[ Page 6409 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Downsizing of federal civil service. Mr. Harcourt –– 6410

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Sihota

Ms. A. Hagen

Day care funding. Ms. Marzari –– 6411

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

On vote 35: minister's office –– 6412

Mr. Clark

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Bruce

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Long

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. S.D. Smith)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 6435

Mr. Sihota

THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1989

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are several very good friends of mine and very good, famous British Columbians. We have Bill McCarthy, president of the Burnaby-Willingdon constituency association, and his wife Delores. We have Mrs. Alice McCarthy, Bill McCarthy's mother. We have Mr. Stan Milacek, Mrs. Eliska Milacek and their daughter Barbara. We also have a very famous philanthropist, Mr. John Jambor, who was responsible for bequeathing a building in the Metrotown area of Burnaby worth $35 million to the Cancer Control Agency. He is one of the great philanthropists of our time. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. BARLEE: I would like to take the time today to introduce my great-aunt, Elizabeth Strickland, who comes from Lakefield, Ontario, a quaint little village north of Peterborough.

She has some flaws. One is that she is a longtime Tory, but she is a very nice person otherwise. She invariably dresses in blue. She heard via the news services that our family name had been sullied in this House yesterday. She was quite upset about it, so she flew out and insisted on an explanation.

I explained that the Speaker of the House had insisted that I use a badminton racket, have one hand tied behind my back and serve underhanded all the time. She thought that was grossly unfair and insisted on a fair match this morning. We played the fair match this morning. As usual the Speaker allied himself with an excellent player, which he usually does.

We beat them the first set, but they made a mistake. They insisted upon a second set. We beat them the second set, and then they had the temerity to insist upon a third set. I thought that was a little too difficult. At 3 to 1 in the third set, something rather untoward happened. The Speaker took off his white shirt and waved it in the air. I assumed this was an admission of absolute surrender. My great-aunt called it "striking the colours," which I think was fairly close.

Anyway, she is returning to Lakefield, the old family home. She's very happy. I would like both sides of the House to extend her a warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker might just mention that he'll do just about anything to keep all sides of the House happy.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That was far more interesting than the submission I put forward yesterday.

At this time I would like to ask the House to please welcome John Mills, executive director of Sport B.C., Julie Hunter, public relations officer of Sport B.C., and Michael O'Connor, a solicitor in Victoria.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to introduce today Wayne McCory, a veteran of the fight for Valhalla Provincial Park and a wildlife biologist well known for his expertise in the study of grizzly bears. He is here working with his sister, Colleen McCory, and Grant Copeland, also of the Valhalla Wilderness Society. I'd like you to join me in making them all welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House today members of the B.C. Council of Women, with whom we had a very informative and good meeting at the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy. The following women are in the House today: Beverley Clark, Jean Crowley, Mary Higgins, Florence Thrupp, Esther Hall, Margaret McKee, Evelyn Harrington, Rita Duffy and Dorothy Beach; they're traveling with Bill Higgins. Would the House please assist me in bidding them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: On behalf of our caucus I'd like to join the Minister of Advanced Education in welcoming the members of the B.C. Council of Women, with whom we'll be meeting this afternoon. It's a great pleasure to have them in the House today.

HON. MR. DUECK: This afternoon it gives me great pleasure to introduce some people from down under — Kiwis from New Zealand. These Kiwis happen to be my brother and his family: David Dueck, Bette Dueck and their daughters Katherine and Deanna. As we met with my brother and family over the last couple of days and talked about the health care system — I have to get a little political here — he tells me that no one is going to tell the New Zealand government that this health care system we have in British Columbia is the best throughout the world by any means. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I've never tried to tell a New Zealander anything and am not about to now.

I would like to welcome to the House Ms. Angie Todd-Dennis, who is presently from Prince George but will be a new constituent of mine on July 1 when she takes over as coordinator at UBC of the First Nations health care professions program. The goal of that program will be to encourage the participation of native people in all of the health professions in B.C. It's something I'm sure we look forward to on both sides of the House, and we'll be following her work with great interest. I would like to welcome her.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery this afternoon are 45 students from Pemberton Secondary School. These bright young British Columbians are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Jim Williams, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Just following through on the introductions made by the good Minister of Municipal Affairs, I too would like to welcome Mr. Michael O'Connor here today. Mr. O'Connor is the individual with whom I articled. I know many in this House, mostly on the other side, have questioned from time to time my legal skills. Since it was Mr. O'Connor who guided me through my articles, I think now you

[ Page 6410 ]

know who to blame. Would everybody please give a warm welcome to Mr. O'Connor.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are some friends of mine and, believe it or not, they're not from the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat but from that great constituency of Nanaimo. I would ask that you please welcome Dick Winkelman, Margaret Hughes, Joy Cameron, Barb Thorne, Al Vance and my constituency secretary Crystal Cosby.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, today in the gallery we have visiting a good citizen of Powell River, Mr. Sid Forstrom, and I would have this House make him welcome.

Oral Questions

DOWNSIZING OF FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier. A few years ago he was criticizing the Bennett government's restraint program as mean-spirited. Today he is suggesting the federal government cut its public service by 25 percent as a start.

[2:15]

Mr. Premier, which of the 25,000 federal civil servants in British Columbia –– 6,000 in Victoria alone — do you want to see on the unemployment lines?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I take some exception to the suggestion that because people are employed in the public service now they would automatically become unemployable if they somehow were to look for opportunities in the private sector. I think many of them are very capable of becoming involved in the private sector.

I also had the pleasure of just coming back from the constituency of Esquimalt where I addressed a good group of citizens — I'm sure a fine mixture from across the constituency, including the MLA for the area. I made the same suggestion there: that the federal government, as opposed to reaching into the pockets, should consider their own house and attempt to bring about some savings there.

