular exception to that remark.

I would advise members that when any member stands on his feet in this House, once we have at any time passed a block of votes such as sections 40 through 60, and wishes to speak, for example, on section 41, the Chair has always allowed that member to speak on the section. In no way whatsoever will the Chair prevent any member from speaking by moving through a block vote. That has usually been done when the Chair is under the impression that the bill has been researched by members long before it comes to this committee and that when members'wish to speak on a section they will have taken the time to read the particular section, and the House business will proceed accordingly.

I wish to assure the member, if his remark was directed in any way to the Chair, that at any time he will have the opportunity to speak on any section, notwithstanding the

[ Page 8978 ]

number of votes that are taken at any time. I give that undertaking totally to all members of this chamber.

MR. LEGGATT: It was not a criticism of the Chair; my criticism was that in these circumstances where the amendments have not been distributed, it's hard to understand the significance of changes that the Attorney-General is bringing in, and it could affect sections that are going by quickly. We are not in the usual situation, Mr. Chairman. It's not a criticism of the Chair, and nothing the Chair has any control over; it's a matter as to how the Attorney presents his legislation. Where the Attorney decides not to place those amendments on the order paper but to simply submit them to the critic — and fairly recently — it seems to me a dangerous procedure to follow.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the motion that the committee rise and report progress, we will oppose it. If the hon. member is saying that the practice — which has been followed in this House for many years — of identifying from the opposition benches the member who has charge of a particular bill and providing to him amendments — which are amendments of substance but only of detail — is to end, then the government members introducing legislation and having the responsibility to pilot it through the House can govern themselves accordingly.

MR. LEGGATT: Put it on the order paper.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's the way it can be done. If at this late stage in the session you want to change the practice which has been carried on in this House for many, many years, then all I'm saying is that the government is happy to accord to the practice. But don't expect that at 10:45 on July 23, for some reason or other, because the opposition members can't get their act together and want to have a change in the procedures followed in this House.... I'm not being critical of the hon. second member for Vancouver East. But I provided him with copies of the amendments this morning; I indicated that they were purely of a technical nature and not of substance, and I offered to put them on the order paper and have the bill debated next week. He indicated that, in view of the nature of the amendments, that wasn't necessary. Now you can't criticize me or the Chair — or indeed the member — for following a practice which has been conducted for many years. He has assumed the responsibility, I gather — I would expect at the delegation of the opposition caucus — and he has discharged it. If the member has some difficulty with procedures in his own caucus, then he has to straighten them out there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On the other hand, I make it perfectly clear that if you want to change the process to take place in this House, then all you have to do is indicate that that should be the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has inadvertently allowed debate from both the Attorney and the member for Coquitlam-Moody on a motion which is not debatable. No doubt the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was rising to point that out to the Chair.

Motion negatived.

Sections 61 to 79 inclusive approved.

On section 80.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we've had sections go by that are of a technical nature in terms of modernizing the land titles office, and some certainly were changes correcting errors in draftsmanship only. However, in section 80 once again we see the heavy hand of this Attorney-General. The old section on the right of citizens to search in the land titles office to see the state of titles and who owns this country was very adequate and gave protection both to the land registry system, of which we're proud, and to the public's right to know. It said that the registry and any other official records of the land titles office are open to inspection and search by the public on reasonable conditions that the registrar may impose. So the right to search was there on reasonable conditions. We have not found in this province that those conditions have been such as to interfere with the public's right to know.

[Hon. MR. Wolfe in the chair.]

The new section that the Attorney-General has added is wholly objectionable. That's subsection (2), which says: "The registrar may refuse any person the right to conduct a search where the registrar considers that search could be contrary to the public interest." How much broader can it be than that? There is an absolute discretion of the registrar to refuse you the right to search. The Attorney-General said yesterday, in one of the silliest statements ever made in a legislative assembly — I use the Minister of Industry and Small Business's (Hon. Mr. Phillips') words — in North America, the world, or wherever: "Somebody might want to write a book and look at a whole bunch of titles in terms of their research." What in the heck is wrong with that? Mind you, that person who's going to write a book and search a lot of titles will have a pretty heavy impost in terms of just the fees.

Then you have subsection (1), which says: "The registrar may impose reasonable terms...." Maybe he comes back at night. He doesn't interfere with the regular flow of ordinary commercial business. So the protections were there. A commercial firm might want to look at titles and get some names to send a brochure to. They'd pay a very heavy fee for it and would not be allowed, under subsection (1), to interfere with the ordinary course of land registry dealings. Why do you need subsection (2) which gives the registrar the power to refuse public access to these public records? What is this government trying to hide? Why be so secretive? Why is the Attorney-General as secretive as a clam? Why does he say that he's going to bring in freedom-of-information legislation and then turn the ombudsman of the province of British Columbia every which way but loose?

What confidence have we got in this Attorney-General in terms of freedom of information? What he says is grand and fine, but every bit of legislation he brings into this House bears the mark of secrecy. He says you can have an appeal. You, the citizen, have this situation: you're appealing your assessment, say, in North Vancouver, and want to see how comparable sales of property have been going in your area to support your appeal on your assessment notice. So you go

[ Page 8979 ]

and want to search 30 or 40 titles. The registrar, under this section — maybe the registrar is going to be more sensible than the Attorney-General and not use it — could use that and block you, and say: "I won't give you access to those titles."

Or even though we have good registrars out there....

We're talking about the future. We're not talking about people, but about laws. I may want to search the land holdings of the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development to see whether or not his disclosure statement....

AN HON. MEMBER: You've already done that!

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's a bad example. That was one of the first, with the big car dealers. We wanted to see where the steam baths were coming from.

I could be refused that under this section. I could then go and make a court case out of it to a supreme court judge, as the Attorney-General correctly says. It would be costly and difficult, because what I'm appealing against is the discretion of the registrar merely to say that what I'm doing is against the public interest. I haven't got much to go on. I would need a very fast lawyer and a good talker to win my case.

This is a fundamental change in our land registry system that's being imposed in subsection (2) ; the right of the public to search public records is being circumscribed by very general language, and it should be opposed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, this is a rare occasion for me. Unbeknownst to me, my cousin Sally from Wisconsin is in the gallery, together with her son Eric. I would like all members to bid them a special welcome.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the second member for Vancouver East are completely inappropriate in dealing with this section. He has succeeded in clearly misstating the purport of this section, and he has failed to comprehend that subsection (2) — which deals with the matter of refusals of the right to search, in the public interest — places for the first time a very identifiable test, but one of the very highest standards. He doesn't object to subsection (1), which indicates that the registrar may impose reasonable conditions in the discretion of the registrar, but when we offer a test of the public interest capable of being defined if necessary by the supreme court of this province, he takes exception.

He knows that the seven registrars of title in this province and the director of land titles are men of integrity and skill in their particular responsibility. I wish to make it abundantly clear that I dissociate myself from any of the imputations which arise out of the remarks of the hon. second member for Vancouver East as they may impinge upon the record — for years and years — of registrars of title. However, the second member for Vancouver East has succeeded in raising this issue.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Port Moody speaks across the floor, saying: "What's that got to do with it?" Registrars of title for years have been recognized as people who discharge their responsibility in the public interest. When you put in legislation that that's what they must do in order to prevent abuses which are identified by them as now being possible as we move into the field of computerization, you want to take that out of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to put the registrars of title in this position. I'm not going to allow that subsection to exist, and for the member for Vancouver East, and others, to go around this province suggesting that the registrars would so abuse the authority that they have been given, and which they have discharged with distinction for so many years. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I move that section 80 be amended by deleting subsection (2) of proposed section 306. I trust that the members of the opposition will not be complaining because I didn't put the amendment on the order paper but dropped it on the floor of the House during the course of the committee debate.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I've introduced an amendment, and I may have a few more things to say.

