[ Page 4323 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Reforestation. Mr. Skelly –– 4323

Ministry of Forests scaling practices. Hon. Mr. Waterland replies –– 4323

Disposal of hazardous wastes. Mrs. Wallace –– 4324

Sealed washrooms on Gray Line buses. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 4324

Constitution Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 16). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4325

Mr. Hanson –– 4326

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4329

Mrs. Dailly –– 4331

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4332

Mr. Lank –– 4333

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4334

Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 9). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4336

Ms. Brown –– 4336

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4337

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

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4338

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Wallace

Presenting Petitions –– 4346

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 4347

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the House to welcome 16 grade 11 students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary School who are touring the building today with their teacher, Mr. Bowker.

Oral Questions

REFORESTATION

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Last Thursday the minister said that the major new federal funding commitment to reforestation announced in 1982 is purely mythical. Five provinces have now signed major new agreements for a total of $120 million in federal funds, and these provinces have only 20 percent of the forest resources that British Columbia has. Clearly, major federal expenditures are being made. Can the minister therefore advise why B.C. is the only province unable to conclude a major new agreement?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some provinces have signed agreements. In fact, some money is being made available for some provinces, but other provinces who have signed agreements so far don't have the money available from the federal government.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that in some cases, such as is the case with Manitoba.... The Manitoba government in effect granted the federal government jurisdiction over a very substantial part of its forest resource in return for funds. Our forest resource and the control over it is not for sale. We will conclude an agreement with the federal government, I hope this year, but we will not do that at the expense of turning the management of that resource over to the federal government.

MR. SKELLY: So that we can clear this matter up, could the minister advise in which areas the federal government has requested jurisdiction over the forests of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd be very happy to, Mr. Speaker. Two of the catchwords of the federal government are "visibility" and "direct delivery." By "visibility" they wish, of course, to gain political credit for being involved. I don't have any trouble with that. The direct delivery part is where I have extreme problems. Direct delivery, according to the agreement in Manitoba, is that the federal government shall come and directly work with licensees on area-specific tenures, and directly be involved in the management, the decision-making and delivery of the forest management service. That is not acceptable in British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not confirm that the real barrier to progress on this issue has been your government's approach to the negotiations, and the fact that the province is unwilling to match the federal contribution in terms of funding, rather than the question of jurisdiction?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Most certainly I will not confirm that fact, because it's not true. We have been seriously attempting to negotiate an agreement with the federal government. As a matter of fact, because we were unable to agree with the federal government without giving away jurisdiction over our forest resource, we instead have agreed to extend the existing agreement, the one that was signed in 1979 for a total of $50 million to be expended over a period of five years — that is the agreement which has just come to an end. We have agreed with the federal government to extend that agreement for another year. and we have signed an extension. That was done by the federal minister responsible for forestry, Mr. Caccia. However, he has not yet received authority from the federal Treasury Board to commit the $5.5 million which we have committed. We have signed the agreement, and the money is allocated in our budget and ready to go just as soon as the money is forthcoming from the federal government. How can the member say that the reason we haven't signed up is that we haven't got the money? We have $5.5 million; the federal government has not got that yet. If we had been able to conclude an agreement for the $35 million, which was to be the start of a ten-year program through which we hoped to invest $600 million in the forest resources of British Columbia, I feel every assurance that we would have had that funding from our treasury.

MR. SKELLY: A final supplementary. Given what happens to federal government funds destined for higher education, health and social service programs, I can understand their concern about allowing the money to be turned over directly to the provincial government, because it may not end up going into forest management. So that's one concern we have with this government. And I have no further questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I understood that question period was for the purpose of asking questions and getting information. The member just made a mini-speech.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS SCALING PRACTICES

However, the member did ask a couple of questions yesterday in my absence. The questions were taken as notice by my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who acts in my capacity when I am absent from the House. As I read from Hansard, the question yesterday by the member for Alberni is as follows: "A question to the acting Minister of Forests." Strangely, he always seems to ask these questions of the acting Minister of Forests when I'm absent. The occasional time when the member for Alberni does appear in the House, he asks my colleague a question on my behalf. But I'm very happy to respond to him. "With reference to the minister's statement on April 5 that he will take action to issue supplementary stumpage billings to B.C. Forest Products at Shoal Island, does the minister also plan to supplementary bill the operators of the other five log-sorting operations where defective scaling practices were employed as well?"

First of all, I did not say that I would take action to bill B.C. Forest Products. I said that if the independent assessment being carried out by the regional manager in Vancouver — who is charged under the Forest Act so to do and has been so directed — concludes that there was in fact a shortage of scale and that B.C. Forest Products was not fully billed, I will take action to make such a billing. I said that in spite of the legal advice which I have from the ministry, which states that we really don't have that authority. The reason I'm doing that is that there is contrary legal advice. There is legal advice

[ Page 4324 ]

obtained by the ombudsman and others to the effect that we do in fact have such authority. So if an assessment of the amount of timber that went through Shoal Island indicates a short scale, we will issue such a bill.

The member went on to ask if I would also take action to "bill the operators of the other five log-sorting operations where defective scaling practices were employed...." That flowed into the supplementary question which he asked, saying: "I have a second question for the acting minister. Has the minister done an investigation to find out what the stumpage losses were at the other five sites mentioned by the ombudsman?" The answer to that question will also answer the first question. When it was learned that there was a possibility of some problems with the manner in which logs were being scaled at high speed for the Shoal Island sort, we immediately investigated the other sorts as well. We did check scales — which we're doing on a continuing basis, in any event — and these check scales indicated that in each case the degree of accuracy was well within that which is normally possible in sorting. Any discrepancy was less than 3 percent, and that is the degree of accuracy you can expect from the scaling of logs. It is not possible, on a consistent basis, to measure them any more accurately than that. Because we found that the efforts did not exist, I take some exception to the member making statements such as "...where defective scaling practices were employed as well." It was not the scaling practice, Mr. Speaker. We had a problem with the recording, if we had a problem at all, at Shoal Island. These recording methods were changed at the other sorts, in spite of the fact that we did not have a problem. But in case those sorts speeded up somewhat, in which case the problem could perhaps develop, we changed the recording practice to make sure that we would not have such a problem in future.

[2:15]

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Environment regarding hazardous waste disposal. The minister has suggested that there will be lots of opportunities for the public to scrutinize Genstar-IT's proposal for a hazardous waste disposal site near Ashcroft once these plans are finalized. Will the minister agree that an after-the-fact scrutiny of finalized plans is a farce, unless it involves a formal public inquiry into this scheme and includes funding for public interveners?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with that member's question. How do you scrutinize a proposal that has not yet been put together?

MRS. WALLACE: Yesterday the minister complained to the House that he had spent the weekend working in Vancouver at a special-waste information symposium. I understand that at that symposium a recommendation was agreed to for a six-month waiting period after the release of Genstar-IT's final study and the application for the permit. That was agreed to by both Genstar-IT and the public participants there. That recommendation is being forwarded to the minister, I understand. Has the minister decided that he will accept such a proposal?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it was clearly stated by me and clearly understood at that symposium that the recommendations from that symposium would be presented to me. That's part of the arrangement. I'm interested to note that the member's great interest in this special-waste problem, with a great deal of information, does not extend to taking part in that. It seems to extend to questions written by research people.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't quite understand the minister's answer. I am concerned or I wouldn't be asking the questions. Certainly he has not advised me whether he is prepared to agree to that recommendation that there be a six month waiting period, after the study comes down, before the permit is issued. That was the question that I asked, and the minister has not replied to that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the question the first time, it was: would the ministry be prepared to accept the recommendation? I thought I had replied that I'm accepting the report and the recommendation from that. You're now asking me whether I will agree to a recommendation which I haven't seen and hasn't been made to me yet.

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously the minister is not prepared to say whether he will accept that recommendation. What he is saying is that they can send the recommendation to him, but he has not agreed that he will accept it. I thought he attended that symposium, and he should have known what those recommendations were.

A further recommendation from that symposium, which he did attend — and I'm sure he must be aware of this recommendation — was that a tri-party committee be set up consisting of a representative of Genstar, a representative of the government and a representative of the workers, or the union, if there were such involved, which would continually monitor any hazardous waste disposal, transport, storage or treatment site. Can the minister inform the House whether or not he is prepared to go along with such a committee to monitor hazardous waste in this province in the forthcoming period of time?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know how I can possibly make it clear to that member that there were a lot of things discussed. There was a great exchange of a lot of useful information, and there were a lot of positive suggestions. I have, to this point, not received any recommendations. I don't know where the member got her recommendations. When I left the conference at about a quarter to twelve on Monday to get back to the House, there had been no formal recommendations of any kind made to me. I have not received any since. I can hardly agree to any that I have not yet received. I don't know if I can make it any plainer than that.

SEALED WASHROOMS ON GRAY LINE BUSES

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked a question regarding transportation and buses. The question was: was I aware that since privatization it has been the policy of Gray Line of Victoria to lock and seal the washrooms on the buses operating on Vancouver Island? Further, the comment was made that the member for Comox was informed that this policy of

[ Page 4325 ]

Gray Lines had already resulted in a number of unfortunate incidents and is of considerable concern to both the passengers and drivers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that if that has been a concern in the past few days since the private entrepreneur has taken over that service it must have been a question in the past five years, because that policy has been in place for the past five years. The present operator is simply following past practices. The decision not to have washroom services and to have the washrooms locked on those buses was made some five years ago by PCL. It was because there was a short enough time between stops to be of service to the customers. For the past five years they have saved in maintenance costs in that respect. I hope that information will be of some use to the member for Comox.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. CHABOT: In moving second reading of Bill 16, the government believes that the tremendous growth of population in certain electoral districts is sufficient reason to increase the number of members representing the people of British Columbia in this House. At the same time, we believe there are strong arguments for maintaining, for the most part, existing electoral districts. If we can be permitted to present these arguments in a reasonable and rational way, Mr. Speaker, I believe most people will find that it is correct.

All members know that the population served by members in certain electoral districts has grown dramatically. For instance, the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has to serve over 96,000 people, according to the latest census information. In Delta over 74,000 people have to look to one member to help them. He also has to serve as the Speaker of the House as well. In Nanaimo over 66,000 people there have only one MLA to see to their interests.

It's this kind of result from the most recent census that has prompted us to come forward with these very logical solutions. The bill before the House favours staying with the existing electoral districts. We have agonized long and hard over this issue, and I can tell you that our reasons for believing in and staying with the present electoral district boundaries are twofold.

First, we believe that to set up a system whereby the boundaries are changed from time to time is very costly — my friend from Vancouver Centre is now leaving and returning to his lucrative law practice in Vancouver — and I'd like to examine these costs. You'd have to have a boundaries commission and that costs money. The commission would have to have a staff of researchers and statisticians. We'd have to have a team of lawyers to rewrite the legal descriptions of the electoral districts every few years, and we all know that when you bring lawyers into it, it starts to cost real money.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Furthermore, if you redescribe the boundaries of constituencies every few years, you have to do the same thing with polling divisions as well, and there are thousands of them. They'd have to be redescribed by yet another office full of lawyers and research officers. If you get on the treadmill of regular boundary changes every few years, you need to redesign and reprint all of your maps, all of your election administration manuals, many of your forms and so on.

Our first reason for rejecting boundary changes is cost. If cost is not enough of a consideration, how about all the confusion and upset to voters when the boundaries are redrawn? We've all heard about it, and we all know how upsetting it is for our citizens when they see the federal constituencies changed all the time. Look at the situation right now. A commission was appointed in May 1982; in June 1983 it recommended adding five new constituencies in B.C. That means cutting most of the federal constituencies in B.C. and redoing the maps, with all of the costs that that involves. Those new constituencies may not even be used in the next federal election. According to reports I've seen from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, there is some doubt as to whether the new constituencies will be used even if the present federal Parliament lasts to the end of the term in 1985. We're told there are administrative problems with implementation of the new boundaries that quickly. What could be more confusing, costly and upsetting? A report describing new boundaries was brought in in June 1983, but it looks like it won't be implemented for the next federal election. How are the average federal electors in B.C. going to know whether they're living in a pre-1983 constituency or a post-1983 constituency? When the average voter starts thinking about who the good federal politicians are, should the voters be thinking about politicians living in the pre-1983 constituencies or the post-1983 constituencies? Or is it post-1989, Mr. Speaker?

Most important of all, who does the average voter turn to for help? For example, if a small businessman in the Fraser Valley, of all impossible things, finds himself in a bit of trouble with Revenue Canada — as some MPs have found themselves — who is his MP? He remembers the old electoral map. It showed that he was in federal constituency X, and he's seen a new map in the papers which says he's going to be in a new federal constituency called Y. They're changing a boundary from one side of him to the other. Who should he talk to? Should he pretend the border has already been changed and talk to the MP for the other constituency, because he figures his problem with Revenue Canada is going to take a long time to sort out? But maybe the present MP is the person he should go to, even though he won't be concerned later. Maybe he'll have to ask them both to help. He's caught in the middle, and he hasn't even moved. It's a researcher's and planner's dream come true — a bureaucrat's dream. They've put him in a position as a small businessman in the Fraser Valley where he doesn't know who to turn to for help.

It could take years to correct. Look at it; look at the dates, in fact. A federal boundaries commission sits in 1982. It recommends five new constituencies in June 1983, and we're told that it's too late for an election in 1985. So apparently the changed maps won't come into effect until the federal election after the next one, maybe in 1989, or even in 1990. Mr. Speaker, I'm a little worried. I'm beginning to think that these five new constituencies might be out of date by then, even before they've been used. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this

[ Page 4326 ]

what we want for our provincial electors? Don't we want to give them improved representation soon, rather than going through the expense and the ridiculous delays the federal boundary reform system has brought? Don't we want our provincial electors to know which electoral districts they live in and who their MLA is if they have problems?