One way would be to reduce the size of government, reduce the size of bureaucracy, reduce the pressures of government. Frankly, I suggested to that audience of people, fairly representative of the constituency of Esquimalt, that possibly if the whole of that bureaucracy from Ottawa were reduced by 25 percent, most people in this country really wouldn't be too aware of it and would probably feel quite pleased about that move.

Those people were very supportive. They thought this was great. So why should some people in politics, some political parties continue to insist that bigger is better and that we must somehow have more government, more people, involved in the bureaucracy? Yes, I believe that governments must reduce. We have a tremendous, however bitter, lesson in the budget from Ottawa we're looking at today.

The lesson has to be that you can't continue to spend excessively and see government grow in all directions without at some point having to come back to the taxpayers and say: "You reach in for that last two bits, if need be. It's ours; we need it. We're in trouble; tax, tax, tax." That sounds like the NDP.

I agree with the Opposition Leader that we can't just practice restraint all at once. It has to be an ongoing thing. We, as people in government — which is why I am a proud Social Crediter — must practice restraint all of the time when we're dealing with the public's money. We can't do as the Leader of the Opposition would have us do: spend, spend, spend. It can't be done. We have to be responsible with the taxpayers' money, and today more than ever. I am proud to be the first to stand up in this question period and say to all of the people listening, regardless of where they live in British Columbia, that we as citizens of this great province can be proud that we have the best fiscally managed province in the whole country. We have done our job well, and we'll continue to do it well.

MR. HARCOURT: Yes, I can see that you and your government are proud of cutting out the child-abuse workers in this province, and the environmental and forestry officers and the rentalsman.

Once again, to the Premier, which vital federal health and safety services are you willing to cut? Are you willing to cut the environmental officers who blew the whistle on Howe Sound pollution, or the coast guard that deals with oil spills, or search and rescue? Which services, Mr. Premier, do you want to cut?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The question is: which services would we cut? Let's look at the record. We have brought about a balanced budget. We have established a rainy-day account in excess of a billion dollars. We have reduced the accumulated deficit. We're paying less interest this year than we did last year. We cut the sales tax. We increased spending on educational programs, health programs and the environment by 90 percent. We're doing a wonderful job, and I welcome these questions. It gives me an opportunity.

Let me say also that I've often said that the NDP and the Leader of the Opposition tend to live in the past. We did have restraint as an issue in the 1983 election. Who was elected? Social Credit. We had it as an issue in the 1986 election, and who was elected? Social Credit.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, beyond bombast and rhetoric, the Premier owes the people of the province an explanation. Is he proposing that federal fisheries research be cut, the people who protect our vital fish stocks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I shouldn't answer that question, I realize, but I will. I want to have this opportunity of telling the opposition again what a wonderful job we're doing and how things are happening in this province.

[ Page 6411 ]

Let me say this. Let's reflect for a moment on the federal budget and realize that 35 cents out of every dollar collected in all sources of revenue by the federal government goes to pay only the interest on the debt — only the interest. Compare this with British Columbia, where it's 4 cents — not 35 cents but 4 cents.

Let's consider that despite all these measures, we still have a deficit greater this year than last year. If we assume that somehow all this will go away, as the NDP tends to think and speculate all the time, we're wrong. All people, regardless of whether they live in the east or the west, whether they work in the public service or the private sector, will obviously need to put their shoulders to the wheel. We'll all need to work a little harder to get rid of this deficit. And working harder means that we all produce perhaps a bit more than we might have previously. It doesn't mean, as the member for Victoria is suggesting, that we bring in more bodies or somehow maintain the government at the size we've seen in the past. No, Mr. Speaker, realistically the federal government must reduce the size of its government. It must reduce the size of its bureaucracy.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the Premier gives the speech that I heard at the chamber of commerce in the Western Communities. Your comments of 25 percent.... We ought to be mindful of the fact that in Esquimalt–Port Renfrew we have a large military base. I don't think the 25 percent comment went over well with that important segment of our population. I don't think your comment with respect to....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Has the member got a question?

MR. SIHOTA: In Esquimalt–Port Renfrew we have a penitentiary at William Head. With respect to that comment about 25 percent, is the Premier telling those people who work at William Head in Penitentiaries Canada that we ought to cut back the guards at federal penitentiaries? Is that what he's suggesting when he talks about the 25 percent?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Unfortunately, it's obviously not for us to deal with the federal budget, however much I — and I'm sure many on this side — would appreciate that challenge. It's not our job, so I really can't get into the specifics of it. But I don't think we should assume, as the NDP does, that we can't look at all these institutions of government and somehow bring about greater efficiency or do things differently; that we must be locked into the past, continuing to do things as they have been done in the past. I fear for our children and our children's children. They deserve a future. They shouldn't be burdened with a tremendous debt because we have socialists in this country who think there's no tomorrow.

MR. G. HANSON: I hope those keeping the clock will take into account the time so that we can ask the Premier what specific cuts he would like to make. What specific cuts in educational and social programs affecting native people in this country are you going to cut?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I listen to the line of questioning, I become more aware of where the differences are between a socialist philosophy and the free enterprisers. The socialists are selfish; they want everything for themselves today. We say there's a future; there's a tomorrow; there are our children; there are our children's children. Don't you care a bit about their future? Do you believe that the socialist philosophy of "Spend today; I want it today, all for myself" is the answer? I don't believe it. The majority of British Columbians don't believe it. That's why they continue to elect a free enterprise government.

MS. A. HAGEN: Governments provide services for people. The Premier has talked about cutting services for people. In cutting 25 percent of the federal staff, does he propose to cut those people who help our expanding senior population with Canada Pension, supplements and old age security? Are those the kinds of cuts this Premier is contemplating?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, that's a bit of a philosophical question. Are we really serving our people? Are we really providing for our seniors? Are we really providing for our children by increasing the size of government, by making government grow bigger? Or, instead of spending money on government, should we be spending it on people? I say it's people first.