I hope that this amendment will satisfy the opposition and the critics who have emerged since the specious arguments have been made by the members of the opposition. I trust that the opportunity for debate on this amendment will permit the members of the opposition to stand in their place and apologize for what they have done in the course of this debate.

On the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT: First of all. I want to thank the first member for Vancouver East for the amendment. I think he deserves a little credit, rather than chastisement from the Attorney-General When he has accepted the arguments that have been presented in the chamber which have been so eloquent and correct.

The Attorney-General knows full well what the old section said. The old section, 306(1), said: "The official records of the land titles office are open to inspection and search by the public on reasonable conditions the registrar may impose." That was always in the old law.

No one in this chamber has criticized any registrar in the province. We've all worked with them, we find them remarkably able civil servants, and they do an excellent job. It is the worst kind of red herring for the Attorney-General to stand and somehow assume that we've attacked civil servants. It's completely irrelevant to the debate.

The Attorney-General has seen the error of his ways, and we congratulate him for that. It's very clear that he attempted to foist on the public the removal of their right to know in the land titles system. That's what he attempted to do, and he didn't quite get away with it, and that's a good thing. If there are abuses, as he says, so that they needed to have this section in, he should have had the wit to define those abuses, place them in legislation and allow the opposition to seriously consider what they are. Then, of course, we would have considered that in the form of legislation. But this heavy-handed use of the definition of public interest clearly could deny the public's right to know what's going on. One of the great problems in the English title system is that nobody knows who owns what in England; it's all tied up in the most

[ Page 8980 ]

miraculous trust you've ever seen. They have a terrible legal problem in that country.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

What the Attorney-General was about to do was to attack the best land-registry system in the world, the torrens system. The real benefit of the torrens system has always been its openness to the public and the guarantee of your title by the government. When the government guarantees your title, with that goes your right to know in the land titles office itself. I'm delighted that the Attorney-General has seen the error of his ways and has presented this deletion.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm very pleased that the member has indicated his views. I simply want to say that a year from now I expect the opposition will be coming back and complaining that credit-reporting companies, credit-granting institutions and the like are abusing the land registry system; they're pawing through all the records with respect to all the properties owned by the people of the province of British Columbia, using up the system and preventing legitimate use of the computer system, which will have been installed, and they'll be asking that we give the registrar the power to prevent unnecessary searches. Having said that, I call the question.

MR. MACDONALD: I have just a brief word. We welcome the amendment to delete it. We do not welcome the attitude of the Attorney-General, who's saying: "I'm doing this against my better judgment." That's what he said. He doesn't believe it, but he's doing it anyway. We say that that section comes out because it should come out.

Amendment approved.

Section 80 as amended approved.

Sections 81 to 123 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 70, Land Title Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

MR. MACDONALD: I'm just going to say a few words. I'm not going to deal particularly with these cutbacks at the present time, although they very substantially affect Sunny Hill Hospital in Vancouver East. I'm going to say a couple of words about health generally.

Dr. Emmett Hall — a very great Canadian; he's still alive; I think he lives in Saskatoon; he was a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada — has made two health reports. The first one was a massive report that gave some further practical implementation, on a national scale, to the health ideas of the Hon. T.C. Douglas, the real founder of both medicare and hospital insurance in Canada. However, at the present time we have a tremendous amount of Canada's and the provinces' resources going into health care. In a way it's somewhat similar to education, but it's not really quite the same. In our health care, with the fee-for-service basic principle, we've advanced to where the costs are becoming very great and the preventive aspects of the system are failing behind. Far too many Canadians are not looking after themselves, perhaps from want of education in terms of individuals. Far too many Canadians and British Columbians are not taking advantage of physical fitness programs and the community-centre system, which are fairly widespread and fairly well funded in the province of British Columbia.

We have not looked at the new kinds of things, in terms of preventive medicine and the provision of health services which are happening in British Columbia and other parts of the world. For example, here in James Bay, not far from these buildings, we have a community health service which involves paramedics as well as the medical profession in a program that aims to keep people out of hospital by enabling them to keep themselves healthy and prolong their life span, and does it with the assistance of very able, capable people, not all of whom have a degree or belong to one of the professional societies in the medical world. That kind of thing has to be looked at.

We're coming to the point in Canada — and I'm talking nationally at the present time — where we have to look at the next advance in terms of medicare and hospital insurance. Any system, however great, requires continual refashioning in terms of the needs of a new, age. I think that's true of our health system at the present time. We have to move farther and faster in the direction of the prevention of illness, community clinics and free access in order to maintain health, rather than cure the illness after it has happened. I hope that somewhere in Canada are some of those ideas, and perhaps another Dr. Emmett Hall who can lead us as we go in this necessary new direction. They're doing it down in Seattle, in a cooperative way through a large cooperative health district. These are the kinds of things we should be considering in addition to providing, at the present time in British Columbia, adequate health services even during a period of recession, and the elimination of those cutbacks which are bearing so heavily on our people.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just a few remarks in response to the second member for Vancouver East. The general philosophy he has mentioned in the past few moments is a pretty reasonable observation of today's reality. If one were to took at statements made by people speaking on behalf of medicine generally in years gone by, statements with respect to health and where we might expect to be, you would find that the capability of the person making the statement was generally very restricted, because the world of health development changes so rapidly, and the needs so dramatically. The head of the British Medical Association at the turn of the century,

[ Page 8981 ]

during that New Year's Eve celebration, indicated, perhaps with some enthusiasm, that citizens of the world, particularly of Britain, could take great pride in knowing that they had a system of health and medicine which probably had reached as far as it could go. Of course, the changes which have occurred during those past 80-odd years are absolutely remarkable.

The general philosophy with regard to one's health, rather than the philosophy with respect to the duties of the state with regard to one's health, is, I believe, a subject which is demanding a tremendous amount of discussion, interest and research. The prevention of illness, yes. If it were possible to prevent illness, of course that is the area in which all emphasis should be required. Our system has for many years placed tremendous emphasis on the curative aspect. Perhaps it is human nature, particularly in our society, to expect that there shall always be a cure for an illness which may in some way be caused by poor living habits. We see many examples of people in our hospital systems and in other areas of our health programs receiving treatments of some kind for circumstances which, to a very large degree, could have been prevented by the actions of the individuals themselves. Probably the most alarming examples are those rather tragic results of automobile accidents and other accidents which could have been prevented by better conduct of the individual, or perhaps by closer attention to the safety aspect of certain occupations.

I think our reality today is that the citizens of British Columbia and Canada do have a certain lifestyle, and do demand certain programs be available to them on demand. That does require a great deal of organization, and a great deal of difficulty arises. The educational aspect of health is very elusive. There have been people who over the years have made very broad, general statements with respect to improving the overall health of the community. Frequently such people — philosophers or others — are considered quacks, or at least not taken seriously. Time frequently proves that they were quite correct in their general attitude toward health care. Physical fitness and other aspects of preventive health are vitally important, but it's very difficult for a government to introduce them and impose them on the citizens; it's something the citizens themselves must support and actively take part in.

Mr. Chairman, with the realities of today in respect to our economy — the availability of funds, the huge demand on the health-care system right across the country, but particularly in British Columbia — decisions must be made and priorities must be established. The Ministry of Health in its general statement agrees with the member for Vancouver East and others that preventive health is by far the most attractive. The member said that the preventive side probably receives less and less priority, and I think if one were to examine the record over the past decade or so, numbers would probably indicate that that's correct — that, in fact, the preventive side has not received the attention it probably deserves. One of the reasons why that is probably so is that we are still as a society — and a ministry and a government — providing that vast amount of funding for the curative side of health care. Again, it reflects the nature of our society, the attitudes of the citizens and the system which has been in place for so long. It may change because people are more aware, because people are more alert or because the circumstances simply demand that it change.