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, these are the reasons for staying with fixed electoral boundaries and increasing representation by adding MLAs in an electoral district where the population warrants it. I believe an examination of the formula we have put forward the electoral basis for the mainland and the Island will show that these are very fair. Mr. Speaker, you may ask: why two electoral bases? I can tell you that the government felt it was important to recognize Vancouver Island's history as the first part of the settlement of what is now British Columbia. We believe it is arguable that the nine Island constituencies are just a little more complicated to represent than those on the mainland because of transportation challenges. So we felt a separate electoral base based on the average population served by the three MLAs in Victoria and Oak Bay–Gordon Head would serve the other Island constituencies better than the average population served by the MLAs in the five Vancouver constituencies specified in the bill. I believe that when you see how the formula adjusts the two electoral bases and gives increasing advantage to electoral districts the further they are from Victoria and the lower mainland, you, Mr. Speaker, and all members, will see that there is equity and fairness in this electoral base.

The process we have proposed in the amending bill is one which no reasonably informed person can object to. A commission is established to do the job, and what could be fairer than that? The commission will obtain population figures, determine the population of each electoral district and apply the formula. The commission will recommend which electoral districts qualify for additional MLAs. The commission will recommend whether an electoral district qualifies for a third MLA. And if it does, the commission will recommend how to divide such a three-member electoral district into three single-member constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, the commission will consist of three highly regarded and independent individuals: the chief electoral officer, the Clerk of the Assembly and a judge of the provincial court. They will revise representation regularly and without the confusion and expense that has been the inevitable result of the boundary redrawing process our federal colleagues have opted for. I would ask you to consider that even though our present electoral district boundaries are not always perfect, new boundaries, under whatever system for redrawing maps we can devise, would also contain imperfections. I would ask you to weigh the alternative, which is to preserve and build on existing electoral boundaries to let our electors identify with their electoral districts and their respective MLAs.

Some members here might ask about cost. How can government think of adding MLAs when we're downsizing everything else? Does this mean that the civil service can now be expected to grow again? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. This is, we believe, the most cost-effective way to improve representation in the Legislature: to correct the imbalances that have resulted from strong growth in certain areas of British Columbia. We're not going to spend millions on commissions and mapmakers and lawyers to rewrite legal descriptions of constituencies and polling districts every few years. We're going to keep all costs of representation down. As a matter of fact, even the commission itself will serve uncompensated, because all of the members are already paid public servants. We're going to provide more members, and we're doing it because we believe that the people need more members than they have now to look after their interests. We're saying that there is an imbalance in British Columbia today. There's a need for additional representation in areas that have seen very dramatic growth.

In supporting this bill, I'm asking members to recognize that this is a fairer, more effective approach to increasing representation. I'm asking all members to examine the electoral basis we have put forward and to examine the schedules which give recognition to remote electoral districts as well. This is a creative and effective new method to increase representation in this House. It gives me great pleasure to move second reading of this bill.

MR. HANSON: This is a very important bill. This is probably the most important bill we've seen in this House for many years, because it speaks to the way the people of British Columbia send people to this House and the way decision-making is done in this province.

On this map, which is a map from the Eckardt report, are outlined the boundaries of the electoral seats that are presently designated for representation here in this House. This was not done by divine intervention; it was not done by God. This was done by Larry Eckardt. This was done by a person who was working under the direction of the Social Credit government to effect and delineate the electoral boundaries for the seats of this House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In Bill 16, which we are debating in second reading today, there are elements that we on this side of the House agree with. First of all, I'd like to mention that. I'd like to mention the fact that the commission, as outlined here, is a good one: the Clerk of the House, the chief electoral commissioner and a judge of the provincial court. We have no problem with that. At that point, I'd like to make it very clear that we have no objection to that kind of commission.

However, what we do have very strong objection to is that the mandate of that commission is really removed from their authority. A school child — a person with about grade nine math — with a calculator is now able to do the work of that commission. It does not have the mandate to look at the things that should be looked at: such as geographical limitations; communication and transportation; distance from government agencies; social, economic and cultural ties; regional and historic claims; resource management and watershed patterns; future population; and economic growth. Those were terms of reference....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Red tape, red tape.

MR. HANSON: That comes out of the Eckardt report.

MS. BROWN: He's reading out of the Eckardt report, and I agree with you. It is red tape.

MR. HANSON: I'm reading out of the Eckardt report, issued by your government.

[ Page 4327 ]

What we have is an interesting way of attempting to achieve the Warren commission objectives in another form. The Warren commission was totally repudiated through all of British Columbia — the entire 365,000 square miles of this great province. Now we get it in a different form. Rather than Mr. Warren, the former Tory leader, we now have a respectable commission that this side of the House agrees with, but a term of reference that is so restrictive: it's entirely limited to population increases within existing gerrymandered ridings.

This bill freezes for ever and a day the finger of Little Mountain, the inequitable distribution of Vancouver South, with the extension south of 49th into Point Grey. The other gerrymandered boundaries are now going to be frozen to be part of the terms of reference of this commission. I feel it's unfair to the commission.

Let me make it very clear, Mr. Speaker. On this side of the House we want more representation for ridings that have large populations in Surrey, Delta, Richmond south of the river. That area of British Columbia requires greater representation; there's no doubt about it. But that doesn't mean that that increase of representation should be based entirely, for ever and a day, on Larry Eckardt's riding boundaries. That is a key point. On this side of the House we recognize that places like Kamloops, areas of the Okanagan and so on are growing areas of British Columbia. The population there requires added representation, more members in this House. There is no question there. But where we take serious issue.... The fatal flaw of this bill is to enshrine forever the boundaries of the Eckardt report, which was totally a gerrymandered distribution.

It's interesting that the Warren commission had framed in it statistical formulas to guarantee added representation in the interior and the suburbs of this province. However, it was also demonstrated by the Warren formula that the formula was not consistent. The Provincial Secretary's own riding of Columbia River should have been wiped off the map, according to Mr. Warren, but of course they wouldn't do it, for political purposes, and the minister knows that. His riding, according to those statistics....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Eckardt doubled my voter population.

MR. HANSON: I'm talking about Warren. The Warren commission, in their own formula and their statistical model, had the inconsistency of suggesting the continued existence.

What I'm saying to that minister is that the Social Credit government is attempting to achieve the objectives of the Warren commission in the form of Bill 16, Constitution Amendment Act, 1984. It really should be termed the Larry Eckardt boundaries in perpetuity act.

The central weakness of the bill is the Eckardt boundaries. There is no reason why that commission outlined in Bill 16, of the calibre of the chief electoral commissioner, Clerk of this House and a judge appointed from the provincial court, could not undertake to look at boundaries as well. We heard a litany from that minister about lawyers' fees, the cost of drafting maps and so on. What is the cost of democracy in British Columbia? The support of democratic institutions and democratic process have never been the long suit of Social Credit. They should give this fine commission the authority to look and see if the Eckardt boundaries are in fact inequitable, to make the appropriate adjustments for fairness to all citizens.

The popular vote separating Social Credit and the New Democratic Party at this moment is roughly 5 percent: 49.7 per cent to 45 percent. What they want is to hang on to Larry Eckardt's boundaries, which are unfair and unjust. That finger doesn't have to go into Point Grey to guarantee that minister's re-election. If she's a good minister and is doing her job, she doesn't need the finger. That commission under Bill 16 should surgically remove that finger under hygienic conditions.

This commission outlined in Bill 16, under clause 19, should be empowered to review electoral boundaries as well as population. The terms that were ostensibly to be used by Mr. Eckardt and not used were geographic limitations, communications and transportation, distance from government agencies, social and economic and cultural ties, regional and historical claims, resource-management and watershed patterns, future population and economic growth. We don't want a fossilized structure and formula enshrined only to avoid printing new maps in the Queen's Printer. Is democracy to go down the drain in British Columbia because we don't want to print new electoral maps? What a charade! What a facade that that would be the argument given.

[2:45]

Let's look at this bill in more detail. I'd like the minister to give us some clear, rational response which is a rationale for the population-based figures for the mainland and Vancouver Island. The mainland figure is a combination of the population of five double-member Vancouver seats divided by 10 to give a formula. Similarly, there's one for the Island, which is isolated to the dual seat of Victoria and the single seat of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are you against that?

MR. HANSON: I want to hear an explanation for the rationale of how it's being determined. It may mean that if the Island population grows faster than that of the mainland, it will be increasingly under-represented in the framework that you have laid out in this bill. As it is presently indicated, this formula will create double seats in Boundary-Similkameen and Delta, based on Eckardt's formula — certainly Delta is under-represented, but we question the boundaries — Dewdney, Kamloops, Okanagan South, Richmond, Saanich and the Islands, Cariboo, Nanaimo, Surrey and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I've made it very clear that we agree to the commission. We've always on this side of the House wanted an independent commission which is impartial and not beholden to any political party. We also want the commission empowered to look at other factors and attributes, rather than just population increase. We feel that that's a too restrictive, myopic view. It is too political, too oriented to the objectives of Social Credit, and not clearly aimed at providing access, in a democratic process, in British Columbia. We do not want a partisan process; we want an objective process.

We have an enormous province — a third of a million square miles. We have a total population of something in the order of 2.75 million people. This population deserves the right to vote for people according to their own community needs so that the boundaries should represent an overlay of important factors that provide an integrity to the boundaries of that electoral district. We do not want fingers frozen in time, Mr. Speaker, We do not want inequities and electoral gerrymanders frozen in time forever and a day and then to

[ Page 4328 ]

have increased representation given based on a maldistribution in the first place. I think that is a very logical point, and we are making a case for the process under which this government is undertaking this bill. It is not fair. It is too restrictive to say to people of this calibre: "You are only entitled to do one thing: that is, to get out your pocket calculator and figure out what 60 percent above a certain population base is. That entitles a riding to an extra member." That is insufficient in a modern, sophisticated, democratic period when people want to be concerned and involved in the process. They want to have political accountability. They don't want to have mountaintops, hemlock and Sitka spruce trees voting, as we had in the Warren commission, where mountaintops and valley bottoms were going to be determinate as a geographic factor in the formula. We want rep by pop. That is the fairest way. We want representation fairly.

The Eckardt commission in 1978 was unfair, and it was politically tainted. We are going to be handing that particular instrument for voting in our province down to our children and our grandchildren, because Bill 16 freezes that inequity. That is unjust, and we oppose it. We want some fairness in this process. This kind of bill should be put to a committee of this House; it should not be brought in in a partisan way by a minister representing one political party. In any other jurisdiction a bill of this nature would go to a joint committee of the Legislature. Hearings would be held, and the public would be given an opportunity to have their opinions heard. This is not being done. Instead, it is done at a time when there are no newspapers in Vancouver and we are apparently on the verge of a newspaper strike in Victoria; when the great, massive population of British Columbia cannot be involved and have no say. They can't react to this bill, which will determine how they are governed in the future years. How unfair could that be?

Only a government afraid of the people that they represent would bring in a bill like this, with provisions of these clauses, without any opportunity for the public to know how they are going to be electing MLAs in the future. Only a government that is reaping the whirlwind of mismanagement of the economy, their July 7 budget, their 26 bills which came down to disaster — only a government inheriting that kind of a response from the public would say that if it can't get elected in the existing boundaries, or by using the commission and giving them full powers to look at all of the tidings and boundaries of this province, to see if they are fair, and to give the people of Surrey, Delta, Richmond, Kamloops and so on, added representation, which they do deserve, but to look carefully at the boundaries to see if this Eckardt inheritance is in fact unjust.... What is wrong with that? Why not have an independent commission do that? Instead, there are no hearings, no public involvement and no newspapers. A bill has been introduced to this House to enshrine in statute how we are going to face the people in the next election, based on a 1978 electoral gerrymander.

As I said in my very first remark, there is nothing more important in this province than the process by which decisions are made on behalf of all the people. There is no process more important than that. There is no process that should be more removed from political interference than that process. Yet what we have before us is a bill to establish an independent commission, which is fine; we support that, but the given terms of reference are entirely political and partisan and based entirely on enshrining the Eckardt boundaries and in firming them up so that future increased representation will be based on Larry Eckardt's report. What could be more unfair or unjust? I ask the minister to withdraw this bill.

This government has a number of years left in its mandate. It has ample opportunity to have the courage to take this bill to the people of this province to give them the chance — for once — to have a say in the way people are sent to this Legislature, and to make rules and laws about the way the people of British Columbia live. I ask the minister to withdraw this bill, to take it around this province in a committee and to ask the people what they feel; to get their input. There are three or four years before the next provincial election. There is ample opportunity for this commission, with the assistance of another committee of this House, to travel the province and come up with a fair process, based on all of the factors that I've outlined. What is wrong with that? Why would a government be afraid of that? It's a simple question. Would it be because they just want to hold on to power, and that they want to influence the voting process sufficiently to not provide people a fair opportunity to let the democratic process in its fullness work in British Columbia?

Those are questions that strike to the heart of what this House is all about, and yet the government is not interested in addressing it in that kind of a fair way. The objective should be to establish, based on the number of votes cast, that a fair representation is given according to the political parties that the people wish to have represent them: redistribution in order to achieve a fairer proportion between the votes cast and the seats won. That is really what we want — nothing more, nothing less. Fair.