DAY CARE FUNDING

MS. MARZARI: I have a question about children and our children's children — a question about the government's job of protecting people for whom government is their last line of defence. This is a question to the Minister of Social Services — we'll give the Premier a rest.

Over the last year you have sat on your hands while the federal government has been developing programs for day care in this country. Now that we know the federal budget has cut off all future spaces for child care, I want to know what this government is going to do and what you are going to do. Are you going back to the federal government to fight for money for spaces, or is this provincial government going to rectify the mistakes of the past in not going for a better deal with Ottawa and providing some spaces for our children and our children's children in this province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, the federal government has suspended its child care legislation. That's not all bad, because the bill that was written was not all that good. It had some good parts and some flawed parts. Will we deliver the services? Yes, we will. We will look after child care — day care spaces,

[ Page 6412 ]

if you want to call them that. We are going to be doing some intensive lobbying with the federal government to get them to expand the parameters of the Canada Assistance Plan. At the moment the CAP does not allow for subsidized day care in commercial day care spaces. We will be going after them to lobby them for that.

[2:30]

MS. MARZARI: Commercial space?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, to include commercial spaces as well as non-profit. At the moment they don't do that. We think the program should be expanded to apply to commercial spaces. Some of the finest day care we have is in commercial day care spaces.

We will also be lobbying the federal government to expand CAP to include start-up costs and capital costs for day care spaces, because we realize we need more day care spaces in this province. We will be lobbying them to expand the Canadian Assistance Plan to accommodate that.

We will be pressuring them on many more things, now that they've cancelled their child care legislation to broaden the base of CAP so that we, in conjunction with them on a cost-shared basis, can expand child care into many other places: the workplace, schools, private day care and into the unlicensed day care, which is some of the best day care we have in this province.

But I will tell the people of this province and the opposition that we don't need more federal civil servants to do the job. We can do it more efficiently, as the Premier says, by cutting the size of government and putting the money into services for people.

Orders of the Day

HON MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House for three select standing committees of the House to convene this afternoon: the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services; the Select Standing Committee on Tourism and Environment; and the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 35: minister's office, $333,960 (continued).

MR. CLARK: I want to talk about questions raised at a recent court case regarding the Children's Hospital pathology lab. Four people were charged, ultimately, and three were convicted as a result of that case. I'm glad that the minister has some other staff here to deal with some specific questions arising out of that, questions that suggest the Ministry of Health has inadequate management and monitoring capabilities, questions that reveal clearly a failure of the restraint program and the extraordinary lengths that hospital employees went to in attempting to buy capital equipment using operating funds, questions that suggest that public money was used for personal benefit and that the ministry did not know about it, and that, in turn, raise the suggestion that other departments in the hospital and in other hospitals could be involved in the same fraudulent or at least deceitful activities.

I want to be very careful here in questioning the minister regarding this court case. A lot of allegations were made against individuals who were never charged with any offence, any wrongdoing. I do not want to unfairly attack any of those individuals. However, it seems to me that the allegations are so serious and the unanswered questions so many that I think the minister must attempt to answer them. I will try very carefully not to impugn anybody's reputation and not to repeat allegations that appear to be completely unfounded, but there are lots of allegations regarding the management of that particular branch of a particular hospital that really beg many questions.

I know the minister is aware of this case, and I'd like to briefly outline how this scam, or the schemes, worked. There are several schemes that came out in the court case. As an interesting sidelight, the best description of these fraudulent activities is contained in a report by David Hooper, who as members may know is the forensic accountant who helped to unravel the Coquihalla overspending. He was hired by the hospital to deal with this case.

Let me put it in layman's terms. In order to get around the provincial restraint program in '83-85, the pathology lab at Children's Hospital and probably other departments devised a scheme whereby certain suppliers were able to shift operating funds into capital funds. Essentially it worked this way: if the pathology lab needed 5,000 test tubes, it would normally be able to pay less than the full market price. In other words, they would receive a discount. Rather than receive a discount, the suppliers carried on their books a credit account, a premium account. These so-called credit accounts were built up by at least three companies that came to light in the court case: Western Scientific Services Ltd., Beckman Instruments and Kodak, three rather large companies — some, of course, like Kodak, larger than others. We don't know if there were other companies that carried credit accounts. We don't know if this scheme was devised which really undermined public accountability. We don't know if other hospitals did it or if other companies did it. I'll return to that in a minute.

As far as the hospital and the Ministry of Health were concerned, the money was spent on test tubes or supplies. Therein, I submit, lies the root of the problem, because the credit accounts became unaccountable. The money, as far as the government was concerned, was spent, but there were credit accounts with suppliers to the hospital. The money, then,

[ Page 6413 ]

could be spent on anything, and in fact, as we'll see, it was spent on other things.

Let me quote Mr. Hooper: "We have not carried out an in-depth analysis of accounting procedures. It is, however, evident that false invoices totalling in excess of $1 million have been approved and paid by the hospital." In two years in one department of one hospital a million dollars in false invoices was paid by the provincial government, $1 million built up in credit accounts, to be spent on anything that those in the know wanted. I'll return to the credit accounts in a minute.

If it weren't for the other more brazen schemes, the other outright fraud, those credit accounts would probably be undetected today. In fact, they would be; I don't think there's any question about that. But because the credit accounts undermined accountability because of the case with which they could circumvent the rules — both the rules of the restraint program and the accounting rules of the hospital — I submit that, at least in part, that led to the temptation on the part of some employees to dip into it in other ways.

They formed phony companies. The phony companies had exotic names like Space-Age Information and Labtronics Systems. They used the phony companies and billed the hospital directly for services that were never rendered. The people who did that — at least the people we know about — were convicted with fraud. I don't want to deal with that aspect; I want to deal with the credit accounts, more to the point. By and large, those two schemes running parallel were separate and distinct. As I say, I won't spend time on the phony, fraudulent accounts, because those individuals really were convicted.