Mr. Chairman, in excess of $2.3 billion will be expended on health care this year in British Columbia. It represents more than 30 percent of the provincial budget; it represents in dollars a very large amount of expenditure. I would be pleased if we were able to commit a greater percentage of the budget to the preventive side. There are realistic problems associated with providing those services, even if there were no shortage of money in any way. There are some real problems in providing some of those services, not the least of which is recruiting suitable people to provide the service in the various locations throughout the province. In dealing with any job placement, replacement or recruitment, in all instances the physicians on the preventive side of our ministry receive first priority. If we have an inability to provide the total funding for any service within the Ministry of Health, first priority is to fill any vacancies which may occur on the preventive side. We have a real problem throughout the province in recruiting people for some of the more remote areas, where it's very difficult to recruit audiologists, therapists and specialists in other fields. Many people have come forward with concepts and ideas as to how we may be able to get the necessary manpower to provide those services in those areas. We have a fair amount of cooperation from the family physicians and others trying to overcome the problem, which is not unique to British Columbia but is really Canada-wide. So I don't disagree with the general philosophy the member for Vancouver East has brought forward this morning — "a continual refashioning" is an expression he used, and I think perhaps it describes it quite accurately. Yes, I think we would very much like to have emphasis on the prevention of illness rather than on the curing of it. But we still must recognize the obligations we have.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) yesterday brought forward some concerns about a couple of specific programs within the ministry, one with respect to Sunny Hill Hospital in Vancouver. Sunny Hill Hospital was well described by that member yesterday. It is very difficult to describe to anyone the purpose of Sunny Hill Hospital in specific terms, but I think the comments made by that member covered pretty much all of it, including the programs which are, and have been, offered to the children of our province through Sunny Hill Hospital. Sunny Hill has grown very rapidly over the past number of years — grown rapidly in its size and the services it provides to youngsters. This current fiscal year theSun ny Hill Hospital received, I think, in global figures, about a 12 percent increase overall in its budget. The previous year it was about 48 percent overall. It's been growing very rapidly. The approved increase — this sounds very cold and statistical — to theSun ny Hill Hospital this year was 7.77 percent directly from the ministry and through the grant. That was the number provided; it's up to $3,049,000.

The administration of Sunny Hill Hospital recognized at the end of the 1981-82 year that their budget for the coming year might not cover increasing expenditures. They, on their own volition, reviewed their situation and made some changes which were brought to our attention after the budget process had taken place. The program realignments indicated by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds were correct. The hospital maintains its professional program of rehabilitation and nursing care but has implemented budgetary restraints and is still providing a very important service to the children of the province.

[ Page 8982 ]

The member asked, however, if careful scrutiny and attention had been — or is being — placed on the specific programs which may have been reduced, altered or eliminated. I think, as the member pointed out yesterday, in just identifying the program — music therapy or something else — it may not sound that important. It may sound like something of a frill in the mind of a layperson. Some of the other extras, if you like, that could be identified in theSun ny Hill Hospital services again may not be regarded by a person who is casually looking at the services as being of that great a necessity. There are problems associated with youngsters with serious disabilities which go far beyond the child. The family of such a youngster has a burden upon them which is not usually shared by other families in our society. The problems are very real.

The need for a respite for a family from the very real and difficult responsibilities of maintaining a seriously handicapped youngster is very real. Attitudes of people vary as to the need of a respite home for handicapped children to provide a break for the parents or guardians. The attitudes go from complete agreement to almost total disagreement. In my municipality of Richmond there has been a running battle of late over the need for such a respite home. The two sides of that situation are somewhat predictable. There are those who feel that it's absolutely essential and that it should be located where it was recommended by the council, and some of the people in the immediate area feel that it should be at least located elsewhere. But I believe it's going to go ahead.

I have asked the people within the ministry to provide more details on Sunny Hill. Sunny Hill Hospital has gone through the same procedure that we have asked all other hospitals in the province to go through. Repeating what I mentioned previously, a budget was developed between the two, the budget was submitted, an approved budget was returned, and then in response to that approved budget of April, the hospitals themselves have communicated to the ministry what they feel would be necessary to stay within that, according to their own priorities. Many of the hospitals — I don't have Sunny Hill's reply before me — have indicated that there are certain special circumstances which perhaps should be looked at separately from the global, provincial concept. Sunny Hill is not different in that aspect.

I've asked people within the ministry again to review — or to continue to review — with Sunny Hill the need for some of these additional programs, modified programs, or whatever variations there are. I will accept the responsibility to work personally with the people in the ministry in this specific area to determine what progress has been made or can be made. I think the problem, if it's a problem, is that a very specialized service such as that offered by Sunny Hill could be in danger of being lost in the overall picture. I think it's very much deserving of a second look. I simply can't offer any hard numbers or situations at the moment.

The Eric Martin in-patient child and family unit is similar but not the same. But again, it has strong, specific services which are offered by it. The Royal Jubilee Hospital, which has responsibility for that unit, is undergoing a very in-depth review as to funding. The Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria is not dissimilar, in many areas, to the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster. The Royal Jubilee requested of the ministry that we send in a team of internal operational auditors to review the operations of that hospital, and that's underway at the moment. The Royal Jubilee has very large numbers which don't contradict so much as disagree with the numbers we have. The distortion in their budgetary figures and ours, and that of one or two other hospitals in the province, is very much out of line with the distortion that occurs between most hospitals and the ministry — the difference of opinion, if you like. That's one of the reasons why we have chosen Royal Jubilee to undergo this particular operational audit.

Within the authority of the Royal Jubilee Hospital is this unit that we were discussing yesterday, the Eric Martin in-patient child and family unit. Early on in this process we were advised that the hospital, in reviewing all of its expenditures, budget, and allowable funds.... At one time it was suggested that that service be cut out. There were program realignments, however, and after a very careful consideration by the board of the Royal Jubilee, they decided that the Eric Martin program deserved further consideration. Ministry officials, hospital staff, and the administrator of the Royal Jubilee were advised, among other things, that the majority of the children in this program returned to their home on weekend passes. It was decided that a six-bed in-patient child and family program would continue to serve the Island community, except for holidays and weekends, when the children returned to their homes. So the staff, the administration and the board developed what they felt was a reasonable solution through operational efficiency, recognizing a need for consideration of expenditure yet preserving this very important aspect of care.

The review underway at Royal Jubilee Hospital may very well indicate and recommend to the ministry, and the hospital, that further modifications be made to this program. We await that information as well. I think that specific program at that hospital deserves a further review, just as Sunny Hill does, but for different reasons and needs. During the review of the Royal Jubilee, it will be given that consideration. I wish to emphasize that the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria is a very complex operation and does have problems which perhaps are not duplicated in other facilities, so it is being reviewed.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds also asked about the screening process for pregnant women for a number of conditions — for genetic factors, including the Down's syndrome, and other medical problems — which are identified by genetic research. Basically the question is: why have a cutoff at 38 years of age? I might mention that 38 has been lowered from 40, and it's been progressing for some time. Some of the researchers have indicated that 34 may be a much safer level. There are a number of factors to take into consideration: pregnant women beyond the age of 34, progressively as a group, enter into the more dangerous area of producing a child who may have some of these birth defects. It will be noted from the statistics that the numbers increase dramatically as the age increases, so that if you were taking a group from 34 to 40, the upper end would have much more representation than the ones just over 34. As you go below 34 they continue to decrease.