If a system is not fair, people become cynical and bitter, and lose confidence in the system. That is the last thing that either side of this House should want to happen. I ask that the minister withdraw the bill and send the Clerk of the House, the appointee from the court and the chief electoral officer out to all the regions of the province to hold a full and impartial hearing, which the people of this province never received in 1978 with the Eckardt report. By sending out that committee, the minister would be doing a great service for the people of this province and subsequent generations. No holds barred; let that committee come back into this House with a series of recommendations on appropriate boundaries and seat distribution, with all the modern comparative data from other jurisdictions, with election expense provisions, with ceilings on the amount of money that can be spent, with full disclosure, with proper access for the disabled to vote. We are a province that doesn't allow people who are shut in.... I have constituents who would have a vote in France, because it is a mail ballot, but who do not get a vote in British Columbia. In France, if a person is shut in because of a physical disability, they are entitled to vote by mail ballot.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are straying from the principle of this bill, hon. member. This is the Constitution Amendment Act and does not deal with elections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, you're quite right. The point I'm making is that sending that committee on the road to have full and impartial non-partisan hearings would enable the public to provide input on all matters with respect to the elections; not just the boundaries and the number of seats, but the number of polling stations, access to voting for the disabled and so on. That's the kind of hearing we should have, not the kind of bill that comes in at a time when the public is not offered any opportunity for a full vetting and a full

[ Page 4329 ]

understanding of what is taking place. It affects the decisions that affect their lives, and they are being disfranchised. You are disfranchising the people of this province from a process that will determine all of the decisions that affect their lives under provincial authority. That is really unfair.

To create a smokescreen about lawyers and costs of map drawing, bureaucracy and so on is very foolish. We should have an ongoing independent commission that operates in much the same way as the federal authority, without influence.

[3:00]

An HON. MEMBER: A great example.

MR. HANSON: We would be a lot better served in B.C. if we had that kind of a structure, rather than the kind of thing offered to us by Social Credit. With those remarks, I am going to ask one of my colleagues to comment.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, a great injustice is being done to British Columbia. We have the opportunity, with the lead time between now and the next election, to put out an independent commission to the public to have once and for all in British Columbia a fair and impartial electoral commission. What we get instead is a commission with the cosmetic appearance of being structurally impartial, but one with no mandate and completely restrictive; one with a formula roughly the same as the Warren formula, which does not offer an opportunity to take into account all the various factors necessary in a proper and fair redistribution. What we get instead is a partisan and political redistribution without an opportunity for public involvement in the most important bill to come before this Legislature in years, which will determine the affairs of this House for many years to come. They have a right to have a say, and you're denying it to them. You are disfranchising them in the process. The public is going to understand that you fear their involvement, that you fear their input, and they're going to reject you at the polls. We welcome the opportunity to win those added seats in Surrey, to win those added seats in Kamloops, and to win those added seats in the interior of this province. We will win them in spite of the gerrymander. We're going to carry our case to every comer of this province, because this is a partisan and political move. You're cutting the people of this province out of that process.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's interesting to hear from the member for Victoria as the lead-off speaker on anything to do with redistribution or representation in this chamber. The member for Victoria is in a most enviable position, having a relatively small population base in the province's capital of about 80,000 people, represented by two members, and at the same time apparently not prepared to accept a recommendation which would see similar representation for other constituencies in our province with similar populations.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As an example, the population of the constituency of Kamloops is very near that of Victoria. Victoria has 79,427; Kamloops has 77,278. We recognize that the members for Victoria have to serve a relatively large area — 11 square miles — whereas the member for Kamloops is required to serve an area of 8,244 square miles. We recognize that there are approximately 2,000 more people living in the city of Victoria, but I really don't think that justifies an additional member.

MR. LAUK: Oh, jiggery-pokery,

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ''Jiggery-pokery," the member for Vancouver Centre says. The member for Vancouver Centre, along with his seatmate, represents 89,000 people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Approximately 89,000, according to StatsCan. You may not represent all of the people, but that's the number they provide.

We also recognize that they have an eight-square-mile area, and they have two members. In fact, it's interesting to note that all of the constituencies, with the exception of Surrey, which have two representatives.... In 1981 StatsCan gave Vancouver East a population of 89,000, Vancouver Centre 89,000, Vancouver South 84,000, Vancouver–Little Mountain 80,000, Victoria 79,000 and Point Grey 77,000. Apparently those are the last statistics available. It's interesting that with the exception of Surrey, with two members and a population of 161,000, all the dual ridings have fewer people than the single-member riding of Richmond, which has a population, according to the 1981 statistics, of 96,000 people. Yet this opposition would argue that it is improper to allow the citizens of Richmond the same opportunity of having two members to represent them in this chamber as is permitted in those other constituencies in the cities of Vancouver and Victoria, and even Surrey.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria was speaking about proportional representation, which is a concept adopted by some people, and generally expounded by perpetual losers who say: "Even though we do not win an election, let us have some access to the chamber." There are a number of attitudes and formulas which are offered worldwide to see that some people get in there, even though they were rejected at the polls by the people within a constituency. So they wind up with a small percentage of the vote across the nation, in the province or in their state. They have a small percentage, so they're allocated so many seats. I don't think the people of our country or our province are yet prepared to accept that type of election. I think the people in B.C. still accept the idea that you elect a representative from your constituency, and the person with the greatest number of votes wins that seat.

Mr. Speaker. I wonder how many members of the opposition took the time to be heard before any of the various commissions which have reviewed this matter over the years in B.C. I suppose many of them made representations to the Norris inquiry. I'm sure they did; their government appointed that committee. They never acted on the recommendations, however. I don't know how many made representations to the Eckardt inquiry. I don't know how many made any recommendations to the Warren commission. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) may have been the only one who made any representation to the last inquiry. Yet this is what the member is saying: send these people around so, apparently, the NDP can ignore them again. What's the purpose of that? But I appreciate the comments from the member. At least he doesn't find three very distinguished public servants offensive with respect to a commission. I think it's very noble of him to even mention that.

[ Page 4330 ]

We have had over the years in British Columbia inquiries and commissions looking into boundary changes with respect to representation in this House. They have taken into consideration those matters mentioned by the member for Victoria, including historic matters, population trends, and various geographical features. They have done that, and they have designed certain boundaries. What hasn't been done as consistently is to recognize the representation of the citizens of an area. Recognizing that my own constituency of Richmond is one of the fastest-growing areas in the province, and recognizing that it probably has a population now in excess of 100,000, I don't think anyone could argue that the citizens of Richmond should not have the same right to equal or near equal representation as the other metropolitan areas of the lower mainland. So I think the argument for Richmond is very strong, if we're looking at population.

MR. LAUK: It should have at least one member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, if we do have two, I only hope that your party once again put up my good friend Mr. Steves as a candidate. It saves a lot of costs in printing signs.

MR. LAUK: Are you accusing us of political bad judgment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, never. He was more eloquent than most of your candidates. That's why he lost.

It's interesting to note that the first member for Victoria sees in this proposed act all of this political manoeuvring, without for one moment taking an opportunity to look at where the population centres are in this province. When you look very quickly down the list, once you're past Surrey and the Vancouver constituencies with their two members, and Victoria with its two-member riding — with, statistics indicate, 79,000 citizens — you're into Okanagan South with 78,000 citizens and one member; Kamloops with 77,000, one member; Vancouver–Point Grey, a dual-member riding with 75,000; Delta, 75,000, one member; Saanich and the Islands, 74,000, one member; Nanaimo, 68,000, one member; Boundary-Similkameen, 66,000, one member; Dewdney, 62,000, one member; Cariboo, 61,000, one member; Langley, 61,000, one member; Coquitlam-Moody, 59,000; Central Fraser Valley, 58,000; Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, 56,000; and as it goes.

Mr. Speaker, it's clear where the areas of growth and population are. It's a matter of simple statistics. Yet these people across the House, for some reason, indicate that it is wrong to recognize population. It is right, according to the member for Victoria, to have two members represent the capital city, with a population of under 80,000, but apparently it's incorrect to have an area such as Richmond, with 96,000 people, have two members as well. Similarly, with the other major population centres in the province, these members argue that it is apparently improper and only politically motivated for them to receive equal representation — not disproportionate representation, but equal representation.

Remember when the Warren committee made certain recommendations which would have seen my constituency of Richmond a dual-member riding; the same type of criticism came from that side. They stood up; they never suggested that their dual-member riding of Victoria, with a population considerably less, be represented by less than two, but there was no support for the more heavily populated constituencies, in their mind adequately represented by one. Well, I think the people of these constituencies recognize very readily that their influence in this chamber is not equal to the influence of other metropolitan and urban centres in this province. That's wrong. It's fine to talk about all these various gerrymandering.... And gerrymandering, I believe, refers to the modification of boundaries, which this bill does not consider. It does not consider boundary changes. In fact, it suggests that the boundaries remain as they are. For once, let's look at population. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) spoke about representation by population — a great slogan, but the wrong country. With representation by population, our good friend from Atlin would apparently not have a seat in this House, because the population in Atlin is 6,314 people. If you're going to have rep by pop on a strict formula, obviously Atlin would not qualify for a member. In fact, I believe it was in the mid sixties when there was a commission of inquiry. I believe they recommended that Atlin no longer be a single seat. The government of the day refused to accept that recommendation, declaring that the historic significance of Atlin was enough to recognize it as an individual seat. As an example, Atlin would be gone with representation by population.

[3:15]

If we were to retain 57 members, and we went by representation by population, clearly what would have to occur is that there would be less dual-member ridings in Vancouver and Victoria. If you had representation by population but retained only 57 members, you would have to do something to reduce the over-representation indicated by the statistics.

It's easy for members to criticize any legislation that upon analysis would indicate that the people of this province in the areas which are most populated might have an opportunity for equal representation. We spoke about the popular vote. They don't speak about the statistics that indicate the average number of votes required for a member to be elected in certain constituencies in this province because of single representation in populations equal to or greater than those now represented by two. They don't want to pay any attention to that. They're very happy the way it is now, because it provides their party with a certain opportunity to return members disproportionately to the populations in other centres throughout our province.

The minister's bill attempts to recognize fairness and a sense of equity with reference to population centres. The bill also provides for an opportunity of reflecting representation based on two models: the metropolitan area of Vancouver and the metropolitan area of Victoria. There was talk that if the Island population were to grow faster than Vancouver's population, they could be under-represented. The reason the Island representation is based on Victoria and Oak Bay–Gordon Head is because it is recognized that the population on the Island is proportionately less, and if you look at the statistics, they show that. The city of Vancouver population, I would suggest, is probably growing faster than the city of Victoria population. I would suggest that the lower mainland area is growing much faster than the Saanich Peninsula area of the Island.

The first member for Victoria also mentioned references to history and so on. With that in mind, having two bases recognizes some historic events. The Island and the mainland

[ Page 4331 ]

at one time had equal representation, and adjustments were made to try to retain some of the representation on the Island, rather than looking strictly at population statistics. So there is an opportunity for the Island ridings to benefit from the smaller constituencies, on the average, on Vancouver Island.

Very briefly, in the rest of the province, looking at the areas that members must serve in the interior and coastal ridings, the bill reflects that there should be some consideration given to citizens of those areas with respect to the geography, distances and the number of settlements contained in those constituencies. It is recognized, and that includes Atlin, which is provided with a 20 percent advantage over the population base to recognize the characteristics of that constituency. Others are recognized at 15 percent and others at 10 percent to take into account both population and geography and number of settlements within a constituency.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House don't expect the opposition to intelligently review, digest, understand or support such legislation.

MR. LAUK: Who is making that judgment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm making that judgment.

Mr. Speaker, there's an excellent reason why they shouldn't. Why break the mould of years of NDP, who suddenly appear to be offering intelligent comment on what the Provincial Secretary has produced? The members opposite are offering only a political review of the Constitution Act amendment. There is no argument put forth on behalf of the citizens in these constituencies with the large populations. The opposition has divided the province into Social Credit and NDP constituencies, regardless of the future outcomes of any elections. They have designed and designated certain areas to be red or blue, or black or white, or orange or black — whatever colours they might be. I don't accept that a constituency belongs to a political party. The constituency belongs to the citizens of that area, and they will decide who represents them in the House and which political party will triumph.

On behalf of those areas of the province, which for years have been underrepresented in this House because of the inability of former commissions and governments to recognize that we represent people in this assembly, I congratulate the Provincial Secretary for producing a formula which takes into account that under-representation. We will hear charges from the opposition. In fact, they could save a lot of time if they just referred to their debate when the Warren commission report was before the House, because nothing has changed. There are the same complaints. You take away the personality of a commissioner, so that you no longer have that attacking of Eckardt, Warren, Norris or whoever might have been the commissioner. You assign three public servants to do the job. You have no boundary changes, so you take away the gerrymandering charges. Yet they still attack it. There's only one thing left they're attacking: that is, representation and population. The only thing they're saying — they won't say it directly, but they're saying it indirectly — is that areas with large populations that are not NDP should not have equal representation. I haven't heard any member on that side suggest that Victoria, which has a population of 79,000, should not have two members. But I've heard them say that similar constituencies in the province with similar population shouldn't have two. There's something wrong with that line of thinking.

Mr. Speaker, it's pretty obvious what has happened with the opposition with respect to this bill. They've read it for a change: they understand it, and they recognize that the large population areas of our province, when this bill becomes law, will have the opportunity of something close to equal representation. I think they recognize that where the province is growing, those people generally support the Social Credit Party. They're a little bit nervous about it, and I don't blame them, In fact, seeing the latest national polls, I would be nervous too if I belonged to that party.

The bill goes a long way to recognizing some of the inequities of the past, and I think the Provincial Secretary should be congratulated for his far-sightedness with respect to this.

MRS. DAILLY: Before the last speaker goes out, I would like to congratulate him and say that I enjoyed his speech because I was able to follow it from page 9161 of September 14, 1982. He delivered it even better this time, and I pay him full compliments. It was done very nicely.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: He's learning. He's getting better every year.

It was an an interesting debate and defence which he put up. I in turn would like to reiterate briefly some of the reasons why we can't support it. Despite what the Minister of Health said, we too are concerned about equal representation and fairness for the citizens of British Columbia. We share that concern with the members of the Social Credit government.