I do want to spend some time on the credit accounts and on the links between the two schemes. One of the links is alleged to be the Knowledge Network. The Knowledge Network was involved in fraudulent activity, and some individuals were fired because of that. I want to get into that in a minute.

Let me deal with those credit accounts. Mr. Hooper said: "The transactions relating to the acquisition of capital equipment against the operating budget, although deceitful, do not appear to be criminal. Whenever controls are circumvented, for whatever purpose, there is always the danger of criminal fraud. We cannot, therefore, be certain that such has not occurred in this area."

The evidence at the trial suggested that the restraint program spawned real problems at the hospital in terms of capital equipment supplies. Capital equipment is purchased 50 percent by the province and 50 percent through the hospital, essentially, and because the capital budget was cut by the province, capital equipment was in scarce supply. Operating funds were easier to get because the fee-for-service system meant that from the hospital's point of view those operating costs were fully funded: they simply billed MSA. So operating funds were easy; capital funds were extremely difficult.

Most of the testimony at the trial suggested that one individual was primarily responsible, and that individual was convicted. But there were allegations made that the circle of knowledge regarding these accounts was much wider; that many, if not most, of the doctors knew about the accounts; that senior executives and accountants at the hospital knew of the accounts.

As far as I know — and maybe the minister can respond — no doctor was ever rebuked, no accountant at the hospital was ever called to task and no supplier — the other half of the equation — ever paid any penalty for these deceitful accounts. I call them "deceitful accounts" because that's how the accountant described them.

Let me deal with what was bought through the credit accounts and who knew about them. First, most of what was bought was necessary equipment. For example, a Tektronix logic analyzer — whatever that is — for $18,000; centrifuges for $9,000, and test tubes. Most of the funds built up in the credit account were used for legitimate things that the hospital needed.

Let's go through some of the testimony to see what else was bought. It's fascinating reading, and I have the transcripts here. The head technologist in the pathology lab, which is commonly known as the blood bank, from '82 to '85, Nancy Lelievre, testified that not only was there a credit account with Western Scientific Services but there was a sub-credit account just for the blood bank. She says: "That's right, we kept our own records."

What did they buy with that? They bought lots of things and, as I said, many legitimate things. But they also bought an Akai stereo system for $1,602.43 and silk hanging plants for $1,500. This was at the height of the restraint program that they went out and bought silk flowers for the blood bank and a new stereo system using the credit account, unbeknownst to the Ministry of Health and unbeknownst to the hospital.

The evidence is that what she did, essentially, was call up Western Scientific — which doesn't do business in hanging plants or in radios — and say: "We'd like some hanging plants." They said: "Well, we don't supply hanging plants." So she suggested where they might buy them at a particular plant store and then they would send someone down and buy them and bill the credit account. No one knew about it, but the plants would appear one day, just like the stereo system.

I want to read you what she says on page 83 of the testimony. This is a question asked by Mr. Rankin, and it deals with restraint: "In addition to the credit account with Western Scientific, there was a policy decision made in December of 1983 when the program heads — in your case the head techs — were told that there was an administration decision to spend all of your budget within the fiscal year." They didn't want a surplus. In other words, they had to increase their expenditures to remove any surpluses at the end of the fiscal year. Do you recall that? She said: "That was a pretty standard remark around that time." Each year from 1983-84, '84-85, '85-86 they had to increase their expenditures in order to use up any

[ Page 6414 ]

surplus in the operating account in order to build up credit in a credit account — a deceitful account — in order to buy capital equipment. And she says: "Yes." She's asked: "That was accomplished by pre-billing or bulk buying?" "Yes." "And every head tech was involved in that, is that correct?" She said: "Yes, that would have been something that was done at the head tech meeting." "Were all head technologists in that division of the hospital present?" "Yes." "Do you recall that happening?" "Yes." "Was it administration policy?" She said: "I understood that it was the hospital's policy to deliberately spend in advance of need in order to build up credit accounts so that they could dip into it for capital funds.

There is evidence on the following page that Dr. Hardwick, the head of the pathology lab, knew about it. There's evidence that the testimony is that not only did he know about it but that Mr. Tegenfeldt, the executive director, knew about it. These are allegations in testimony made by one of the witnesses that very clearly there was a wide circle of knowledge with respect to this issue.

What else did Nancy get through this credit account? Well, she got $10,000 to form a social fund for doctors. She was told that Dr. Hardwick would like a social fund — that's the evidence. She sent an invoice to Western Scientific for technical consulting services. Western Scientific knew that this woman was not providing any technical consulting, yet they paid her $10,000 for the social fund.

[2:45]

What did they spend it on? Apparently $1,500 out of this credit account went for a Christmas party for the staff at the pathology lab. They bought a Santa Claus suit for $150 out of this credit account. They were dipping into the account for anything they wanted, because it was unaccountable, and the fund was building up. That's absolutely the evidence in this court case.

This is the testimony of Gisela Black, the head technologist in the physiology department, which is the chemistry department. She is asked: "I take it one of the problems that you had as a head technologist in 1984-86 was the restraint program of the government...." She said: "Yes, all technologists had this problem." They asked: "Were you aware of the credit accounts with Western Scientific?" She said: "No, I was aware of another credit account with another company called Beckman Instruments, which was set up in 1983."

She corroborated the evidence that they didn't have any money from 1983 to 1985, so as a result of that they formed this credit account with Beckman Instruments. She claims in her testimony that Dr. Lockitch, Dr. Wadsworth and Dr. Dimmick all knew about the Beckman credit account, and all dipped into it for whatever was necessary for the lab and for some things, as you'll see, that obviously weren't necessary. No one, Mr. Chairman, knew how much was in the credit account.