I am completely sympathetic to the concern of a number of people who have asked to lower, lower and lower the age, and, as I said, that certainly has been and is being considered. However, there are a few factors. If a doctor thinks his patient needs the test or tests, regardless of age, it would be available and paid for through the Medical Services Plan. Age 38 relates to the mass-screening services which are available. The screening service is available as an insured benefit for mothers 38 or older, and it's a costly process relative to other

[ Page 8983 ]

processes. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds argued that the alternative care necessary for these children is far more expensive than, of course, it is. I have no hesitation in suggesting that the age should be considered, and lowered if possible. I want to find out in greater detail if there's a lack of understanding anywhere in that area. Doctors may not fully understand or appreciate that if they feel, in their medical opinion, the test should be conducted, there's nothing preventing such a test. The understanding of the ministry is that if a doctor believes his patient needs the test, he simply may order it and it would be paid for. I'm concerned if there's a thought anywhere that it's not available, and therefore it's going to be a hardship on the mother. We want that straightened up pretty quick. Nonetheless, the age should possibly be lowered — even down to 34 at some time.

One other problem associated with it — and it's nothing I or or any of us in this House can really do anything about — is, of course, that we have to go with the awareness of a woman of that age that the testing should be perhaps conducted. We are not going to prevent some of these difficulties arising if women in that age group do not try to have the tests conducted. They will simply give birth to a child who has a reasonable possibility of having one of these difficulties. The final part of that, of course, is that if the screening process indicates that there is indeed a very positive chance the child shall be born with these difficulties, defects and so on, then the mother must decide whether she's to have an abortion, which leads to some other areas of argument and philosophy.

One of the problems and frustrations, I suppose, of all of those who are involved in health care is the very reasonable and obvious understanding that if we were to have the best possible care taken of mothers prior to the birth of children, to produce the healthiest possible child, the effect upon all of our health programs would be enormous, because we would not be living for so many years thereafter with the problems which perhaps could have been prevented — it doesn't just stop with that individual; it frequently causes difficulties to continue on for many years. But the emphasis has been identified, and a real attempt is being made to resolve much of that problem with prenatal care — counselling, genetic counselling and so much else.

There was one other area the member for Burnaby-Edmonds asked about yesterday, and that was a joint study by the Ministries of Health, Education and Human Resources. There were 116 recommendations in the preliminary report. I don't have the date, I'm sorry. A final report has noted that 51 of the recommendations are being implemented by the three ministries involved. Another 17 have been accepted, and action is being taken on some of those recommendations now. Another 27 of the recommendations are acceptable to the three ministries and are at the moment under further review or involve new resources. In the words of the report's authors, these "are not high-priority issues which could justify the reallocation of program funding." Of the 116 recommendations, 51 have been implemented by the ministries involved, 17 have been accepted and 27 are apparently acceptable and are being reviewed. I think what would probably be most useful to that member would be to have those recommendations identified, and then we would know what we were speaking about in specific detail.

I think the other question asked by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds yesterday centred around the inspection of day-care facilities. The member and I obviously disagree on this, and we discussed it when we had the committee on the bill which made the modification. I suppose the argument could be put forward, on the one hand, that not having mandatory inspections once a year will lead to disintegration of the service; on the other hand, that more flexibility will allow the inspectors to improve the service. We will perhaps have to watch and see what experience shows us.

The Burnaby General is one that's going to require a bit more detailed study. I will not try to offer the technical aspects. We all know what we're talking about with respect to these specially trained nurses. There are about 20 nurses in the province who are therapists in this area. Sixteen are employed at the moment. but 20 are known to have the specialty. The hospital programs fund the therapist training programs at three hospitals — Royal Jubilee, Vancouver General and St. Paul's. Ten other hospitals have trained nurses functioning part time in this field as therapists. We consider it a very desirable service, but I'm advised that in the opinion of some boards and health-care providers, it's not as necessary as some other services. There has been some reduction in emphasis in this area; certainly it hasn't been eliminated. I would have to look specifically with regard to the one in Burnaby. I'm not attempting to pass the buck, but the hospitals, in reviewing their budgets, develop their own priorities. I can only presume that in he case of Burnaby they felt something else had a greater priority, but again I would have to get the specific details.

I think the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), or perhaps the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), made a statement with respect to the Burnaby General Hospital and its administration. I think Burnaby General Hospital has a reputation in the province as perhaps one of the best-run hospitals. That's not a criticism of other hospitals; that's the reputation they have. There may be other hospitals that are run as efficiently or even more efficiently, but Burnaby General does have that reputation, and I believe it's a well deserved reputation. I will undertake that specific inquiry to find out exactly what may have to be done to resolve it, or to find out what the rationale was with respect to that.

That covers most of the areas of concern and interest that the member brought before us, I think the member wanted dates with respect to The Maples. We all know part of the Maples story, and it's finally coming on stream, after we found someone who knew which way to put a door on, and a few other things. The assessment ward opened on July 5, with eight beds. September 1, 1982 is the date for the secure treatment ward of eight beds, and November 1, 1982, for the medium-security ward of nine beds. We'll watch closely to make sure they maintain that schedule.

MR. COCKE: I am pleased to see the minister answering questions today. I know that he and I get on each other nerves from time to time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would like to speak for a moment or two about the whole question, and go back to what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds said yesterday and the minister reiterated today: that is that the Burnaby General was operating really tight. It's very difficult, as we said yesterday, for a hospital that has no fat to start with to face cutbacks. It doesn't matter what the minister says: we 're talking about restraint, and we're talking about restraint in one of the most sensitive and vital areas of our whole society.

[ Page 8984 ]

The minister didn't say very much about the specially trained nurses. Let me tell you what those specially trained nurses are. There has been a major program which psychologically has done much for people who have suffered from cancer of the intestines and other diseases of the vital organs — or let's say our inner organs. What happens is that we have developed what they call an enterostomal therapist. This is a person who advises a person who is going to be operated on as to exactly what to expect, and conditions that person, and afterwards helps the person get used to this new equipment. We all know of colostomies, ileostomies and other forms of relief of that sort provided to people who have to have operations that require that.

What has happened is, in the first place, because of restraint.... Agreed, this may not be vital in terms of life-saving, but it's vital in terms of what it provides the patients afterwards. People can live quite comfortably if they're properly taught. Hospitals, by virtue of the fact that they're cut to the bone, have to cut out not only the training of new therapists, which has been cut out, to my knowledge....

Certainly at St. Paul's it's been cut out, and they're probably one of the most famous in terms of developing registered nurses with this additional training. This is exactly what happens. There are 1,000 people a year receiving surgery that requires one form or another of stoma.

I have correspondence on this matter, probably almost as much as anything else in terms of health care. People have been writing letter after letter. I'm sure that the minister has had exactly the same experience, only tenfold, because I know that people tend to write to the minister a lot more than they write to an opposition critic. It's a symptom of what happens when we cut back so dramatically and drastically. I don't know what the minister is going to have to do to convince Treasury Board and the Premier that they're on the wrong track. The Premier, who can find money for some of his pet projects, doesn't seem to feel that there's the same priority for health care. That's our problem.

Can I read you a letter? Some of them are so long that I hate to put them on the record. Here's one that says:

"I'm concerned about the recent cuts in health care in B.C. and would like to protest. I am an ostomate. I am concerned that cuts have been made in the specific area of enterostomal therapy. Enterostomal therapists, outpatient clinics and training programs offer a valuable service in rehabilitation of an ostomate." This person then goes on to describe precisely what an ostomate is. I think we all understand that. She goes on to say:

"The assistance of an enterostomal therapist, following stoma surgery, is a wise economic move. Rehabilitation is much speedier, ostomy supplies are not wasted, and the hospital stay can be shortened or eliminated. Following surgery, prompt attention to complications can save the patients untold misery and therefore save health-care dollars. Since hospital budgets affect specialty departments, I would like to suggest that funding for this vital specialty area be made directly from Victoria so that the service can remain consistent."