We did say that we are pleased that they have seen fit to appoint this three-member commission, but the point of argument that the official opposition has with the bill is based on the fact that we feel this bill has hamstrung the commission you have created. They have been given a very limited frame of reference to deal with a major change which will affect the future politics and representation rights of the citizens of British Columbia. We feel that if the Social Credit government were really sincere in their approach to equity, they would not have based the commission's terms of reference on a report which was not well received by the public of British Columbia when it was presented to the House several years ago. I thought we had fought that debate, and I think the public had shown that they agreed with the official opposition, and did not feel that that bill was couched in fair and equitable terms. How could an opposition then stand up on behalf of the people they represent in British Columbia and agree to support, once again, what we considered was an inequitable approach to the whole matter of changes in future representation in this Legislature? That still stands, and here we are being asked to approve once more, in essence, what was brought forward by the Warren commission. That is one of the basic reasons why we cannot support this bill.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I also find it interesting that in his major comments on second reading the Provincial Secretary emphasized cost over and over again. I know that the government is in financial trouble, and that they are looking for ways — out of desperation they must — to save money. But we do not feel that the people of British Columbia would be too overly concerned with an approach that might cost somewhat more

[ Page 4332 ]

than we have laid before us here through this bill. I would like to suggest to the minister that, even though we have no quarrel with the basic commission makeup.... I personally would like to have seen something that has never happened before in this Legislature: the opportunity for an all-party committee. I think I've been bringing that up for many years now. If we had had such an all-party committee....

I know that the acting Speaker, who has just taken the place of our Speaker, would agree with me. He has served on many all-party committees. And I know that the Speaker — along with many other members, I'm sure — knows that there is considerable value to be had out of all-party committees, although I should not bring the Speaker into this debate.

[3:30]

However, I would like to say to the minister that an all-party committee could sit down and hopefully divorce itself from a lot of this partisanship and the adversarial position that has been taken — by both parties at times, I agree — on matters of great consequence. If the Social Credit government had been truly interested in seeing a bill come through on a major change such as this without acrimony and with cooperation, I think they would have been very wise to just once set up an all-party committee to look at this. If we could have sat down together, face to face, in a committee room, out of the heat of this chamber, I think we could have produced what would perhaps have been a more equitable bill, so that we would all have been part of this bill.

It is not just because we didn't have that opportunity that I'm here to condemn the bill. I still believe that to state, as this bill does, that there are going to be no boundary changes — as I understand it — is really a very inflexible approach to this change. I know that the Minister of Health stated many times over in his argument that the NDP wouldn't want to move on that because of certain ridings which we now hold politically. The NDP has never said that. We accept the fact that if you want true equity, you should be moving into some form of boundary changes. If we leave it with just the representation based on the population and no boundary changes, we will have entrenched areas and pockets in this province that are not providing equitable representation.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: The Provincial Secretary says I'm wrong; I hope he will reply to that in time.

I would like to make another point. The Minister of Health referred to our designated critic for the Provincial Secretary, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), as having stated that he was in favour of proportional representation. That is not a position of this caucus.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, that's what he said.

MRS. DAILLY: If he said it.... I asked him directly. I didn't hear him state it, and I just want to make it clear that that is not an official position. I have never personally — and I know the party has not — taken that as an official position.

I do think this matter of cost should be looked at more carefully by the minister. I think he should say to himself: "Look, am I producing a bill based entirely on my concern about cost, based entirely on getting the thing rammed through fast? If I'm doing this, am I doing justice to equitable representation?" The Minister of Health claims that the party he represents is interested in equitable representation. The NDP claims the same.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. Speaker to consult standing orders and ring for a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the second member for Vancouver Centre, counting from this position, I see a quorum in the House.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I kind of lost my train of thought there, but I'll try to pick up by simply saying that I've tried to make the point as clearly as I can to the minister that we are concerned that the minister has seen fit, through this bill, to limit the terms of reference, based on a former report which was not adopted by the NDP. As I have stated that before, I will not repeat it. I'm also very concerned that we are approaching these major bills which affect so many citizens without proper input from the opposition through an all-party committee.

With those brief words, I will now take my seat and hope that the minister will have time to reply later.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it may come as some surprise to members that I intend to support this bill put forward by the Provincial Secretary, which I read and which I frankly endorse. I like the idea that the bill removes the possibility of character assassination for the people involved in doing the calculating. I think that's very important. I also endorse the idea that we will not get into the constant hassle of where the boundaries will go; whether it's on this street or that street. That's settled and we can leave it, and I think that's very important. We can get down to the business of finding out where people are living and where the populations are moving, and that's in fact what this bill addresses. Whether or not we like it, the population chooses where they're going to live, not us; and if they choose to move from one riding to another, they still deserve the right to be represented. In this bill they will have that chance.

The member for Victoria commented that a grade 9 or a grade 5 student with a calculator could figure out when you would have increased representation in the House. Frankly, I don't consider that to be objectionable. In fact, I think the purpose of the legislation and of everything we bring forward is in fact to make it as easy as possible for everybody to understand what is going to happen when population changes take place. We should be prepared, whether we sit on this side of the House or that, to consider everything put forward. Whether I sit with the government or on the opposition, I can in fact support this bill; I believe it gives fair representation to everybody in the province, whether they come from the small riding of Atlin or the big riding of Richmond. So I have no problem with the bill. I think it will be fair. I think it will remove all the parts of other calculations in this respect which have caused acrimony and wild speeches, which have caused people to go off in all directions, making it difficult for those involved in the process to come out with a report without having their own names washed and stamped on on the way by.

Without saying much more, Mr. Speaker, I would say quite clearly that it is a bill I think I can vote for without any trouble. It's a bill I could support no matter what side of the

[ Page 4333 ]

House I sat on, and it's a bill that I'm sure the opposition will ultimately come to like.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to speak not officially on the part of the New Democratic Party — our critic has given the approach that we're taking to the proposed amendment to the constitution — but for myself for a moment, particularly about the city of Vancouver and its representation, for better or for worse over the years, and the number of MLAs that represent the constituencies in the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK, Yes, particularly from Point Grey and North Vancouver–Seymour. In doing so I want to point out that I do agree with the proposition that a lot is made of how many constituencies there are, and in what areas, and how they have traditionally voted and so on. I don't personally take too much objection to Richmond receiving another seat and Surrey receiving a third seat and so on, because it is my full expectation that after the next general election those seats in particular will be NDP, as well as a good number of other seats currently held by the Social Credit Party. From a strictly partisan point of view I'm not greatly exercised about increasing the representation for those areas, because they will definitely be NDP in the short term and then thereafter for the long term.

I am reminded of the debate, and the very vigorous debates we once had in this chamber.... Since the new people have arrived on the back benches of the Social Credit Party, those debates are no longer what they used to be. As my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) can remember, over the years there was a bit more colourful eloquence. Do you remember George? Well, George was here, and I think that one of the previous constitutional amendment debates should be referred to, in Hansard, to give us some perspective and have the chamber reflect on the philosophy behind these amendments. A certain member at that time — page 2,657 of Hansard, June 26, 1978 — said among other things: "Shut up, Graham."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, and thank God for the people of this province that he hasn't.

This hon. member said:

These allegations of gerrymandering are just nothing but utter nonsense. Anyone with an ounce of any common sense realizes that boundaries don't determine how people vote. The people themselves determine how they'll vote.

And about one year later that person was defeated.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Steves?

MR. LAUK: George Kerster. I accept what he said at that time. I wish to associate myself with his remark.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I remember George.

MR. LAUK: We all do, very fondly. I remember the day he fell over in his seat.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I remember the day he beat your leader.

MR. LAUK: After the member for Coquitlam, as he then was, fell out of his seat, the Minister of Public Works had him outfitted with a jolly jumper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you think we could get back to the principle of the bill, and possibly show deference to former members of the House.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that's very well put.

I would like to defend two propositions, and one is this: the city of Vancouver, no less than an area like Atlin or Columbia River or other historically constituted constituencies, has a historical significance.

HON. MR. CHABOT: And the historical right of representation.

MR. LAUK: And the important historical right of representation — I thank the hon. minister — is this, insofar as Atlin and Columbia River.... It's a community with geographical significance. no less the core of the province's major metropolis. That core needs strong representation not only in the individuals who represent those constituencies but in numbers as well. And to argue for a reduction even in relation to other ridings.... If you say let's have more seats in Richmond and Delta, I say let's have more seats in Vancouver. Now hear me out, and I'll try to explain why. If you read the history of the metropolises of New York, Chicago and other American cities, you'll see that when the seat of the state government moved in power over the years from the core of the city to the suburbs and to upstate New York, the core of the city suffered from lack of representation in Albany, the state's capital. It suffered very much from lack of representation. I think that we can't let that happen to the city of Vancouver. So far there has been no damage done to the core. The core has been protected, because it has been represented but also because other members of this chamber have had a sense of responsibility with respect to the city as a core of the major metropolis of the province. Historically, it's important that any commission and any government recognize that the core and centre of the city has to be fully and equally represented, even if it means that several members represent fewer people in that core because of population shifts in and around the greater Vancouver area. I think that those historical considerations must be part of the plan for any commission in deciding the number of seats.

[3:45]

Secondly, I want to point out that I completely agree with my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) when she suggests that there be an all-party committee to deal with these matters. I know that some of my colleagues have argued for an independent commission, and so on, I believe in politicians, not just in political parties. I believe in the political process, and I'm sick and tired of those of our colleagues on either side of the House who are constantly apologizing for the profession we have chosen for either the long or short term. I think we should stop apologizing for who we are. We are people who have, in many cases, worked very hard to represent our constituencies, and I think that we deserve to respect ourselves and have others respect us for that effort. I also think that we bring to our jobs and to our tasks as representatives in this chamber an understanding of the kind of people, communities and groups we represent that cannot be translated into the expertise of a so-called independent

[ Page 4334 ]

commission. With the greatest conceivable respect to appointed judges, before whom I have practised these 16 or 17 years, I have not always been greatly impressed with their knowledge of human life and their expansive and broad view of human behaviour at all community levels. I have, on the other hand, been impressed with the degree of that understanding on the part of politicians from whatever party. I have concluded, therefore, that those individuals who have been elected and gone through that crucible to get to this chamber have in their backgrounds and understanding a certain wisdom and perception that is not always available to people in other walks of life. It is for that reason that I argue that the suggestion by the hon. member for Burnaby North should not be dismissed out of hand, and should be seriously considered by all of us.

There are a few occasions — they should be kept to a minimum — when an all-party committee is the vehicle through which change should be made. One of them must be any constitutional amendment. Why should our constitution at the provincial level be second-class? It's not. It's a constitution that deserves the kind of consideration that all parties can give to it. The federal constitution had federal-provincial consultation and all-party consultation; whether adequate or inadequate we can argue down the pages of history. A constitutional amendment should and must have an all-party review, at which the views of the politicians can be brought to bear on such an important subject as representation — by population, by geography, by historical context, whatever. We are the people, for heaven's sake, who know these things as well or better than anyone else in the community. We do not have to defer and apologize. We do not have to call upon some sort of mysterious expertise from an independent commission to achieve these goals.

If on the one hand this so-called independent commission appointed by the government becomes simply the puppet of the government, a sham and a fiction, we should avoid it. If on the other hand we appoint a commission that is truly independent, it'll take away what is rightly the decision of this chamber and its members, and in a proportion — in terms of partisan representation — of the party representation in this House.

The other area where I think all-party committees should be established — probably even permanent all-party committees — has arisen recently, and should be of serious consideration while we're dealing with constitutional amendment; that's a members' services committee. We're one of the few jurisdictions that does not have a members' services committee. The backroom nonsense and quiet negotiation about members, and the constant genuflecting and apologizing for who we are and the job we do, has got to stop. An all-party members' services committee would help a great deal to solve that problem. In times of economic crisis of a serious nature, such as the one we've experienced for the past three years, an all-party committee to review the economy itself should be permanently in place out of this chamber. Those three areas are the only three areas I can see, other than maybe occasionally a major tax reform, like assessments and so on. Those three should be permanent committees in these days: certainly a constitutional amendment committee always property constituted, travelling and listening; and the member services committee; and in times of economic crisis an economic committee.

These amendments are too important to be left to the judges and the lawyers. They don't understand the same things that we've been able to understand over the years. It's not difficult. It's not something you're born with; it's something that grows with you as you represent a constituency over the years. You acquire these skills and these wisdoms. You don't acquire these skills and wisdoms in a courtroom or in another job. For heaven's sake, some people in this chamber have been here for a good many years. Why do we waste that kind of talent, sitting around listening to each other's same old speeches? Why don't we use that kind of talent to do something for this province?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to oppose this bill on a couple of grounds. I think that mere representation by population is giving the wrong message to whatever commission is appointed. Although it's an improvement over past efforts of this government, it is not much of one. Secondly, I argue on behalf of the members of this chamber that they should have a role in the preparation of constitutional amendments before they're introduced for second reading. That role should be by an all-party committee. I would urge the minister to consider that, perhaps even lifting this bill before second reading is completed and referring it to an all-party committee of the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have just a few words in closing the debate. I think that some of the members opposite forget the full intent of this bill. The intent of the bill is to recognize the growth in population that has taken place in selected constituencies of British Columbia.

We heard from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who smears by innuendo two respectable British Columbians: Derril Warren, who has made a contribution to British Columbia, and a former judge by the name of Mr. Eckardt. Here in this chamber he constantly continues to heap scorn and abuse on these individuals, which I think is very disrespectful to people who have made their contribution here in British Columbia. I think that young member should hide his head in shame for those kinds of allegations of impropriety against two respectable British Columbians.