Ms. Black becomes the head of this department; she finds out about the credit account and asks how much is in it. No one knows. It took her months to get an answer from Beckman Instruments as to how much was in the credit account. Mr. Hooper said they'd lost all control of how much was in these credit accounts. It turns out that $65,000 had built up in that credit account that they could then dip into for whatever they wanted, unbeknownst to the Ministry of Health and apparently unbeknownst to the hospital. That's the allegation; that's the testimony they gave. It was unbeknownst to anybody except for this little department of the lab and the company.

I see I'm out of time, and I will need a little more time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, perhaps I'll let the opposition House Leader interject first.

MR. ROSE: I was so fascinated with the story that I hated to see the interruption. But my hon. friend ran out of time, and I'm posing as the intervening speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is also fascinated with the story. But before we proceed, perhaps the hon. member, with all due deference, could point out to the Chair the relevancy of these interesting facts to the estimates.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I think that will be easy. It will become easier as I move along. The questions raised question the ability of the ministry to manage public funds. Some of those funds that I want to ask questions about are still in existence today, and I have to lay the case before I get to the current....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The only other thing I might mention before we proceed, hon. member — and I'm quite prepared to let you proceed — is that we must remember that under the rules, as have been read a number of times during estimates to this point in time, we should not be dealing with things that were beyond the purview of the current minister.

MR. CLARK: I understand that. I want to lay the case before the.... I will do that, Mr. Chairman.

Just to clarify, I'll be going through the case to raise the questions to see how they've responded to the allegations in the court case. The court case finished only two months ago, so we want to see what response the ministry had to these allegations. That's why I gave notice of these remarks.

Ms. Black in her testimony also talks about the Kodak credit system. The evidence is that apparently Kodak suggested a means by which operating funds could be transferred to capital funds. It was their suggestion; they set it up. According to Ms. Black, Mr. Tegenfeldt, the executive director, was in full knowledge and support of this scheme essentially to transfer funds deceitfully from operating to capital funds.

Ms. Lockitch — head of chemistry and stat lab — reported to Dr. Hardwick. She testified that she knew all about the premium accounts with Beckman. She testified also that Mr. Tegenfeldt knew about them. She testified that they all knew about them, and they were all dipping into them.

[ Page 6415 ]

John Leung testified, and his testimony was among the most fascinating. Mr. Leung testified that he purchased an Oriental rug worth $4,000 from the Great China Wall boutique and an Oriental flower stand at the same shop for $1,000. Western Scientific, this hospital supply company, picked up the tab. Where did the rug go?

The rug went into the office of Dr. Hardwick, the head of the pathology lab. The rug was so thick that on the weekend.... John Leung, Gordon Hardwick — Dr. Hardwick's nephew — and Dr. Hardwick's son David Hardwick had to come in on the weekend to install the rug. The testimony is that a carpenter had to come from Shaughnessy Hospital to take two inches off the door, because the door wouldn't open because the rug was so thick.

Mr. Chairman, this is in a climate when beds were being closed and the restraint program was at its peak. Dr. Hardwick got a very expensive Persian rug just before Christmas of 1985 paid for by this credit account, again unbeknownst to the Minister of Health, the Ministry of Health or the hospital. Dr Hardwick to this day claims he knew nothing of the credit account and had no idea where the Persian rug came from, even though his son and his nephew installed it.

MR. LOVICK: Omar Khayyám or somebody flew in and dropped it off.

MR. CLARK: That's right. He came in on Monday and had this Persian rug here, except he couldn't close his office door until the carpenter sawed off a couple of inches. I could go on, but suffice it to say that the evidence points to a much wider range of knowledge. I want to deal briefly, though, with the companies themselves.

The evidence is that Kodak instigated the idea; they suggested it. There are some questions. Does Kodak still do that today? Was there an investigation? Is there an investigation into Kodak's involvement with these deceitful accounts?

Beckman Instruments. No evidence with Beckman Instruments, by the way, that the credit was used for anything but legitimate goods, but the staff were all aware and the testimony is that the executive director was aware of this deliberate attempt to undermine normal accounting procedures in order to launder money through the operating account for capital account.

Western Scientific raises a whole series of questions, and I'd like the minister to try and deal with these later. Western Scientific is owned by John Eccles. John Eccles is the husband of the current head of pathology at VGH. In other words, this is all about pathology at children’s hospitals, and one of the key companies that instigated this deceitful account is married to the current head at VGH. So it raises questions about whether that practice still exists.

The company submitted false invoices worth $907,345.66 and provided purchases totalling $810, 216.92. Let's look at what Western Scientific bought and their markups. They bought an 11-cubic-metre fridge. The price Western Scientific paid was $3,700. They charged $9,000 to the account; the markup was $5,145. They bought another fridge. The price was $2,526. They charged the hospital $5,457, for a markup of $2,754.

They bought a Wang computer. The price Western Scientific paid was $23,375; they charged the hospital $48,257, for a markup of $24,882. In each of these cases so far, there was a 100 percent markup. The Akai stereo: they paid $855; they charged the hospital $1,602, for a markup of $747. The famous silk plants I talked about: the price they paid was $707.11; the charge was $1,513; the markup was $806.11. Remember that.

They said: "We don't know anything about plants." The head technologist suggested they go down the street to a plant store. They went down and picked up the plants that the head technologist picked out. They paid $700 for the plants; they charged the hospital $1,500, a markup of $800 for the trip down to pick up the plants.

Software. The price was $33,000; they charged the hospital $53,000, a markup of $19,000. Video equipment. The price they paid was $7,000; the charge to the hospital was $19,000, a markup of $12,000. Technical consulting — remember they got $10,000 in false invoices for the social fund. Western Scientific took $3,000 as their profit markup for transferring, for laundering, the money through to the nurse. They even took a markup of 30 percent on the phony bills they submitted for the social fund. It was a licence to print money.