That last paragraph doesn't appeal to me. I don't think the hospitals should be put under such dramatic cuts, such very difficult economic situations that they have to get to this point. Because the hospitals want to have the ability to provide what's necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to draw to your attention the fact that not too many years before this new program started, many of the people faced with the kind of surgery that requires stoma were recluses from then on; they were ashamed; psychologically it was a dramatic change in their whole lifestyle. Now the people being given this proper therapy, this proper education of how to live with their disability, have a much improved lifestyle, are out and around. What we're doing with these kinds of cutbacks is putting those people on the back burner again and saying to them: "Well, you know, it's a frill." I say it's not a frill at all; it's a very important procedure. But as a result of the cutbacks the member for Burnaby-Edmonds found happening in Burnaby General and I'm finding happening in many other hospitals across the province, people are very concerned.

Now the minister says that we have 20 trained therapists, and 16 are at work. We should have a lot more than 20 trained therapists, but in any event, we're not even utilizing the ones that we have trained. I know that there are one or two who are back just nursing on a regular basis, as opposed to providing this additional professional care. It strikes me that....

I've talked to surgeons about this matter, and surgeons who do a lot of this kind of surgery say that the most important person on their team is the enterostomal therapist, believe it or not. So we've really got to start looking at priorities. The ministry says there is fat out there. Well, look, find the fat, but don't make good programs suffer just because you're finding the fat.

I have some colleagues who want to get up today. So I just want to make a few comments and then I'm going to sit down. But I want to talk just for a moment....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know it's embarrassing for you, Mr. Member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: It's embarrassing for you.

MR. COCKE: Well, if you would prefer me to sit down, then obviously I'm doing something that you don't like. And since you're on the other side, then I guess it's okay.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, it's a very interesting situation, Mr. Chairman. I listened all day yesterday to member after member after member on the government side get up and say not one darned word about health care. They got up and attacked me — you would have thought it was my estimates.

MR. RITCHIE: You deserve to be attacked.

MR. COCKE: No. The reason they're attacking me is that they don't want to draw attention to a very major embarrassment that that government is suffering. As long as I can be an embarrassment to you Socreds, the better I like it, because as far as I'm concerned, you're a disaster.

Interjections.

[ Page 8985 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the committee to come to order.

MR. COCKE: Now, Mr. Chairman, getting back to one very serious area as far as I'm concerned, there are one or two observations I would like to make in terms of a visit that I made to the Children's Hospital just after it was officially opened but before it was actually brought into service. I think it's a real shame — and I'm not going to point the finger at anybody in this particular situation, other than to say that somehow or other we got some bad advice on the construction of that hospital. It certainly isn't this minister who is at fault in that situation, but somebody accepted a standard for out-patients there — that is, the size and availability of space and so on — that is crazy in view of the fact that what we're trying to do today is make ambulatory care for outpatients increasingly available. We have built a very beautiful structure, but we've made the out-patients' area far too small. But the dramatic thing that I saw there was the amount of space allocated to radiology. Well, now they've got it all empty, I guarantee, Mr. Chairman — and I know enough doctors that I can tell you this — that they will work their heads off to fill every inch of that space with highly sophisticated equipment, when we are.... It's interesting, but I believe there should have been far more consultation with people directly involved with the delivery of care in the forming of that hospital, and that probably wouldn't have happened. I can't believe that out-patients is so darned small in a brand-new facility. We should be having as many kids as possible in the out-patient system, as opposed to in-patient. I know you have to have plenty of space for in-patients and adequate space for radiology, but when you compare and you see all that vast empty space in the radiological department and the already crowded quarters of te out-patients, it's really too bad. I don't know what can be done about it now; I think you're kind of stuck with it. But it sure is something that the minister may look at or may have some of his officials look at. Maybe they can find that there's a way to expand the out-patient aspect of that hospital.

The hospital is also subject to our restraint. I understand that at present they're gradually opening up 152 beds out of 190, and ultimately there will be 187 out of 250 beds. I want to point out the fact that that is replacing 250 beds, if you add up the Health Centre for Children's beds and the Children's Hospital's. Unfortunately this isn't good enough. Children are having a rough time. I talked to the minister the other day about a case that had.... Incidentally, I get charged with always bringing these things up: "Publicity-Hound Cocke." The fact is that it was in the paper. I had talked to the parents first, but they had decided to go public. So they went public, and then I asked the question. It's exactly the same thing with the McMurdo case — the three-year-old child that I was talking about.

I keep hearing that what one should do is take all these questions either to a Socred member or to the minister. What kind of health care are we talking about — unless you know an MLA, you can't get into a hospital or get moved up on the waiting list?

MRS. WALLACE: That's what the minister says.

MR. COCKE: Precisely. That's precisely what those people are saying over there. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) got up yesterday and talked about how he was able to help somebody get into the hospital. But what if that person hadn't contacted that member? Because the vast majority of people out there don't have contact, don 't understand the political system. What we want is accessibility to health care for all.

You see, patronage health is no good. If I happen to know the member for Central Fraser Valley, or if I know enough to phone the Health minister and I can maybe get his executive assistant or somebody and that way get myself or a member of my family in.... That's not....

MR. RITCHIE: Sit down so I can respond to you, you dumb twit!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'll ask the member for Central Fraser Valley to come to order.

MR. COCKE: The member for Central Fraser Valley talks about dumb twits. He was the man standing in this House yesterday talking about patronage health care — nothing less. Anyway. I bring that to the minister's attention. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) did exactly the same thing yesterday. I'm not charging the minister; the minister is charged with a tremendous responsibility in this province under tremendous restraint to try to provide a level of health care that's acceptable. I suggest that it's the Treasury Board, the Premier and the overall government priority that have got us into this fix. I'm going to yield the floor to my colleague or a member from across the floor.

MR. KEMPF: It is with the greatest of pleasure that I stand in my place this morning to speak in the debate on this minister's estimates, to support this minister and his staff in the very difficult task of administering the largest — and, I would suggest, to our people, the most important — ministry in this government, Health.

Health and the administration of health care is, I would suggest, the most important subject — given all of our world problems today. recession, inflation, the economy. and anything else you may wish to mention — to our citizens. If people have their health they can face all those other problems and can make rational decisions on all other aspects of daily life — if they are healthy.

Given the society in which we live, the fear of being chronically ill is the foremost concern of human beings. The second most important concern, or fear, to us human beings in our society is, given the situation of becoming ill, not being able to obtain the type of medical care we require; if we are in need of an operation, not being able to gain access immediately to a hospital bed or a surgeon; if we are in an emergency situation, not being able to find access to emergency hospital services; if we are a senior citizen requiring long-term care, not being able to obtain the facilities that are needed.

For partisan, political purposes — and this is what that group of socialists over there has done in the past weeks and months in this province.... The socialists over there have chosen that issue as a vehicle this morning in this chamber to regain power in the province of British Columbia. It's absolutely disgraceful. I hate to upset the tranquillity of this chamber this morning, but I can remember the debate of the last two or three days, and over the last four months, and it's absolutely disgraceful. It's absolutely irresponsible that those members over there should have chosen this vehicle to regain

[ Page 8986 ]

power in the province of British Columbia. For them to embark on a campaign to plant fear in the hearts of our citizens — be they old, chronically ill, or alone and possibly in need of medical services — for purely partisan political purposes is absolutely unbelievable to me.

MR. MITCHELL: Join us!

MR. KEMPF: Join you! Mr. Member, that would be the last thing on my mind: to join the kind of party that you represent, the kind of party that would place fear in the hearts of British Columbians in regard to health care. Join you, indeed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the hon. member for Omineca first of all to address the Chair and, secondly, to address the vote.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll address the Chair, and the vote also.