I'm not going to rehash everything that has been said. But I do want to repeat that the legislation and the formula included in the schedule give special recognition to Vancouver Island because of its unique position in our history. The one thing I want to repeat is my dissociation from the statement made by the first member for Victoria, in which he advocates representation by population. You can have representation by population when you have a unique little situation, but when you're talking about an area as large as British Columbia, and in the words that I spoke to the member for Vancouver Centre, areas that have a historical right to representation, such as Columbia River, Atlin and Skeena as well.... I think most members opposite would strongly support me in that statement. I don't think that representation by population will work in British Columbia. I have to say that those kinds of statements would have to emanate from a young, junior, naive, urbane MLA. It comes from him. I want the people to know that the member for Victoria is against rural seats throughout this province. If he had his wish, ridings such as Columbia River would be done away with. I'll let the people in Columbia River know of the attitude of those NDPers, who want rep by population. They want to do away with Columbia River, as they attempted to do

[ Page 4335 ]

in the redistribution when they were government. They are attempting to advocate that same kind of policy of confusion and hate against ridings that have historically returned members of an opposite party to this Legislature.

I want to say that there is some confusion over there. I think the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who says there is no provision for boundary changes should read the legislation and see that there are provisions. They failed to take into consideration that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the ability — or this particular assembly — to refer certain matters to this commission for examination and reporting back, either to this assembly or to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. They don't want to talk about those good, wholesome aspects of the legislation. No, they want to ignore them; that's typical of that little socialist bunch over there.

1 listened to the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who argued for special treatment for the city of Vancouver at the expense of the other voters throughout British Columbia. I listened to that little member, Mr. Speaker, and I think this formula....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Personal references are unparliamentary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, that big member, then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's avoid personal references, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm glad to see the kind of support that we have from the opposition on the question of this legislation, which does recognize the growth that has taken place in certain regions of British Columbia. Under those circumstances, I move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on this motion....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that a debatable motion?

MR. LAUK: Yes, it's a debatable motion. May I be recognized for the moment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order only. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that motion is debatable in the aspect of its referability to the Committee of the Whole, and not in any other way, and that is the point which I wish to debate.

In my view it is unfortunate that the Provincial Secretary was not listening to the major part of my suggestion that this matter be referred to an all-party committee of the House before it is reviewed any further in the chamber, either by Committee as a Whole or by third reading. It seems to me that we have a tremendous opportunity here to demonstrate to the public of British Columbia that the members of this chamber can work together to achieve, in and around the province, unanimity and a certain degree of consensus, with respect to representation, so they can have confidence in the very democratic system. It seems to me that what we need to do, rather than having a motion of referral to the Committee of the Whole, would be to have the minister accept an amendment by one of the members of this side of the House to refer this matter to an all-party committee with power to travel in and around the province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this debate that the second member for Vancouver Centre is putting forward at this time might be completely out of order, so I was wondering if he would hold off his debate until such time as you find out whether he has the right to make this point or not. I could debate the wisdom of referring it to the Committee of the Whole, because then it gives each and every member the opportunity of debating it section by section, as we look at it in Committee of the Whole. So, as I have the floor, I might as well....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I rule now that the motion for committal is not debatable. If the member wishes to entertain an amendment, that would be debatable during the committee stage.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 1 or 2, I am asking the Speaker to refer me to the authority, so that I can review...

[4:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing order 9.

MR. LAUK: ...standing order 9, so I can....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Check Beauchesne. He may tell you.

MR. LAUK: Is he French? Is that like Chabot?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the first place, standing order 42 says that no member may speak twice to a question.

MR. LAUK: No, I'm referring to standing order 9. I want you to ignore standing order 42 for the moment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The standing order prohibiting any further debate on this motion, as outlined, is standing order 45(1) and (2). The motion is referral to a committee.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Second reading of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Attorney-General will be here momentarily.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader has introduced the bill for debate, and I would like to debate it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion would have to be made by the minister piloting the bill before it becomes debatable.

MR. LAUK: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There can be no point of order.

[ Page 4336 ]

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. SMITH: I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to speak on a bill that was before the chamber earlier. I was so much enjoying on the box the speeches of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

I have the honour to move second reading of this bill. For many years there has been a desire to have reform of builders lien legislation. We've had recommendations for some time from the Law Reform Commission and from other groups of the bar requesting an overhaul of this piece of legislation. What we have done here is to bring forward some rather specific changes to deal with the Builders Lien Act in a limited way. The purpose of Bill 9 is to reintroduce the legislation that we tabled in the last session, flowing from the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, and to respond to the construction industry. The amendments which we're introducing will increase much-needed cash flow in the construction industry and also, in reducing the holdback, should stimulate and assist the construction industry.

In addition, the measures will greatly improve the climate for investment. We have been following recommendations here that were made to us by the Amalgamated Construction Association of B.C. and the B.C. Construction Association. The reduction of the holdback, I think, will be generally approved by the industrial sector. It should also be approved of by the labour sector. The information provided by the Construction Association suggests that about $2 billion worth of work in a normal year is possible from that industry. On this basis it's estimated that a one-third reduction in the holdback could release as much as $200 million or $300 million into the economy in advance of the final completion of construction projects.

The bill also includes amendments that eliminate some of the minor frustrations encountered by persons who use the Builders Lien Act. These include the elimination of duplicate filing of lien claims in court registries and land title offices, the use of personal service of notices as an alternative to service by registered mail, and amendments to clarify when a lis pendens needs to be filed and when the registrar can cancel the lis pendens.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we believe that we have incorporated into the Builders Lien Act the attributes of streamlining, effectiveness and fairness, and that we have addressed one of the major problems that the old act gave rise to and assisted the construction industry in doing so. I have great honour in introducing the bill for second reading.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, everyone — the labour council, the building trades contractors — agrees that the act needed to be changed, upgraded and completely overhauled, so I don't think there is any problem with that. Unfortunately, it's not as good as it could have been. I just want to talk about some of the ways in which the act can be improved in case the Attorney-General has an open mind on this subject and may be willing to entertain some amendments.

Our first concern with the act is that it reduces the percentage of the holdback. What that means is that under the original act it was possible to hold back 15 percent of the money owing to a contractor until one was completely sure that the job was satisfactorily terminated and all of the subcontractors and everyone else had been paid. This act lowers that amount to 10 percent. We believe the holdback is the only kind of safety net or security that many small subcontractors and employees have against non-payment from general contractors. To the extent that less money is now going to be held back, their protection is reduced as a direct result of this bill. I think this is very unfortunate — certainly we do — coming as it does at a time when more and more of the operators and contractors are non-union, when they are perhaps a little bit less stable and less dependable. If ever there was a time when subcontractors and employees needed the protection of the holdback section, we think it is now. We would be prepared to support the minister if he were willing to amend the bill further to return to that 15 percent figure, because we think it's really important. I notice that the Attorney-General is looking up, Mr. Speaker; so I hope that means he is willing to take this into account.

The problem, again, are the inequities created in the system when we find that lower holdback there, which would not, in many instances, cover in full any bills run up by the general contractor, either in terms of employee wages or bills to his subcontractors. The fact that we have in this province, unlike other provinces, a single holdback system means that we need better safeguards and protection, because if the one system doesn't work, if that breaks down, it means that your subcontractors and employees are completely vulnerable; their safety net is gone, and they have no recourse anywhere in terms of either lost wages or lost payment for their goods and services. So I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the bill is not satisfactory in this area of reducing the holdback from 15 percent to 10 percent.

The other suggestion which was made was that the holdback should be held in trust. Apparently this was not accepted. I understand it was opposed by the banks. In closing the debate, maybe the minister can explain to us why there was not an insistence in this bill that the money held back be placed in trust where it could accrue interest, if nothing else.

Another concern we have is that when a lien is placed against a building, the owner of that property is not notified. There is no compulsion, either through legislation or any other means, to notify the owner that a lien is about to be placed against that building, and whether this is a satisfactory action.

There was a letter or some correspondence between the Attorney-General and Nicole Parton of the Sun dealing with this particular issue. At that time the Attorney-General responded that he was looking into this; he was anticipating a report with some recommendations from the director, and he and his cabinet colleagues would give full consideration to that report. The report suggested that a filing fee should be charged for liens; secondly, that liens should be held in a pending file until property owners are notified to see whether there was a good cause; and thirdly, that a copy of the lien should immediately be made to the property owners. These are three very good recommendations. However, all of them failed to show up in this particular piece of legislation. They are not on the order paper, but I'm certainly hoping that tucked away in his waistcoat somewhere the Attorney-General has some further amendments to this bill which would in a positive way deal with these recommendations.

The coverage of rental suppliers which was requested has still not been included in the legislation. To that effect, I have placed an amendment on the order paper, which I certainly hope the government will be willing to accept.

[ Page 4337 ]

[4:15]

1 notice that one of your colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), also has an excellent amendment, and I'm hoping that that, too, will be accepted by the Attorney-General. I think these two things would greatly enhance the bill and certainly would make it work better for the people it's supposed to protect.

As it presently stands, it has earned the title of the Kerkhoff amendment, because it doesn't really do anything for workers, for small contractors or for building suppliers. It really only allows non-union contractors to build into their contracts less protection for the people who work for them or who do contracting jobs for them.

So I'm hoping that when the Attorney-General rises to close this debate on second reading he will tell us that there are further amendments and that the amendments will incorporate the ones on the order paper submitted by me and by the member for Dewdney, as well as the amendments which would have been incorporated in the recommendations dealing with the notification of liens, the mailing of notification to property owners and the filing of a fee prior to a lien being placed against a building.

HON. MR. SMITH: The proposal of putting the holdback back to 15 percent is not acceptable. The purpose of the bill is to try to free up funds that are now being held for a considerable period of time, funds upon which interest is being paid and which are having the result of increasing the cost of these jobs and also of increasing the price that people who purchase space or rental accommodation are paying. All of these things are affected by tying up major amounts of money.

According to the representations that we have had, in answer to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and the studying my staff has done of this over quite a period of time, you are not going to alter the position of the tradesmen the member is speaking of under this bill. If the protection is not adequate now — if that's what she believes — that situation isn't going to be altered by a reduction from 15 percent to 10 percent. The small tradesman, regrettably, is not going to be protected by hanging on to a 15 percent figure.

We also looked at proposals either to put the funds in trust or to have a bonding alternative. We found that both those other alternatives for dealing with this were fraught with additional problems, and particularly fraught with problems under the scheme of the old act.

I don't pretend that what we've done here is any more than some streamlining to make it a little more efficient and to free up the funds by reducing the holdback. We haven't purported to address the whole scheme of builders' liens. There are some who will argue in the marketplace — and these are not bad employers, either — that the very presence of lien provisions is a dubious protection, certainly under the scheme of this old act. So I can't say that I'm satisfied with the Builders Lien Act; I'm not. I do feel, though, that it was important that we take some steps and do something with it. I am most receptive to some further long-term overhaul of this legislation.

The member talks about the problem of non-notification for filing of a lien. The theory, of course, is that the filing of the lien in the registry is publication and notice to all. That's the legal theory of it. The reality of it is that whenever someone files anything against your property, whether a judgment or maybe a filing under the Wife's Protection Act or lis pendens or anything, you are not aware of that unless you do a search. You don't receive notification of that. To build in a full notification system in the land registry system would be a considerable step forward in documentation. I guess it would always be an incomplete system, because you would have persons who had moved, with new addresses. The theory of the registry has always been that the notice to the person is the endorsement on the title, and that is revealed by a search. I'm trying to think of occasions where notice is given. I know one occasion is that if you're going to cancel some kind of charge that a person is the holder of, notification is usually given to the charge-holder that his charge is sought to be cancelled. But owners don't get the notification that the member has been speaking of. It would be a major step forward in administration and cost to provide that. I know your point. I hear your point. Notification is supposed to be filing; you just have an inkling that it's there unless you go and search. More appropriately, you certainly know it's there when you try to dispose of your property or try to raise some more financing on it, take out a second mortgage or do any secondary financing. You can't raise any of it until you've dealt with the lien, then you've got to come into a court and pay the whole of the disputed amount — those are usually the terms — in order to get that charge or lien released. If the member can give me some long-term assistance on how we should deal with builders' liens in the long term.... I tell you that my head is perfectly open on this. I don't pretend that we've done anything but made a start here. It's a good first step, but more needs to be done. I think we need to look at an overhaul of the whole system.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 9, Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier today the government House Leader asked leave and received leave to proceed to public bills and orders, which is where we are at the moment. I want to submit to you that, having done that, we need to follow standing order 25 and follow the orders of the day for today, which says that the next item to be called after public bills and orders is private bills, of which there are none listed on the order paper; the next item following that is public bills in the hands of private members, of which there are some. I submit that that's the way we should proceed, in the orderly fashion. Once having proceeded this far into the order paper, we need to take the next step and deal with private bills; there being none, we then proceed to public bills in the hands of private members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's an interesting argument, and I've heard it before, hon. member, but Committee of Supply always has precedence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Committee of Supply takes precedence.

[ Page 4338 ]

MR. HOWARD: That's an interesting proposition put forward. I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the motion passed with respect to Committee of Supply said that it shall take precedence over all other business, except the introduction of bills and question period, until disposed of. It has been earlier disposed of for the day by the government House Leader, who asked leave to override it and proceed to something else. The House gave him that leave — gave unanimous consent to put Committee of Supply to one side, notwithstanding the motion that we passed to that effect. Public bills in the hands of private members is the next order of business.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: "Until disposed of, " hon. members, means until the business of Committee of Supply is completed. The motion does have precedence, and we call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $199,325.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I realize that a considerable amount of debate took place on the the estimates of the Minister of Health when unfortunately I was not able to be here. I hope that I will not be repeating to the minister any questions that were asked before. But I did take the opportunity to read some of his comments in Hansard, in reply to our other members, so I hope I won't be repeating any of those that were answered to our satisfaction.