Here are the questions. Western Scientific was not charged. What happened to Western Scientific? The court case is settled, but Western Scientific — the company that participated, deliberately laundered money and submitted $900,000 in false invoices — was never charged.

In fact — and these are questions I would like the minister to answer shortly — as I understand it, a credit account of thousands of dollars still exists from Western Scientific, built up during those years. A memo went out from your ministry recently telling people to purchase from Western Scientific to use up this credit account. That's what I understand; that's what the evidence is in court.

Is there still a credit account with Western Scientific? Why were they never charged? Why are we still continuing to do business with these people? Why were they not required to pay back any of the difference? Why are we still dealing with that? Are they doing this at any other hospital, given the fact that his wife is now the head of the lab at VGH?

There are lots of questions regarding Western Scientific's involvement. All the goods they purchased — not so much the legitimate ones but all the illegitimate ones, like silk hanging plants, Persian rugs and Akai stereos — were twice as expensive as the hospital buying them itself, because they laundered it through and took a markup of 100 percent on many of those documents.

What else came out at the court case? This touches on the whole range of remedies, and I want to hear

[ Page 6416 ]

what the minister has to say about remedies to this practice.

We now know that the husband of one of the doctors, Dr. Lockitch, owns a company called Sands Technology that sells computers. The pathology lab at Children's Hospital has three Professional-1 computers from Sands Technology. The only computers anywhere in the system that were bought from Sands Technology exist in the pathology lab, and the husband of one of the doctors who use the computer owns the company. How did that happen? And what happened to Dr. Lockitch? She's still working there, as I understand it.

A suggestion at the trial was that one of those computers was paid for by a repair bill. Again, they submitted a repair bill to operating account, and in return, instead of a repair — it was a false invoice — they got another computer. The company, Sands Technology, was never charged. The doctor continues to work there to this day. Is there anything on her record with respect to this, and how did that happen? Was there any investigation arising from this case, which just finished two months ago, regarding Dr. Lockitch and how she managed to convince the hospital to buy her husband's computers?

We now know that Gordon Hardwick, Dr. Hardwick's nephew and Walter Hardwick's son, works in the pathology lab as a kind of joe boy. What did Gordon Hardwick do besides work as assistant technologist? He formed a separate consulting company called Cowsa Consultants. The evidence was that he worked 20 hours a week, essentially moving equipment around. He started playing on the computer. The evidence was that he couldn't work more than 20 hours a week because he was a casual, so he formed a private consulting company and then billed the hospital for extra fees. Is that allowed? Is it normal practice for staff at hospitals to form private companies and then bill for extra jobs? Even if those jobs are legitimate, it strikes me as rather unorthodox. I wonder if the minister could comment on that later on.

[3:00]

What's the policy today regarding employees of the hospital forming private companies and billing for other services beyond their eight-hour day? I don't know. We now know that Tim Hofmann, who works at VGH, also has a private company called Micromed. He works full-time at VGH, but on his time off he goes to Children's Hospital, does some consulting work and bills through his private company. This may be quite legitimate, and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that when you read the evidence, there seems to be some question about cost control. There's a question about policy of the hospitals with respect to individuals forming private companies and putting bills through in addition to their regular salary.

We now know that at VGH two program heads, Paul Cassidy and Leslie Blows, were fired and required to pay back $70,000. Did Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Blows pay back the $70,000? That was unclear in the trial, and I wonder if the minister could answer that. Why is it that Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Blews, who were fired and forced to pay back $70,000, were never charged, when people with clearly lesser crimes were charged and convicted? Mr. Cassidy is now living in Scotland, I understand. Apparently, the answer from the police was that Vancouver General Hospital never pressed charges, but Children's Hospital did.

The evidence clearly points to Mr. Cassidy being one of the masterminds behind this whole fraudulent scheme. We know that Cassidy — the same individual who now lives in Scotland — essentially stole $70,000, in part through having complete control over billing through Knowledge West, a subsidiary of Knowledge Network. Again, I don't want to cast aspersions, but we know that Knowledge Network is chaired by Walter Hardwick. We know the pathology lab is run by Dr. Hardwick. We know that part of the scam by Mr. Cassidy was to funnel money — invoices — through the Knowledge Network. Disturbing questions are raised regarding the Knowledge Network's involvement in this kind of operation and why the government didn't know about it.

Let me deal just briefly with some questions regarding Knowledge Network. The system was designed to link three hospitals between '84 and '86. A question at the trial: "Did it get off the ground?" Answer: "Not really, no. We got the link but we never used it." The allegation — and I would like the minister to clarify this — was that $15,000 a month was paid to Knowledge Network for this link that was never used. What did the hospitals pay to Knowledge Network? What did we get for it? Who made the decision? And what investigations have been pursued as a result of that? The evidence is that $15,000 a month was paid for three years and apparently nothing came of it.

There's a series of other questions which I'll now get to. Regarding Mr. Hardwick's involvement in a policy of deliberately overspending the operating budget in order to build up credit accounts, as some of the testimony suggested, the question is: could that happen today? We have a problem in the public sector, in my view. If any money is left at the end of the fiscal year they spend it, because they know it will be cut the following year. It's a classic kind of Soviet system: you penalize efficiency. This government, in this ministry, appears to have subscribed to that view: penalizing efficiency. Not only did they penalize efficiency — the testimony is that they overspent deliberately — but they built up phony credit accounts in order to launder capital goods through them. What action has been taken to make sure that doesn't happen again?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Times up, hon. member.

MR. LOVICK: I notice that the Minister of Health has been paying very close attention to all these questions and does indeed seem to be keeping track. I think we would all be better served, then, if perhaps the member for Vancouver East would continue. I would ask if he might continue this rather interesting discourse.