We're talking about health care in the province of British Columbia. It is fitting that we do that in the estimates of the Minister of Health. For that pack of socialists over there to choose this subject in an attempt to regain power in the province of British Columbia is absolutely despicable. It's purely to regain power. We see what burns in the veins of those socialists over there: power. That's all they think about, and they'll use anything, even health care, in a province that has the best health-care system in the world. One third of the total provincial budget, $2.3 billion, is to be spent on health care in British Columbia in this fiscal year, clearly a larger percentage than in any other province in this great country, and they they talk about cutbacks. Yesterday the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) put it clearly on the record of this House that the overall increase in the health-care budget of this province for 1982-83 is 14 percent, which is a 4 percent real increase in the budget for health care, and they talk about cutbacks. Cutbacks indeed! We've seen it time after time in this House in the last several weeks. We've heard the members opposite, each and every one in turn, particularly that member for New Westminster, a former Health minister in this province and now the critic — and rightly so. It is strange that the member should leave the chamber at this time. He promised yesterday to point out to the member for Omineca all of the problems that are occurring in his constituency. Well, I am that member, and I have yet to hear of those problems. I've got four hospitals in my constituency, and I've yet to hear from any one of them.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I've seen some stories in the newspapers. I remember one in regard to the Burns Lake Hospital and the shutting down of a physiotherapy ward. I thought: "Well, this is really sad. We shouldn't be shutting down these kinds of wards." After having read the piece in the paper, I investigated the situation, only to find, much to my surprise and chagrin, that we hadn't had a physiotherapy ward in that hospital for ten years. Yet there was a headline in the local paper: "Hospital shuts down physiotherapy ward." Why? Because of cutbacks.

We have a 14 percent increase in the budget for health care in the province of British Columbia and those socialists opposite — I see one wearing his little red button — talk about cutbacks in health care. They ride on the backs of the ill of this province, the old and the elderly, to regain power in the province of British Columbia, It's hard to find an adjective to explain my feeling for that kind of totally irresponsible action. We saw the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the Health critic, was again this morning using letters, using situations. I wonder if the individual whose letter he used on the floor of this House this morning knew he was doing it. Sure, I get letters from time to time from my constituents in regard to problems, not only health but others, but I don't bring those onto the floor of this House to wash their linen in public. Not on your life! That's not my responsibility. Yet time after time we see that Health critic do that — that's all he can do.

He hasn't got a newspaper or one of these letters, but he hasn't asked whether he could use them. Or maybe he has. Maybe they were written for that purpose. That's all he can use in debate on the floor of this House in order to spread fear throughout this province that possibly, if you were to become ill, you couldn't find the facility or help you needed. He's attempting, through what has been written and broadcast in the province of British Columbia, to scare our citizens, hoping that they might somehow gain a vote or two out there and regain power. They're irresponsible. Health care is the most important subject on any of our minds, not only people out there but the people in this chamber. We have a health-care system in British Columbia second to none in the world. For those socialists over there to use that system as a fear tactic to gain power, in hopes that they might glean a couple of votes in the process, is unbelievable. It's totally disgusting.

We see the member for New Westminster and his colleagues standing in this House.... I hope we'll see some more, because it will be an indication of what I'm talking about, and maybe the people in the gallery today will see it. This chamber was very tranquil this morning, because I would think that the socialists opposite would like to get this minister's estimates out of the way today. That's not going to happen. We're going to keep it before this House for a long time. They're using the estimates of the Minister of Health to sling their dirt and wallow in their mud as they have in this House for four months. It's on the record. The people in the gallery would only have to read Hansard, and they'd see quite clearly what I'm talking about.

They use those tactics to debate the estimates of the Minister of Health. They spread fear and untruth. Untruth it is, because the statistics show exactly what's being spent on health care in this province and show exactly where we are in relation to other jurisdictions in the expenditure on health care. We've got nothing to be ashamed of. We have the best health-care system in the world. To spread fear and untruth about that system is certainly getting as far down in the gutter as possible.

It's too bad that we don't see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) in his place this morning. I guess it's indicative of the attendance that we've seen from those over there all this session: 60 percent attendance. We've kept a record. We know what it is. When you talk about irresponsibility and the way that Health critic is irresponsibly debating the estimates of the Minister of Health of this province, I think it's only fitting to talk about irresponsibility in regard to the individual who heads that group of socialists over there. We talk about hypocrisy. I see him writing about hypocrisy. We have a column written by the Leader of the Opposition in the Fort

[ Page 8987 ]

Nelson News on June 19: "Hypocrisy." He says things up there that he wouldn't dare say in this House, and vice versa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the hon. member for Omineca that we are on the estimates of the Ministry of Health, vote 45.

MR. KEMPF: Vote 45, yes. Certainly when talking about vote 45 we have to discuss the irresponsible manner in which the members opposite — not only in these estimates, but in other estimates, on other bills and in other debates on the floor of this House — have used irresponsible methods. I've noted the fear tactics that they have used in regard to the health-care programs in the province of British Columbia. We talk of hypocrisy. Earlier in this debate, the member talked about money which was not being spent for health care which was being spent on megaprojects, to buy expensive wine and to finance trips to New York. Well, that's all I want to talk about. I want to talk about a situation, and I've got to use this column to explain to this House what I'm getting at. That's in order. I heard it from across the floor; I only want the same possibility in my debate. That's all. I only ask for the same treatment.

I read from this column headed "Hypocrisy." It's written by Dave Barrett, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I presume this discusses the administrative actions of the Minister of Health.

MR. KEMPF: It discusses the expenditure of funds. When talking about expenditure of funds, and I talked about attendance earlier, it's inexcusable, the attendance that we see on the other side of the House. I really wonder what the people of Vancouver Centre do when they receive a letter of the type that the Health critic has read out in this House. What do they do with that kind of letter? You know, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).... The second member (Mr. Barnes) is flat on his back ill, and we know that and are sorry for it and have even sent him a get-well message. But while that second member is flat on his back., unable to carry out his duties in this Legislature, where does his running-mate, the first member for Vancouver Centre go? He goes to Europe for a five-week holiday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, It's becoming quite clear to the Chair that the member for Omineca is straying from the relevancy of vote 45, the estimates of the Minister of Health.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll get back into order. I was talking about that irresponsible Health critic over there.

MR. MACDONALD: Who, me?

MR. KEMPF: Well, you too, but you're not the Health critic.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, but he's irresponsible.

MR. KEMPF: I heard him make irresponsible statements this morning.

The Leader of the Opposition was irresponsible. and he's the one who guides those people over there. Including the Health critic in this province, or at least is supposed to. I heard that Health critic.... This is how it relates to these estimates. I've got to spend a little time and explain how it relates. You've got to give me that at least.

I heard them talk about megaprojects, because they were accusing the Minister of Health and others on the government benches of spending money not on health care but on those other projects, accusing the government ministers of buying expensive wine and going on trips to New York. That's how it relates. They talked about it, and I want to talk about it for a few minutes now that I've pointed out how it relates.

When the Leader of the Opposition was the Premier of this province, not just leading a group of ragtag socialists in opposition.... I heard him give one of the ministers on the government benches real hell recently. I withdraw the word; it's unparliamentary. He was giving him more than heck about a trip to New York and expenses thereof. Well, I want to tell you. when that Leader of the Opposition was Premier of this province he went to New York and stayed at the Pierre Hotel — and I guess that's fitting, so they can call him Pierre Barrett.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair must once again remind the member for Omineca that we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health, vote 45, the minister's office. The Chair will also remind members of the committee that as recently as yesterday, when a member continued to stray from the relevancy of the vote, the member was asked to take his seat in debate, and another member was recognized.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman. I spent all of that time explaining to you how it was relevant. I want the same opportunity as that ragtag bunch over there got yesterday. That's all I want, the same opportunity, to point out how hypocritical those socialists are: the Pierre Hotel, which in today's dollars would amount to $800 a day for a room. not only for the Premier of that day but for his staff as well.