There are a number of points I'd like to start off with, following some of the comments made by the minister. The first one I'd like to perhaps have an answer on is that the minister agrees, as we all do on this side, that the enormity of the health bill is there facing all of us, and we in the opposition would like to cooperate and offer some constructive opinions to the minister on the matter of containing health costs. At the same time we are very concerned that the moneys which are being spent in this province on other projects could be diverted into health. That does not mean, however, that we don't have a responsibility to also suggest where we consider certain efficiencies could be made. The minister stated that he did agree that efficiencies could be made. He mentioned — very quickly, from what I can gather there — that he has made changes in the management of hospitals, or arranged for them. He said he was pleased with things like that. But it didn't seem to me that there was any overall explanation of his ministry's approach on these efficiencies.

My first question to the minister is to ask him about what he is doing to create more extended-care facilities for our citizens and thereby cut back on the use of acute-care beds for citizens who would be far better served in, and would like to be in, extended care. I ask that question of the minister because it seems to me that the Social Credit government, which professes to be so concerned about restraint in all matters, always seems to approve a number of capital expenditures for hospitals prior to an election. We're all very pleased to see more and more hospital beds being created, particularly when there is a concern today about long waiting-lists to get in. But some of these new capital expenditures have produced beds which are not even open yet because not enough operating money has been provided to the local hospital boards. I consider this a sort of reverse sense of priorities. It seems to me that it would be far better for the minister to concentrate on extended care. I'd like to know, first of all, just what his plans are for the movement into more extended-care and fewer acute-care beds at this time in the province of British Columbia. Also, can he explain to us why some of the capital expenditures which he has approved, and which have now created new hospital beds, don't have the operating costs following along to make them active? Those are two basic questions.

[4:30]

I would also like to comment on an answer he gave during the last period of the Health estimates. He stated that he was very pleased with some cooperation with medical practitioners to contain costs. Yet that was just a blanket statement, Mr. Chairman. He gave no examples of the discussions with the medical practitioners and what has come out of them to work together to contain costs. I wonder if he could give us some examples.

I would also like to ask him another question on the matter of billing numbers. I realize that there was an amendment accepted for the Canada Health Act regarding the right of the province to restrain the issuance of billing numbers, pointing out that this right should not be given to the provinces. I think the challenge has been given to the provinces, particularly British Columbia, to find less authoritarian methods of trying to deal with the inequity of distribution of doctors. I wonder if the minister could tell us what he's planning to do about that. Is it true that he has already moved fairly severe regulations in the area of billing numbers through his ministry?

I have a considerable number of questions to ask, but I don't think that at this time I should throw too much out at once. Perhaps the minister would answer a few of those.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The emphasis on beds over the past number of years has been to the non-acute area, be they extended-care beds or intermediate-care beds. I don't have the precise number of beds which have been opened over the last couple of years, but it would be in the thousands with respect to intermediate care. That has been by far the greatest growth area in institutions or hospital beds. We are attempting to reduce the percentage of beds available for citizens in the acute-care level on a per capita basis and include and expand our extended or intermediate care. I think the member would appreciate that frequently the patients who are in an extended-care facility or in an intermediate may be very similar in their condition and their health. The extended care is part of the hospital program, and extended care at one time had a cost-sharing basis with the federal government. Governments frequently chose to build extended-care facilities rather than intermediate-care facilities because of the cost-sharing formula. You wound up with facilities which could possibly have been built elsewhere at lower cost and lower maintenance level than we have now.

As the member would know, we are also attempting to persuade and encourage certain hospitals to reduce their number of acute-care beds by changing over to extended-care facilities — the same beds but for extended care. That has been accepted by a number of hospitals. I will find the numbers, if they're important, with respect to how many have actually been constructed over the past few years. A

[ Page 4339 ]

considerable number have. I know that I've opened at least eight, possibly ten, intermediate-care facilities over that period of time, which has seen the number of beds grow considerably. It is important to recognize that intermediate- or extended-care beds do not necessarily relate to lowering the use of acute care, because when you open extended- or intermediate-care beds you are frequently dealing with a different clientele. People who require the acute-care facilities still require them. There is no question that there are some people occupying acute-care beds who could be served in lesser categories, such as extended or intermediate. It's a problem we're faced with across the country, and we are attempting to come to grips with it.

The member asked about efficiencies. We have undertaken over the past couple of years — particularly last year — a program to invite hospitals and other institutions in the province to come forward with their thoughts with respect to amalgamations or consolidations. It is not just the administrative costs we're looking at, because frequently the savings at the administrative level are not necessarily that high. What we are looking at is a cooperative spirit between different facilities to utilize that which is available in a certain region in a much more efficient manner.

The Vancouver area is the one that comes to mind most readily. We have had discussions with hospitals in greater Vancouver, and others, with respect to utilizing the facilities which are available. The questions become very obvious. Should all of the hospitals be offering the same service to the general population? Should some be specializing in certain areas while others abandon that particular field? We've seen that occurring where a hospital will specialize in a certain surgical procedure or specialty, therefore amalgamating the staff — the expertise — rather than having it spread too thin among too many institutions.

We are also asking the Vancouver area hospitals to look very closely to their emergency ward systems: whether it is necessary to have emergency wards in almost every facility, or if it is better to concentrate your emergency wards in fewer facilities with more staff, equipment and expertise. That is one area where we believe there is considerable saving to be had if we can lessen the duplication and competition between hospitals. We feel there is no need for hospitals to compete with each other, unless it is in the search for excellence; there is no need to duplicate some of the available procedures.

Mr. Chairman, the extended- and intermediate-care question is very well known and canvassed, and I think we're in complete agreement that it is best to satisfy the needs of the patient at the level of care which is required, rather than which is available, and we are working toward that. We have had some interesting discussions with the B.C. Health Association and individual hospitals about proper levels of numbers of beds and so on. I don't know the precise dates, but as an example, in the week of March 7 we had 1,115 vacant acute-care beds which technically are open, a good number. It indicates that even with as much attempt at management as you have, you are still going to have a vacancy rate because the hospital bed may be available but the patient is not in the locale and does not require that specific treatment at that time, whereas in other parts of the province there's a shortage. We are trying to work that out, and we think we can do that through hospitals' cooperating much more.

The member spoke about BCMA, and I mentioned earlier that they have been cooperating, to some degree. My remarks probably meant in comparison with previous times.

The cooperation with the BCMA today has improved considerably, compared with a couple of years back when there was a very bitter battle raging. The BCMA has come a long way in working with the ministry in trying to resolve some of the problems. The member asked for some examples. It is not difficult to speak to an individual physician — in fact, most of them are quite approachable and agreeable — but as an organization and group there are sometimes minor difficulties. Usually it comes down to the discussion of compensation; frequently it comes down to talking about money and costs. Through the patterns of practice committee and some of the other committees, the BCMA have agreed with government on certain procedures, including examining the billing practices of some of their members and some of the fee schedules, and that is a continuing process. I am sure the member would be interested to learn that one of the fee schedules, as an example, was reviewed. We felt it was too high, we compared it with what is paid in other provinces, and the BCMA agreed that it should be adjusted down. That in itself does not represent a huge amount of money, but it certainly represents the procedure we would like to see.

Certain fees paid to medical practitioners now were designed at a time when the labour element was much greater than it is today because of advances in technology, and we are asking them to take that into consideration, particularly in laboratory procedures. Where at one time you might have had a biologist working on a test in a time-consuming manner, today it is done through a machine and duplicated many times over, and yet the fee schedule still suggests the manual labour aspect. We are also asking the medical practitioners to examine the fee schedules which are paid to them as specialists when much of the work is done by a technician. We ask if it is justifiable to pay the full professional and specialty fee when much of the work is done by a person who is not a professional, from the medical point of view. We are simply asking that now; we haven't insisted. They argue that indeed it is justifiable, but we question that very seriously.

I don't have a copy of the Canada Health Act before me at the moment. I may have one somewhere; I know I was very familiar with it last week. It was suggested that the Canada Health Act was amended, and it was suggested that the amendment would make it impossible for provinces to limit billing numbers. Our analysis of that amendment suggests that a province still can have the capacity to limit billing numbers, even though, I understand, the MP who put the amendment forward intended to block that. I don't think they've done it, and I think the law would permit us to maintain some system of controlling billing numbers.

I mentioned earlier that we have some agreement with the medical profession about limiting billing numbers. I think philosophically they are opposed to government interfering with anyone's ability to practise medicine wherever he wishes. I think we agree with them that they should be able to practise medicine wherever they wish, provided they qualify. Where we don't agree is that they should be able to bill the Medical Services Plan in the area of their choice. We argue that we are simply overdoctored in certain areas of the province, and that means excessive amounts of money being spent for what should be adequate service to the community. But I think we can still come to an agreement. We do have local manpower committees and a provincial manpower committee, and they do review applications for billing numbers. We must bring about some control over the numbers of doctors located in certain areas of the province.

[ Page 4340 ]

[4:45]

The member would be interested to know that other provinces are examining exactly the same question. In their major metropolitan areas they have the same concern, and they are looking at limiting the number of physicians who would be able to have a billing number in the plan while practising in certain locations.

The great frustration, I suppose, with respect to spending and costs in the health system is the open-endedness of the programs. I give great credit to the hospital administrators and the boards, who over the past couple of years have made great strides in containing costs. We are hoping we can do the same on the medical practitioners' side. I regret to advise the committee that the proposals we have put forward to the professional organizations have not been totally embraced. There has been some reluctance. But we have had good cooperation. We're no longer at war; at least we can sit down and discuss matters when permission is granted.

I hope I've covered most of those areas, and I'll try to get those precise numbers of beds which the member wishes.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for the detailed response. I have a few more questions to follow up on this.

The matter of the limiting of billing numbers: he mentioned, as he had before, I believe, the manpower committee. My question is, who makes up that committee? How is it appointed, and who makes that decision? I can see if I were a young intern planning to practise I'd be somewhat concerned if one of the senior doctors is going to be completely in charge; not that the senior doctor is going to be malicious or mean about it, but I do think there has to be a feeling of fairness if you're even going to embark on this. That doesn't say that I endorse the idea, actually. I think there should be other incentives that could be used. But I would appreciate hearing who makes up the billing committee.

I noted that when the minister was speaking in the estimates before he made a very interesting statement. I'd like to read it back to him, to get further comments. He said that the reduction in the number of acute-care beds and the number of services provided had not fallen off in the next year. That seemed to me a most interesting statement. The minister has said that even after you have a reduction in acute-care beds in a hospital, the services that go along and are provided haven't fallen off. The services, in other words, stay the same. I was wondering if the minister would not consider that a most interesting thing for his ministry to follow up on. I wonder if they are intending to do so. I would hope that if that is a fact, which the minister has stated, his ministry would be interested in finding out the reason for that.

The area I want to continue on and deal with is the matter of cost efficiencies. I would like the minister to comment on why it appears that under his ministry — not only under his ministry, but all that Social Credit ministers have held — we have not seen any concerted effort to try to encourage and move on the group health clinics. I know you've talked about it before in the House, but when we're talking about the need for efficiencies I always find it interesting that you seem to jump over that aspect, which in our opinion is a very credible way to deliver health services. The minister is well aware that the doctors in these areas — most of them; not all of them — have been on salary. The whole idea of cooperation in services and giving the nurse the opportunity to work in a more highly skilled manner.... All of these things, from what I've seen, appear to not only benefit the patient but also, perhaps, help costs. I think it's been proven that the group health clinics can produce equivalent services for less, if you compare them with the equivalent services given by a straight medical doctor's office or even a clinic owned by doctors. I am not suggesting that the whole province at this time be moved into group health clinics. That may come some day in the future. Who knows? But I do think that the minister is responsible for encouraging these alternative forms of delivering health care, not only from the point of view that the doctors are on salary but also for the opportunity it gives to nurses to get into some of the primary treatment. My question to the minister on this, along with the manpower committee makeup, is: how do you feel about group health clinics as a way to help look at alternative forms of delivering health services and to perhaps save — in fact, I'm sure they would costs — in our medical system?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the Medical Manpower Committee is made up of representatives from the Ministry of Health — the executive director of the Medical Plan chairs the committee — the B.C. Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the faculty of medicine and the B.C. Health Association. There are local manpower committees which are based at the hospitals. They have been in place for a long time. Primarily they are the same people who grant privileges to physicians at hospitals.

The member spoke about billing numbers and incentives. We do have incentives. We have tried to develop methods whereby we can offer incentives for people to practise in under-doctored areas. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer. We have asked every province and the territories how they go about doing it, and I think that without exception they've said: "We're having exactly the same problem you're having." There are methods: you can offer a salary; you can offer a guarantee; you can offer a bonus; you can offer a number of things, and they do work to some degree for a period of time.

One of the great problems in the under-doctored areas is the lack of peer representation with the doctors themselves. Many doctors advised us that they feel that if they are the only physician in a small community, their own capability begins to suffer without the accommodation of other physicians about them. They feel they are no longer learning; rather, they are diminishing in their capability because they simply don't have that input from others. There is even more of a problem with specialists in remote areas, because they do require the backup of so many other specialists. It's a major problem. Sometimes the only alternative is to bring the people to the physicians rather than expect to have a physician take up residence in certain areas. It's a problem right across the country.

MR. LAUK: What about travelling clinics?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Travelling clinics have been tried; there are some now. There are also travelling doctors who take on a large territory and travel from point to point to point, but they are doing that primarily on their own through the family practice association.

The member asked about the number of services performed. One of the reasons why the numbers still maintain their previous level is that many of the hospitals offered alternative treatment rather than in-bed treatment, such as day surgery and other methods of providing tests for patients.

[ Page 4341 ]

Rather than having patients actually stay in the hospital, they were able to come in as day patients and have the tests. Day surgery has grown considerably. Many of the hospitals now have wards which are strictly day-surgery wards. So they are not occupying acute-care beds, and they are not staying in hospital as long as they once may have. There's also been a general tightening up in the length of stay for acute-care patients throughout the province.