[ Page 6417 ]

MR. CLARK: I'll be finished very shortly. I just have a series of questions now arising out of the court case. I know the members are finding it fascinating, as I did when I read this transcript.

The questions are around who was involved in this deal and why? Was there any penalty paid for the knowledge of, the acquiescence in, this deal? Did Mr. Tegenfeldt, the executive director of the hospital, know about the credit accounts? That's the evidence. If he did know about them, what did the ministry do about it? He's still the executive director of the hospital. It's rather intriguing that they could deliberately undermine every accounting system, be found to be deceitful by Mr. Hooper and be undermining the government's own restraint program, and apparently he is still the executive director of the hospital. He apparently countersigned many of these credit accounts. I wonder what investigation took place with regard to that?

Thirdly, did Dr. Hardwick know about the credit accounts? It's hard to believe he didn't; he had a Persian rug at the height of the restraint program. He had to call the carpenter from Shaughnessy Hospital to take two inches off the door, and apparently....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I said it three times. But the question is: he said he didn't know where the rug came from. Well, maybe he didn't, Mr. Chairman; that's quite possible. But I wonder what investigation took place within the ministry with regard to that.

Fourthly, the evidence is that Kodak suggested, Kodak deliberately designed, a scheme to undermine normal accounting procedures. How many times did they do that? The evidence was that this was a conscious policy of Kodak at every hospital in the province to assist hospitals to launder money from the operating account and move it into capital accounts. That came out incidentally in this trial. I would like to know how many times they have done it, and how much we have lost because of it. Who is keeping track of it and could it happen today — or does it happen today?

Fifthly, Mr. Hooper says that Beckman Instruments is a major supplier. Hooper says: "Staff in the accounts payable department were aware of this arrangement, but no records were kept of the balance." The accounting staff knew they were credit accounts but didn't know how much was in them. Mr. Hooper says: "Obviously, the accounts controls were not functioning properly." In how many other hospitals is that the case? Are there still credit accounts in existence, and what steps has the ministry taken to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Sixthly, what investigation was done into Western Scientific, and why are they still doing business in British Columbia with the hospitals? Why are there still credit accounts in existence with Western Scientific? Why did your ministry recently tell people to buy from this company when all of this evidence came forward?

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I don't know that, sorry.

Why was no action taken against the companies that were complicit in this deceitful arrangement? Those are questions which just spring out of the testimony, and I wonder how the minister would answer.

Just to wrap up and give the minister some chance to respond, there was disturbing evidence that restraint caused people to devise special mechanisms to buy capital equipment. The department clearly is in financial disarray. Clearly the evidence is absolutely staggering that this one department of this one hospital was in complete and total chaos when it came to financial accountability. There were uncontrolled expenses, incomplete records, credit accounts with at least three companies, false billings by false companies, fraud and convictions, nepotism, inside deals, husbands of doctors getting special treatment; and many people knew about it in that department. That's a glimpse into one small corner of the system.

It really calls into question the ability of the ministry to monitor the accounts in hospitals and what's going on out there in the real world, because this is a real eye-opener. I would like the minister to try and answer at least some of the questions which I raised today.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that he said to answer at least some of the questions, because there is just no way that I can answer all of those questions. As a matter of fact, I would like to have a list of all the questions asked.

I am as disturbed as you are, if that's what is happening and still happening. You must remember, to begin with — and I'm not using that as an excuse at all — that hospitals are operated by a society. We give them a global budget and they do the management. They have the administrators, accountants, external auditors. Surely you don't expect me to go in and check with the external auditor to see whether he in fact found the problem.

The case you are referring to: yes, there were some people charged. It was investigated thoroughly. It went through the courts. If there is still something going on in these hospitals or one of the hospitals, I'm the first one to stand here and say that I am absolutely horrified that perhaps we haven't got to the bottom of it. I know some of these people personally. I wouldn't want to cast any aspersions on them individually, because I don't know.... I will certainly take into consideration and investigate some of these things that you have just mentioned: credit accounts still operating and certain companies still being used.

Incidentally, the auditor-general reported that using these two accounts — capital and operating — was quite in order. It bewilders me a bit. I cannot stand here and say: "So what? It happened." Not at all. I think you have to go back further and say that in society today, whether it's a hospital or a corporation, if someone holds up a bank with a gun, gets a thousand dollars and walks out and isn't caught.... Do I say that's right? No, but there is a system that fol-

[ Page 6418 ]

lows. If he gets caught, he goes through the courts, and there is going to be a penalty. When we deal with public funds, we have to be very careful that the taxpayers' dollars are not spent that way. Mind you, the bank's money is also taxpayers' money.

Quite frankly, what you are bringing out today is something I'm very concerned about. Even after we have finished the estimates, if you have any information I don't have, I want to know about it. We are certainly going to look into it further.

We have external auditors that audit these hospitals. We also have review teams that go into hospitals. If all of these people missed that, then obviously something is wrong with auditors such as Price Waterhouse. They are not an insignificant firm. Are you suggesting that they go in there and don't know what they are doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a mystery.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, it is. Do I then say: "Price Waterhouse, I'm sorry. We will have to get a different auditor"? It shocks me.

You rightly said there was only one hospital. How many more are there? We have good people in most hospitals. I don't think we should cast aspersions in general, because some people were charged and others may be guilty and got away with it, that we have 137 hospitals throughout British Columbia that are cheating the taxpayers. God help us if that's so; surely it could not be so.

As a result of the police investigation — it was not a small matter — four people were charged, with three sentences passed and one acquitted. During the course of the investigation, two separate auditors were brought in to investigate the actual fraud case and the financial control system in those hospitals.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, but you're saying it's still going on.