Mr. Chairman. I can get back to relevancy. The health critic is back in his seat, and I want him to hear this. The Health critic time after time in this House has ridden on the backs of the sick and the elderly. I want to make that quite clear and I want to put it on the record — as the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) pointed out precisely yesterday. It has come to a point where the people of this province, Mr. Member for New Westminster, are afraid to become ill. Yes, and the socialists laugh. Let it be known that the socialists laugh.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Well. I'm afraid to become the type of ill you are, Mr. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're losing your cool.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I'm losing my cool. I certainly am, because any opposition that would use the subject of health care in the hopes of regaining power in the province of British Columbia is absolutely unbelievable. It's the most irresponsible act that anybody could carry out. To use them — the ill,

[ Page 8988 ]

the sick and the elderly — on the floor of this House is irresponsibility. There's absolutely no other word for it.

Oh, I'm going to have to take more time. That's too bad. I just want to tell a little story about irresponsibility — the irresponsibility of that health critic over there, Mr. Chairman. I can remember back in the days of '72 to '75 when he was the Health minister in the province of British Columbia. I remember this story very clearly, because I was very close to it. I was the mayor of the municipality in question.

MR. SKELLY: That's debatable.

MR. KEMPF: No, it's not debatable; in fact, I was mayor for two terms in that municipality, Mr. Member. I was mayor in that municipality for a year while I was an MLA in this House.

I'll tell you this little story. The member for New Westminster, the then Health minister in this province, came to town one fine day to give the facts of a story to the citizens of the district of Houston. He wanted to talk to them about a new idea he had; he was going to try it on them for size. It was the new concept of health and human resource centres, a socialist concept that he got from I don't know where; probably England, as they have a mess of it over there, and these socialists opposite seem to like to adopt those kinds of messes. Mr. Chairman, he came to town to talk about that subject; at least, that's what he said he was going to do. But, Mr. Chairman, that's not what he did. He came to town to cram that program down the throats of the citizens of that municipality. He came to town with his goon squad and he did that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you the happy ending to this story — and it's got a happy ending — because last spring, after eight years, we got rid of that concept in Houston and we went back to the democratic way of having health-care societies look after the health-care needs of local communities. We did that, and it was because of that health and human resource board that in eight years we didn't build the needed facility in that community. But now, having gone back to what is right in that community, this minister announced very recently the construction of a $2.3 million health facility for that community.

I know my time is up, and I've got all kinds of other accusations to make because of the irresponsibility of those people over there. But, Mr. Chairman, I'll do it at another time.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize and congratulate the member for Omineca for his very sensitive and penetrating in-depth analysis of the health-care system in the province of British Columbia. Everyone was fascinated with his analysis of the reality of today's circumstances. It used to be referred to as "through the looking-glass," I think. The member seems to object to any discussion or debate about the reality of what the health-care system is out there — and I respect that member's right to his interpretation. I think every member of the House has a right to bring to this House his perception and his constituents' perception of the adequacy or inadequacy of a health-care system or any other function of government. I'm sorry that the member for Omineca feels that we, on this side, are manufacturing all of the complaints, which are very widespread throughout the community.

Certainly I don't intend to let the member deter me from dealing with those matters which affect my constituency. I intend to be fairly brief, but will read into the record a couple of the concerns that have been expressed to me and to the minister, both privately and public already. If the members on that side feel that this is mudslinging, so be it. I think it's legitimate; I think it's a very serious discussion of the adequacy of the health-care system.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It'll be the first time you've been legitimate this session.

MR. KING: Well, I'm not going to comment on the ill-advised statements of that minister, Mr. Chairman.

I received a copy of a letter that the total medical staff of the Shuswap Lake General Hospital sent to the Minister of Health in May. I want to read it into the record; it's brief. It's to the Hon. James Nielsen:

"Dear Sir:

"The Shuswap Lake General Hospital was recently audited by the B.C. hospital programs under your ministry. The Health ministry was so favourably impressed by the efficiency of this hospital that it allowed an additional $200,000 to its budget. Some four months later you have chosen to slash this hospital's budget by 8 percent, or just over $400,000.

"In light of the recent audit, which indicated we were running at peak efficiency, this latest cut can only be interpreted as a directive to close beds and reduce the services of our hospital. The population of the Shuswap district and the occupancy of the hospital warrant the full capacity of beds to remain open.

"Your directive to close beds is unfair and unsafe for the people living in the Shuswap area. We will encourage this community to express its concern and displeasure to you and your government."

It's signed by the medical staff of Shuswap Lake General Hospital. Each individual doctor — some 14 of them — has personally signed this letter; copies have been directed to the hospital board, to the local media and to my office.

Whether or not the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) likes it, I am elected to come to Victoria to voice and express the concerns of my constituents regarding government programs. What would the members on that side have us do — ignore that this is a reality at all? Do they construe it as mudslinging if someone has a genuine concern — responsible people in the community, such as the medical and nursing staff of the hospital and the hospital board — over the cutbacks in health services? Is that government so arrogant that they view any constructive criticism of their programs as mud-slinging? If that indeed is the case, then they have long since served their purpose as a government in the province of British Columbia, and they'll be dealt with accordingly at the next election. The public won't tolerate that kind of arrogance. Any politician or political party that feels they are above reproach and criticism has served beyond its usefulness. That's from the medical staff.

I received a letter from the North Shuswap Women's Institute supporting the concern over the closure of ten beds in the Shuswap Lake General Hospital. Those beds have in fact been closed. I talked to the medical staff, the nursing staff and representatives of the board within the last few days,

[ Page 8989 ]

and their view is that there will inevitably be a buildup in the number of people waiting for beds, elective surgery and so on. They believe this is inimical to the adequate health standards of the people in that area, and they wish me, as their political representative in Victoria, to express very strong concern to the Minister of Health.

The medical staff at Salmon Arm have gone further. They have written open letters to the Minister of Health, which were published in the Salmon Arm Observer on May 19. The minister has undoubtedly seen these. I'm not going to read them all because they're lengthy. One is from Dr. John. R. Henderson MD and another is from L. Brian Marr MD. I'm going to read a couple of excerpts from those letters. Dr. Henderson say:

"I feel sorry for hospital board members, as they are forced by the Minister of Health to either close beds and cut other hospital services, or to resign.

"Before the restraint program was even introduced, health care was underfunded. Vernon had a six-month waiting period for surgery before they were forced to close beds and lay off staff.

"The Social Credit government must also examine its priorities. This government spends $14,000 on congratulating the Canucks and $125,000 painting the Social Credit logo on the B.C. ferries. I think it is more important to provide good health services and good educational services than it is to build a new football stadium in Vancouver.

"It is dangerous and unacceptable to have the Shuswap Lake General Hospital close ten beds. We, as a community, must look for alternatives to keep those beds open. We must make it clear to the Minister of Health that he is failing in his duty to provide good health care. He must reconsider his position and his options, and find ways to allow the hospital boards to continue to provide good medical care to citizens of Salmon Arm and the province."

Dr. Marr's letter, which is directly to the minister, says: "I cannot accept that your ministry has had any conception of the impact your policy-making has at the level of delivery....

"When a person who should be admitted has to be told by his physician that there are no beds, this will be a blatant, immoral lie. Should some person suffer adversity as a result of this lie, and should litigation against the doctor ensue, I am worried your ministry would not support the doctor, saying he should have been more discreet in his decision, that he should have foreseen....

This is the reaction of the local doctors in my constituency. This is the destiny of people requiring medical attention in my constituency, and I am very concerned. I wish to support the analysis of the local health-care workers in the field who, I submit, are infinitely more familiar with the impact of the cutbacks than the minister or his staff who are located in Victoria and who are not as familiar as doctors, nurses and health-science workers with the day-to-day needs of the regional hospitals throughout this province. They are not politicians. They are not saying these things because they don't like Social Credit; they are not saying these things because they don't like the minister. They are saying them because they believe, in their professional view, that this represents the reality of the situation. Indeed, many of them have expressed personally to me some sympathy for the minister. They have indicated that undoubtedly the minister would like to allocate more funds to the health-care system, but he is subservient to Treasury Board and to the Premier, who obviously have placed a higher priority on football stadiums, Social Credit logos and a variety of other wasted expenditures of public funds. I support that analysis.