Group health clinics. I don't really think there's anything that prohibits a group health clinic, other than certain licensing considerations, I would suppose. I'm not convinced that it would lower the cost. If a physician is on salary, one can argue, I suppose, that that in itself would lower the cost. But then you have to question how many hours physicians would be putting in. Would they work the average of what a doctor works now? Or would they work a strictly limited number of hours in a week? The availability of other specialists within a clinic can be much more efficient for the health of the patient, because they could be examined by different specialists within the same building. There's nothing to prevent that today. Specialists can do that if they wish.

I'm not convinced that the group health clinics would save us that much. It may appear to save money, but I'm not quite sure if in actuality it would. We've had very few requests from medical practitioners to put together such an organization, probably for very good reason.

I think that covers most of those areas.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my question has to do with the presence of psychiatrists in the school system. I'm sure the minister recognizes that his ministry is the only one left still funding support services into our education system. Human Resources is no longer funding social workers to be in the schools. No one is picking up the tab for psychologists. The only people left in the system are the psychiatrists. I know that the minister also knows that often the first indication that we have that a child is having any kind of problem shows up in school. The teacher is often the first person to spot something, either depression or the child's grades starting to decline. It's a place where, for example, we get our earliest signals of incest victims or even the question of physical or psychological abuse that the child may be experiencing. I know from my own experience working as a social worker for the Children's Aid Society that most of the referrals that came to us came through the school system. As a result of that, a decision was made to place social workers in the schools; they are no longer there. There used to be a team approach, but with the decision of Human Resources to discontinue the funding for the social workers and psychologists, the team approach has died down.

I am wondering whether the minister, as the only person left who is really funding any of these services in the school system, has been looking at the fact that there just aren't enough psychiatrists in the Vancouver area, for example, working out of the system to deal with the number of problems that arise. I'm raising this issue because it was brought to my attention by one such person talking about his particular caseload, and the fact that he was serving a number of different schools. He said that it really isn't as satisfactory from the point of view of identifying very quickly and at a very early stage the way it used to be when there were teams in the school system. We used to have the public health nurse, who was often the first person.... The public health nurse would refer it to the social worker and the counsellor, and together as a team they would try to work with the family of the children involved. That's all gone now. That's broken down. We need a better system. We need a more efficient way of identifying these problems when they surface in the schools. I'm wondering whether the minister is thinking of any alternative to fill the gap left as a result of the social workers and the psychologists being pulled out of the system.

[5:00]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't give the member an answer today; I'm sorry. We're really looking at the involvement of three ministries: the Ministries of Education, Human Resources and Health. The problem we have across the province, with respect to, for want of a better term, public health in certain areas is that we have a fragmented system across the province. As an example, some school districts have taken on certain responsibilities over the years; some municipalities and some regional districts have. The Ministry of Health has taken on certain responsibilities in certain parts of the province. The formulas differ very much from region to region. Other ministries at some point in time became involved in certain areas. They either withdrew or modified the program. There was nothing automatic that would balance it. As an example, if a school district withdraws certain services, there's nothing automatic where the vacuum is filled. Even then, it would have to be examined district by district, because the base situations differ so greatly — that which is offered. Some municipalities had previously opted into a program which was offered to them by the province for certain public health measures. Others did not. Some sought school board sponsored programs for public health nurses and other things. Later the school boards dropped those positions, as they did in my municipality of Richmond, and it then became a burden on the municipality, which felt that it should have been the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, which had not previously had that responsibility. It became a problem. That one was resolved on a specific basis, the municipality assumed the employer's role and we worked out some kind of a formula.

I can't give the member an answer that would respond to all the variations across the province. I agree with the member's suggestion that the school is usually where the first signs can be picked up. Also, of course, the school-age child is more likely to be going through that process, and it should be picked up. I simply do not have the answer with me at the moment. I would have to ask our public health people to provide me with information across the province, specifically in the Vancouver area, if that's where the inquiry is coming from. I'm sure they have good information on that. I'm sorry I don't have it with me at the moment. It's a serious problem in that there are a lot of actors on the stage, a lot of people involved in the delivery of services. We find, just as a general thing, that because we are the Ministry of Health, whenever an agency which has been providing some health service decides to vacate the field, the demand is that the Ministry of Health assume that service because it is health. We have over the years attempted to produce a system to meet certain needs, while assuming that others will continue. It comes as a bit of a let-down and a shock when suddenly someone abandons the field and you're asked to pick it up. While other municipalities and school districts may continue on, once we pick up this abandoned area the other school districts or municipalities then ask for the same privilege. It throws our whole budgeting system out, because we now

[ Page 4342 ]

have demands for many more millions of dollars of expenditures. But I will try and seek out some specific details and offer a much better explanation to the member. I'm just not familiar with all those details, but I'll be pleased to ask our preventive health people to fill me in.

MS. BROWN: Just a very quick suggestion. In order to be consistent right across the province, maybe it might be a good idea to look at the whole province in terms of this as a preventive service and see whether through the interministerial children's committee...or just what would be the best vehicle to use. It certainly would not be my desire that Vancouver should get better treatment than, for example, Atlin or some other area. So if it's possible that there could be some consistency right across the board, I think that would be a great idea, if the minister wanted to explore that.

MS. SANFORD: I want to spend a few minutes discussing with the minister a particular issue that has come to my attention from within my constituency, but it's something that applies throughout the province. At this time in British Columbia we do not permit extra billing, but we do permit something that's called differential billing. I don't know if the minister is aware of this; but I assume he's familiar with it. Differential billing means that specialists can bill above and beyond what the Medical Services Plan has agreed to through the medical association, and if people go to a specialist they sign a paper that enables the specialist to charge an extra amount. That is differential billing.

My concern is that people — particularly older people; that's what happened in this particular case — do not realize, when they go to a doctor, that he may be a specialist. In this particular case my constituents were referred to this particular doctor because a friend of theirs thought he was a good doctor. So they went to him, and because they were older people they did not realize that the form they were signing was indeed an agreement to pay the additional costs that the specialist was going to charge. I would like to read for the minister the actual wording of the form that these people signed. I think the minister recognizes that a lot of people — particularly older people — have great respect for a medical doctor and that any forms that are pushed in front of them they're inclined to sign, whether or not they really understand. But in this case the form stated: "I" — and then you filled in the name — "am a member of a prepaid medical plan or health association and do agree to accept full responsibility of my private medical accounts for any differential in the payment received and the amount of my bill." Signed and witnessed.

Mr. Chairman, that's a very difficult kind of form particularly for older people to understand and grasp. In this case these people, not recognizing that doctors could not extra-bill in this province, simply signed this form and for two or three years went to this particular doctor because he was their doctor, and received all of these bills, which they paid. It wasn't until they had moved to another area that they recognized that they were being extra-billed or at least differential billed because of the fact that this particular doctor was a specialist. I don't know what to recommend to the minister here except that it seems to me that any form that is placed before older people, when they attend a specialist, should state very clearly that this particular doctor is a specialist, that he is permitted to bill more than the Medical Plan allows and that that money will have to be paid by that patient. It seems to me that this particular form that they signed does not make that clear enough. As a result, here is an example of one couple who paid all kinds of additional moneys for medical services which they shouldn't, in my view, have had to pay. I'd like the minister's comments on that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Eye doctor? Do you know his specialty?

MS. SANFORD: I think he was an internist.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like the details of that because it sounds like extra-billing to me. There is a term "differential-billing," but the explanation offered by the member sounds more like extra-billing than differential billing to me. They are not permitted to charge beyond that which is covered under the Medical Services Plan. If they do, it is considered extra-billing. There is a consideration called differential-billing, and I might just cite an example. If a citizen, let's say, had someone at home who was ill and they asked the physician to come around each evening to look in, the doctor might say: "It's simply not required that I come by each night to look in on the patient." They could make an arrangement whereby the citizen would pick up the cost of that excessive treatment, if you like. That could be referred to as "differential." But what the member referred to sounds to me like extra-billing. I'm advised by one of my officials that we were advised yesterday that there is a possibility that a certain specialist may have been conducting affairs in this way. We would like to have the information.

I'd like to mention to the member, Mr. Chairman, that we wrote a series of letters about a year back, I believe, to maybe half a dozen or five physicians, advising them that in our opinion they were extra-billing. I think we got a different point of view from some, but I believe in all cases the money was paid back.

I would be charitable enough to suggest that there could be an honest error made by a physician that they feel they are permitted to do certain things. But I would like that information, because we have advised a few physicians in the past that in our opinion they were extra-billing, and after the argument was over the money was returned. I would be very interested, because what you describe sounds very much like extra-billing rather than what they understand to be differential billing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: I appreciate the minister's offer to have a look at the information that I have. I have a copy of all of the receipts and everything and I certainly will get the permission of the people involved to release this information to the minister, but I should point out that this has been brought to the attention of the medical services people and that I have copies here of two letters that have gone out from a Mr. Schneider, the senior medical consultant from the Medical Services Plan in the Ministry of Health. I'd like to quote from his letter: "These additional charges apparently were of a differential-billing category." Then he names the doctor. "The doctor was charging your parents the difference between the fee allowed to a specialist for a patient referred to by a general practitioner and the amount paid by the Medical Services Plan when no such referral has been made." I should

[ Page 4343 ]

point out that the reason they went was because a friend said he was a good doctor. "This type of differential charge has always been allowed and was not disallowed under the Medical Services Plan Act, 1981, Bill 16. The doctor involved informs me that your parents were aware of this differential fee and had agreed to it." As evidence of this he sent me a copy of an agreement to this effect signed by the parents in 1979. I read to you what the form said, and my concern is that when forms are worded in this way people often to do not realize what they're signing. I don't know whether there is any way in which we can ensure that the forms are clear enough so people understand absolutely that they are attending a specialist and will have to pay a difference between what is allowed, because this form is worded in such a way that I believe it was not clear to those people that they would have to pay this extra money.

[5:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I now understand what they are referring to, the member's information about specialists and so on. When a patient visits a specialist on his own, without having been referred by a GP, the specialist is permitted to bill the patient the difference between what the plan pays for a specialist fee and what they would pay for a general practitioner fee. The plan will pay only the GP fee to the specialist when he sees a patient not referred to him by a general practitioner. That has been in place since 1969. If a person chooses to go to a specialist directly, the specialist is paid the GP fee, and what they refer to as differential billing is the difference between what the plan pays a specialist and what they pay a GP, and they are charging the patient directly. Patients can avoid that by going to a GP and being referred, and that should be clearly explained to them.

Your point about the form being as innocent or as ambiguous as it may be doesn't offer any explanation, and there could have been a much more candid approach to what it meant. In fact, I would suggest that possibly these patients may have felt that there was no way out of that if they hadn't been advised by someone. Certainly it has been permitted for 15 years or so, and we would have to look at that specifically. I think the system itself is all right, and it would appear that they simply were not given any information which would have been readily available.

MS. SANFORD: I thank the minister for that. I think the point is that these people did not realize that he was a specialist. He was just a good doctor referred by a friend. The form that they signed was worded in such a way that they never did recognize that he was a specialist, and simply paid the difference the minister referred to. In some cases those bills are quite significant — $66, for instance, for one particular visit. The people ended up paying a good deal of money which, in my view, they should not have paid if the information had been made more clear to them.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of small items that I would like to bring up with the minister. The first one is an issue that arises out of my riding. We have many elderly senior citizens here who require a special kind of medical equipment to maintain their lifestyle. One issue that has come to my attention a couple of times is the question of oxygen-dispensing equipment and, I believe, the current application of social services tax on such equipment.

AN HON. MEMBER: The tax was taken off in the budget speech.

MR. BLENCOE: Is it in the budget? I don't believe it was. If it was, I stand corrected and we don't have to cover this issue.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Now you have me confused.

MR. BLENCOE: You don't know either, Mr. Minister. I'll put that question aside, and the minister and I may indeed have some information today.

Another issue, Mr. Chairman, again comes from Victoria, and it deals with the area of vital statistics, which I believe comes under your ministry. I've had a couple of letters about the whole problem of wills and tracking them down. The minister may be well aware of this. It is my understanding that at the present time the government agent, who is also the district registrar, compiles a monthly list of people who have died in their district, and the list is sent to the registrar of voters in Victoria to update the voters' list. The difficulty is that there is not a reciprocal kind of agreement whereby that government agent in a particular area receives a global list of people who have died. One of the problems that is existing is that many people don't come and register their wills with the department of vital statistics — it's not compulsory — and it sometimes creates a problem for people to find out if someone has passed away and whether there is a will in existence in some particular location.

An obvious remedy for this kind of situation would be for the Department of Vital Statistics to publish each month or every two months a list of the names and addresses of the people who have died and distribute that list to offices or institutions where wills are held. The actual mechanism as to how the information reaches lawyers, etc., I am not in a position to give details on. There is a problem here, and maybe the minister is aware of it. I'm wondering if he could comment on that particular issue.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: When the member raised the question of wills. I thought "what a great opportunity" because I thought we had discussed the problem yesterday in a different committee, but it's a different issue. I'm sorry.

I suppose if government agents or others are experiencing some difficulty — those responsible for retention of wills and registry and so on — and if the division of vital statistics can assist them, there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't. I don't see why there would be any difficulty at all. If we are compiling such lists of people who have died now, why couldn't we distribute this to someone else within the government to make use of it? That's not a problem at all if it's identified as that — if it's just a matter of providing that basic information. There is a major problem with wills, though, as the member mentioned, because they are not required to be registered; they could be anywhere, found or not found, and it is a serious problem. We hope to make some slight adjustments which will assist that somewhat, but not as precisely as the member said. I'll take that question out of Hansard and ask our director of vital statistics what his opinion is and what can be done to assist the other agencies, because certainly it's not classified information or information we wish to suppress. If it assists another division, we would be pleased to do that.

I'm not sure about the oxygen now.

[ Page 4344 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not either.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I think I agreed with the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree). Have you evidence?

MR. REE: It was dealt with in the budget.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Good stuff.

MR. BLENCOE: We will check the details. If that oxygen has indeed been dealt with, that's a good thing. Both the minister and I had missed it.

I thank the minister for his answer on the wills issue. It's one that has created some problems, and I know the minister is aware of that. There are a couple of issues in the Victoria area, Mr. Minister, that perhaps you could answer. It has come to my attention that the residents in Rose Manor long-term care facility in Victoria have just undergone an average increase of $15 to $20 a month for accommodation. I'm not sure whether this is a provincial increase that has been applied across the board. I have just had sketchy reports from some of the residents there, but many are on very minimal pensions, and any sudden increase creates problems. Could the minister comment whether this is a provincial move right across the board, and can we expect further kinds of increases?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Rose Manor is a personal-care home. We do have a rate for long-term care, which was increased recently by 75 cents a day. It's tied into a formula that we've used for some time in respect to the old age pension and GIS. It's been occurring quite regularly. It's hoped that the formula permits them to retain 25 percent of the old age pension and GIS. We try to maintain that differential if we can. I haven't heard from them. I'm sure that some of the residents in any of these institutions might be concerned about any increase, but I think it's always going to be within their capability to cover it, because we try to maintain that formula. A person who is not receiving the old age pension or GIS combined would be in receipt of other income, so they should be in a position to cover it. We are trying to be as reasonable as we can.

MR. BLENCOE: I will report back to those residents. It came as a surprise, and I guess many of them don't recognize the intricacies of the system. Many of them, I'm told, got about $175 extra, as I think you were mentioning, for clothing and incidentals.

There are just two other issues, and then I will leave it. A thing that constantly comes to my attention here in Victoria, I think because of the nature of this riding, which has a high proportion of people who are elderly, retired or on pensions — and I'm sure the minister hears about this particular problem — is the whole concern about elective surgery beds in the greater Victoria area. I get reports, and I'm sure the minister gets reports, of fairly substantial waiting lists. Is there any report the minister can give to this House that that kind of situation may be cleared up in the near future? I must get at least five to ten letters every month on this particular issue. Of course, health is a big issue in Victoria. Is there anything the minister can mention about that issue of elective surgery beds?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's extremely difficult to maintain a hospital system with enough open beds for elective surgery that would still respect some efficiencies in the system. We try to provide the number of beds which we believe are required on a reasonable basis for the population.

We have different categories of patients. We have those who are considered emergencies, who move in very quickly — urgent — and then, of course, we have elective surgery. Elective surgery is quite properly named. It is usually a non-life-threatening situation or a serious deterioration in illness. But it varies throughout the province and, as the member said, because of the age of the citizens in Victoria there is often a greater need. We have tried to modify and relieve the situation by increasing day surgery, by opening the new hospital, and by moving people out of acute-care beds into extended-care and intermediate-care.

But waiting lists are very subjective, because they do not necessarily mean the same thing to all people. A person who requires elective surgery and is advised by their physician that they can book them in October, as an example, may be thus advised because that is when the physician is available. It may be his personal waiting list. It could also be, of course, that the hospital is attempting to prioritize the urgency of the various elective surgery cases.

Mr. Member, one of the situations that upon examination doesn't always seem to be sensible is that the hospitals allocate a certain number of beds to different specialties for elective surgery, and while a person may be moving into the hospital for surgery of a nature which, compared to the other person's need, doesn't seem to be important, they have to maintain those specialties as well. So a person could be waiting for elective surgery on a heart matter while another person is having elective surgery for a completely different matter that seems inconsequential compared to the cardiac patient who is waiting. But we cannot convert a hospital strictly into one specialty, so there are difficulties in that. We have asked for lists, and we've tried to examine lists and see how we can go about resolving some of the problems. The day surgery has done a lot throughout the province to assist. The transferring of people from acute care to extended and intermediate care has resolved much of it.

[5:30]

But I would say to the member that as long as we have beds available and doctors practising, we'll always have a waiting list of considerable size. If a person were practising medicine and attempting to work out a yearly schedule, they would be blocking off certain times of the year for patients' elective surgery. It's obvious that they can't take care of all of those people in one week or one month, so they block them across. They also make arrangements with the hospital for times throughout the year; so they're performing surgery only in July and August and maybe not in November and December, or vice versa. It's a very difficult problem because you have a lot of players on the stage. You have the hospitals with their own procedures, the doctors with their own waiting lists and the patients with their own needs. Frequently the patients themselves are involved in delaying the procedure, because they want it to coincide with something personal, whether it's vacation or retirement or whatever. I think we're well aware of it. It's a problem we're not going to overcome for some time, but we're attempting to improve, the efficiency of the system to allow more room for elective surgery.

[ Page 4345 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the minister's response. I know it is a difficult issue. The reason I bring it up is that often such a wait, particularly for those who are elderly, can in itself create aggravation, as you are aware. They worry, and that can create health problems. I have a number of such cases, and I'm sure you are aware of them. When it gets beyond a month or two they begin to get worried, and that starts to have not only a physical but also obviously a mental impact. The minister says he's trying to impact on that situation. I certainly hope he'll be able to do that in the greater Victoria area, given the nature of this particular area.

I have one other issue. It's not necessarily a small issue, but I'm not going to dwell upon it. It's one that I have been somewhat critical of the minister about in the last few months, but I'm not going to get into that position today. It's to do with the James Bay health clinic. I suppose it's one that those of us who represent Victoria feel particularly close to; also in terms of our party, as we were instrumental in setting up such resource boards in the James Bay health clinic concept. By all estimations on all sides, I think it has been extremely successful. It's a total approach to community health, and the doctors who work there are not, you know.... They serve that community as much out of love as.... They are available incredible hours. Again, James Bay is a particularly unique neighbourhood in terms of the elderly. They have developed all sorts of special ways of dealing with that neighbourhood.

My concern, obviously, Mr. Minister, has been the reduction in the special care services budget for the James Bay health clinic. It's going to have an impact. I'm hoping — and I think we all hope — that the staff who work there, who are a tremendous group, will do what they can to pull it together. But I'm really concerned that if we continue to impact on such a unique kind of, I guess, holistic, global approach to health, it really will jeopardize that program. Prevention is the key in James Bay, and I think all the studies — in your own ministry a study was done some years ago — clearly say that it's cost-effective. It works. I'm wondering if the minister today can give us some insights into his approach to health projects like James Bay. Are they safe? Will they see this kind of funding — another 30 percent reduction in your ministry section...? Is there any opportunity to see that come back in the next few years? It's a special project in Victoria, and I think we all support the project. I wonder if the minister could just comment on the general direction of what might happen in the next few years.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the James Bay Health and Human Resources Centre's budget for 1983-84 was $184,000. It has been reduced to $134,000. In addition, the ministry provides — and will continue to provide — funding from the Medical Services Commission of $200,000, plus the health grant of $134,000. So the total is $334,000 in 1984-85. We believe it is adequate for the quality and level of services required. Much of the reduction is in the area of administration, but $200,000 is still provided for the medical services side of it. I think we're still awaiting advice from the James Bay clinic as to what they intend to modify, or what their emphasis will be. I don't think we've received that advice yet.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you.

MRS. WALLACE: It seems that several weeks ago I was speaking on these Health estimates, and we came to adjournment time. As I recall, at that time I had just begun to speak about the cost of drugs. I was pointing out to the minister the fact that the federal government had introduced legislation some time ago which allowed a much simpler way — or certainly a much cheaper way — for Canadians to procure drugs than have the.... They've been forced to buy brand-name drugs through the multinational drug corporations. My understanding of it is that the drugs come across under their generic names and are actually produced in Canada.

A statement made by the Consumers' Association said: "The federal minister has bowed to intense pressure from the multinational drug companies, who wanted to rip off Canadian consumers." To give you an idea of the magnitude of any such ripoff, two American researchers found in 1979, in the four years following the passage of the new law, that drug prices charged by licensees for the 16 largest-selling drugs fell a whopping 67.5 percent. To put it another way, people were paying a third of the previous costs for the same medication, from different manufacturers.

My understanding is that pressure is being put on the federal government to repeal that law. I may be too late; it may already be repealed. I'm getting letters from my constituents talking about the price of drugs that have gone up by some $5 for one prescription in one month. I'm wondering whether the minister is aware of the situation and if he has put any pressure on his counterparts in Ottawa to ensure that Canadians still have access to these drugs coming in under the legislation that the feds brought in some time ago to provide us the opportunity to package our drugs here at a much lower cost.

I have some concerns, because I received a letter last month from a local resident. It talks about a drug called Capoten, which went up by $5 last month. It is for her husband. "He uses three of these a day. We order 100 pills at a time. Almost once a month we must pay $102.40. That includes a dispensing fee of $6.50." Of course, she's complaining about the fact that as a low-income person living on a pension, that is a tremendous amount to put out and then wait to collect back. I am concerned about that particular issue, and whether we are in a situation where that federal legislation has been appealed, and we will be facing these kinds of increases in drug costs. Certainly the people in my constituency cannot afford those kinds of increases.

I want to ask the minister whether he is concerned about or is taking any action relative to some form of regulation regarding smoking. I picked up an article in the Province last month which indicates that in the United States they have calculated that the average middle-aged American man who is a heavy smoker will suffer an average of nearly $59,000 in extra medical bills and lost earnings during his lifetime. As the minister knows, I have tried on many occasions to have legislation passed by this Legislature that would at least prevent people from having to breath second-hand smoke, and I've never been successful in having that motion passed. I am concerned that the only thing we have on the cigarette package is a very small warning about the fact that it may be harmful. Smoking still continues, particularly among young people. Certainly all the tests and surveys that have been done indicate that the longer the addiction the greater the possibility of lung cancer and related diseases. I certainly have some concerns about that particular issue and wonder if the

[ Page 4346 ]

minister is contemplating any steps that will, either from an educational point of view or some form of further regulations relative to smoking, deal with that particular issue.

I also wanted to talk about the alcohol situation. I'm a bit concerned that we're not really doing all we could be doing here in British Columbia to ensure that people are as exposed to information about the harmful effects of alcohol as they are exposed to the high-pressure ads from the companies who are selling that product.

Nobody disputes that companies have a right to make a profit, but the question is whether or not governments do have a responsibility to intervene when corporate activities demonstrate that they affect health and create further social problems that the taxpayers have to ultimately pay for. I'm concerned to see that this minister's estimates this year for the program that would deal with alcohol and drug abuse is down by nearly 20 percent. That reduction was also in effect last year, so it's a further reduction, which is simply compounded. This government is taking in something like $37 million in liquor revenues, and yet it's only prepared to spend about half of that on any kind of alcohol and drug programs. I certainly have some concerns about that.

I have a couple of local concerns. One has to do with the audiologist. I have a letter from the minister dated March 22 saying that he's pleased to tell me that this important position has been designated a priority and that they're actively recruiting. I haven't heard of a recruitment having taken place at this point in time, and I wonder how long we have to actively recruit before we finally get an audiologist in the central Island area. As you know, I mentioned the last time your estimates were being discussed that we had over 600 people waiting for appointments at that time.

[5:45]

1 also wanted to speak about the ambulance service. We've had some pretty severe concerns about the changing of the dispatch to Victoria. I did raise this earlier with the minister, but I don't believe he responded. Since that time I have had some situations brought to my attention where people have had to wait as long as three hours for an ambulance because the ambulance had been dispatched to Victoria. They had to wait until that ambulance returned, rather than calling out a second ambulance.

I wanted to draw to the minister's attention the petition which he received — unfortunately, I don't think it has a date on it — having to do with the extended-care unit at Cowichan District Hospital. I received copies of that petition; it seems to be signed by a great many people. It's not a very formal type of petition, but I think it does express the concern of, as they say, "the undersigned husbands, wives, relatives and friends of patients in the extended-care unit." They were concerned that as a result of the cutbacks in health care funding, the....

MR..R. FRASER: You're wrong again.

MRS. WALLACE: What do you know about the Cowichan extended-care unit? I don't think you know very much about it.

The changes that have been made there with the unit clerks mean that the tender loving care that is really required for those senior patients in the extended-care unit is just not available. That's the concern these people are expressing. I am sure the minister recalls the petition. A great many people have expressed their concern about that. I wanted to call it to the minister's attention because we certainly owe our seniors the best possible care we can give them. They have contributed a lot to society during the course of their lives here in British Columbia, and I feel that they are being.... I don't like to say neglected, but it is neglect in a way. Even though their most critical physical needs are met, what isn't being met, because of the lack of time of the nursing staff, are the less tangible things which are so very critical to older people. I have concerns about that.

My final question to the minister is relative to the operating funds for the new psychiatric wing, the fourth floor of the Cowichan Hospital. The last time I spoke to members of the hospital board there they didn't know whether or not they were going to get operating funds for that new wing, which has now been completed.

I don't like to cut the minister off, Mr. Chairman, but I have a note that suggests I should move that the committee rise, report progress and ask, leave to sit again; perhaps the minister can answer me tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Presenting Petitions

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: It is the petition of Central Trust Co. and Crown Trust Co. praying for the passing of an act intituled An Act Respecting Central Trust Company and Crown Trust Company.

I move that the rules be suspended and that the petition of Central Trust Co. and Crown Trust Co. be received.

Motion approved.

MR. PARKS: I beg leave to present a further petition.

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: It is the petition of the city of Vancouver praying for the passing of an act intituled Bill No. 1, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and that the petition of the city of Vancouver be received.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4347 ]

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: It is the petition of the city of Vancouver praying for the passing of an act intituled Bill No. 2, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

I move that the rules be suspended and that the petition of the city of Vancouver be received.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Rights Act.

Bill 11 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.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.