I don't think the minister is cutting back because he does not consider health care important in the province; I'm sure he does. He certainly hasn't been able to maintain within his cabinet, before Treasury Board and before the Premier an adequate level of influence to provide the funds necessary for the health-care system. I don't blame the minister totally for that, but the reality is that doctors, nurses, health-science workers, public-minded people who are representatives on hospital boards throughout this province are telling the government, and they are telling the opposition, that this is not good enough, that, yes, there is a threat to the safety and proper care of people in the province of British Columbia. I have read the doctor's letter, and if members on the government side are not prepared to accept the reality of what the professionals in the field are saying, then I suggest that they fail to recognize it at their own peril. This is not my statement. This is the statement of the doctors in Salmon Arm.

We haven't had a cutback of beds in Revelstoke; we've been more fortunate. But one of the things that has happened there that I want to draw to the minister's attention is that the big downtown clinic, that was operated in the doctors' clinic and funded by the ministry through the hospital, has been obliged to close. The result is that many senior citizens now have to travel up to the hospital, which is some three miles up the hill, out of town, to obtain the necessary x-rays, blood tests and all of the laboratory work that was previously available downtown. Maybe it's not a big thing, Mr. Chairman, but it means greatly increased costs for those senior citizens, many of whom do not have their own transportation. The doctors in the area are concerned about it. They feel that it places additional stress on many of their patients and, quite frankly, they believe that the saving involved is penny-wise and pound-foolish when taken on balance. I want to draw that to the ministers attention, with the hope that he will review that situation.

I just wanted to make these points to the minister; I don't want to be unduly critical of him. I recognize that he's part of a total government. The only thing I want to say to him is that you can't ignore the reality of what's out there. These things are not manufactured. These letters went to the minister — he is as aware of them as I am. He's just as aware as I am of these problems. The only appeal I want to make to the minister is: for goodness' sake, fight a little bit harder within that government apparatus of yours — within the cabinet and before the Treasury Board. If cuts have to be made — and I believe they do in certain areas — then health care, maintaining peoples health, should be the last thing deprived of adequate funding.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the Shuswap Lake General Hospital and the problems some people have identified there with respect to beds. One of the perplexing problems associated with these hospital situations in the province is not only the number of beds but also the use of beds. We have some hospitals in the province that, on average, have an occupancy rate which exceeds 100 percent on an annualized basis. Others operate in the high 90s or mid-80s, and it goes down to the mid-50s.

[ Page 8990 ]

In dealing with hospitals with respect to their funding, one must take into consideration the utilization of that resource. The Shuswap Lake General Hospital, as an example, has a total capacity of 68 acute-care beds and 25 extended-care beds. I think the member mentioned that ten of the acute-care beds have been closed. They are no longer being serviced in that hospital. With that, of course, is the reduction in cost of maintaining those ten beds. Yesterday, July 22, the Shuswap Lake General Hospital had an acute-rated bed capacity of 68. Fifty-eight of those beds were in operation — open and available. Forty-three were in use, meaning there were 15 empty acute-care beds in the hospital yesterday. Along with the ten which have closed, that's 25 beds out of their 68. On July 20, the net was 16 beds vacant. On July 19, the net was 18 beds vacant. On July 18, the net was 20 beds vacant. On July 17, the net was 16 beds vacant. On July 16, the net was 14 beds vacant. On July 15, the net was 17 beds vacant. If those beds in Shuswap had not been closed yesterday, July 22, rather than having 15 empty, we presumably would have had 25 empty. That's a presumption.

There are problems in management of hospitals relative to the number of beds. When you visit a hospital, you can see that no hospital should be operating with no vacancies, because of emergencies and other difficulties that can arise; and there are specialties within hospitals, and you're not going to put a certain type of patient in a ward that is specializing in something else. In a smaller hospital the problem is usually less intense, because they're not as highly specialized as the larger hospitals. But, Mr. Chairman, we know that some of the hospitals have indicated to us, by way of their report, that they are having particular problems because of the nature of their buildings and because of the nature of the demand for services in their area — sometimes there has been improper or a lack of planning in years gone by, or a change in demographics. Some of the hospitals have indicated very sincerely that they have peculiar problems, and we within the ministry, particularly in that area responsible for the hospitals, are reviewing each of those individual hospitals as to its needs.

As the member mentioned previously, upon an examination that same hospital received additional funding at one time, because ministry officials had the opportunity of examining it. A letter has gone to this hospital — along with others, I believe — saying that they're quite prepared to send in such a team to review in precise detail their needs and demands.

Mr. Chairman, we have a stock of hospital beds in the province in acute-care facilities. Our occupancy rate varies from month to month, from hospital to hospital, so we have to look at it on an annualized basis, and try to make better and more efficient use of each facility. As an example, I mentioned Shuswap on July 22. Of the acute-care beds in operation in the province — those which are functioning, open, not the ones which have been closed — there were, in a survey of 25 hospitals, 674 empty ones yesterday within the province of B.C. Those 25 hospitals include the big hospitals: Vancouver General, as an example, Royal Jubilee, St. Paul's, Royal Columbian, Lions Gate, Victoria General, Shaughnessy, UBC, Royal Inland, Burnaby General and so on. So most of the hospitals are represented by the figures, and 25 of the hospitals show that 674 of the acute-care beds that are open were vacant yesterday.

As I said, a hospital can't expect to operate at 100 percent capacity all of the time; that would not be good management of the facility. So there are going to be available beds. They must be available for emergencies and for other reasons, and also for compatibility of patients' needs.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we had available all of the beds that were closed, in addition to the 674 empty beds in the same survey, there would be an additional 1,000 beds not being used. Among the 25 hospitals surveyed yesterday, there were 7,452 acute-care beds, of which 6, 422 were in operation and 5,748 were occupied.

It's very difficult to generalize occupancy across the province because hospitals do have individual difficulties, as does Shuswap and any of the others. It's disconcerting to look at some of the statistics. I see that one hospital on the list is operating at full capacity — no empty beds; yesterday there were no empty beds in the Kelowna General Hospital; the day before, no empty beds. So they're running at capacity at this time. On July 18 there were seven beds empty; but generally it has a very high occupancy.

The Dawson Creek Hospital — the member for that area asks about it. They had 10 empty beds yesterday. Of the 100 acute-care beds in the hospital yesterday, 52 were occupied; 53 the day before; 56 the day before that; 53 the day previous to that.

I don't take lightly the remarks made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), nor the remarks made by the people he quoted. People are concerned about hospital care and hospital maintenance in the province. I think we all have a shared duty to see that a high level of care is maintained, not only in the hospital section of the Ministry of Health but in all areas within the ministry.

We are in a period of severe fiscal restraint in our province and country. In excess of $2.3 billion has been allotted to the Ministry of Health this year. I'll accept from anyone that the money allotted within the Ministry of Health could quite possibly be modified with respect to priority. Perhaps within the Ministry of Health certain programs which are funded could be reviewed, and the need for those programs could be questioned as to their overall priority. It's quite possible that a program which is functioning somewhere within the Ministry of Health providing service to people could be modified in some way, and that maybe some of those funds could become available for higher priorities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like hospitals.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The hospitals are the big spenders, if you like, within the ministry. They represent most of the money. If other areas of high priority are to receive funding, we're going to have to find it from within somewhere. We take that as our responsibility and we will continue to do that. Maybe in this current fiscal year there could be some modifications made internally when priorities are clearly identified. The hospitals have a very important role to play, and I might say we're getting a lot more cooperation from hospitals than opposition.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.

[ Page 8991 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

70 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 70) intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 17.1, by adding the following section:

"17.1 Section 74 is amended by striking out 'a certificate of' and substituting an' .