They checked the systems. David Hooper from Clarkson Gordon was responsible for the investigation of the fraud case. In summary, he has confirmed that only one person employed at Children's Hospital was involved. Another chartered accountant firm, Price Waterhouse, was brought in to investigate the financial control system of the hospital. It was confirmed that the financial system in place is sound. Some recommendations were made and subsequently implemented by that hospital. It was concluded that it is the working of the current financial control system that detected the fictitious invoices. It is considered by the hospital that the case is now closed.

If you have evidence other than that.... I am not joshing. I should be as concerned as you are, and if there are some other things that we should investigate further, we will do so.

Vancouver General Hospital also brought in a number of investigators and the police to investigate the fraud case. As a result, the hospital has recovered its loss, as indicated in our memo. The hospital's external auditor — not their accountants — had been working with the hospital to ensure the integrity of the current financial control system. The hospital also considers this fraud case to be closed.

As both hospitals are operated by autonomous societies, and both police and private investigations have taken place and charges have been laid, it was felt that it is not necessary to conduct another investigation. However, we have again circulated a memo of our policy to all hospitals. There were obviously some errors or loopholes or directions that they took other than the circular or the policy that is in place.

[3:15]

We've tightened it up, and I believe that under the current system this could not happen. However, some of the statements that you made still bother me. They get very close to pointing a finger at certain individuals. If you want to state those things later on to me, even on the outside and not in the safety of the House.... I mean this very sincerely; we want to do that because — good grief — I've got a problem with money and hospitals, and to think that it's going out the door is certainly not my wish.

I do not believe — and I do not accept the theory — that the deficit financing or the shortage of funds in the hospital creates this situation. I can't accept that. As a matter of fact, I would say it's the other way around. We have adequate funding in place, and somebody was playing games and perhaps got away with it for some time. Hopefully it will never happen again. I suppose you can look in every situation, and you will find in society, in companies and in banks — for heaven's sakes, they should be more careful than ever — that a lowly clerk had been able to get away with defrauding a bank for some time. It's certainly not acceptable, but it does happen, and I accept that it has happened in this case. We will certainly take every possible measure to see that it doesn't happen again.

MR. CLARK: I have just a few points arising.... I said at the outset, but I should repeat again, that there were lots of people named. I don't want to cast aspersions or ruin their reputations or make suggestions; I really don't. Nevertheless it came up time and again. It seems to me that the logic is compelling that there should have been an investigation. I want to be assured that there was one, and this is a recent court transcript.

Let me deal just briefly.... There were two schemes. One was fraudulent companies and fraudulent billing. The individual in question who was charged and convicted had the power to sign for $2,000. He billed $2,000 to his own company. He got away with that; that's hard to detect. He went to $5,000 — he got a little greedy — and that's when it flagged the accountants in central accounting of the hospital. They said: "Wait a minute, he only has the power for $2,000. What's he asking for $5,000 for?" It turned out to be his own fraudulent company. So the alarm bells went off, and he was arrested and convicted.

I have no evidence at all to suggest that any of that fraud is continuing anywhere else. I think they did

[ Page 6419 ]

solve the fraud question. But when the accountants — particularly Hooper — went in to investigate the fraud, they found a separate scheme, and that was these credit accounts being built up by everybody in the hospital. No charges were ever laid with respect to the credit accounts. Those are the accounts that fundamentally worry me. Those are the accounts which it appears no one ever....

There was no justice done. No one was ever penalized for what was clearly — by Mr. Hooper's account — deceitful. Clearly they bought things which they wouldn't otherwise have been able to buy — fancy things for their own office. And that's what worries me.

Some of those accounts were instigated by the companies as a deliberate attempt — that's the evidence — to circumvent the rules. It worries me that we're continuing to do business with these companies. Maybe they're the only companies we can do business with; I don't know.

We're continuing to do business with them. No one suffered any penalties; no one was ever charged with anything. It begs a question about the ability of the government to monitor what's going on in the hospitals.

I understand the question of autonomy of hospitals. This is a huge system and, as the minister constantly points out, a very expensive one. Rather than a restraint program across the board, it would be much more rational from the province's point of view to go into the hospitals and really look at how things are run. This particular lab appears to have a lot of rather dubious things going on.

That's the kind of investigation that I hope the minister will assure me he's doing. The fraud stuff is dealt with; you're quite correct. It's done, as far as I'm concerned. But the evidence in the fraud case raised all these other little anomalies about inside deals, nepotism....

If I have some assurance that there will be some investigation — and hopefully reporting — of the question of monitoring of hospitals with respect to this kind of laundering of operating funds to capital funds.... Beyond that, I would like the minister, if he could, to deal with one specific question arising out of that. It has to do with the Knowledge Network. I don't know all the details, but the evidence was that we paid an enormous sum of money monthly to the Knowledge Network for something which was never used. Is that a fact? It may be a legitimate mistake, but I'm curious because it has never come out.

HON. MR. DUECK: The Knowledge Network I believe was through the university. I think that question would have to go to the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) ; it was not through my ministry.

I can assure this House and the member that from the remarks made today in the House under questioning of my estimates, I am very disturbed. I have just told my deputy that I want to know where that's at — no question about it. I will even go one further and report back later with exactly what we've found and what has occurred. I do not wish to spend even 10 cents, never mind a lot of dollars, because I've got many places where I can use those funds and where they're desperately needed.

When this came up to begin with, of course, we were surprised, disappointed, shocked and all the rest of it, but we did give it over to the police, and it did go through the proper process. At that time I was satisfied that it had gone and they were convicted; I wasn't going to get into it personally. But if there is still some area in the hospital.... We've got a report from Clarkson Gordon and Price Waterhouse saying that the systems in place are good. I've known good auditors to fail, too, and I'm not going to take anyone's word until I find out for myself that it is being looked after and that we haven't got that fear.

I also want to check one further and make sure that every hospital understands our policy and that it doesn't happen in another hospital. That may not be as simple in a small hospital as it is in the large ones, but we have some pretty big hospitals, and I know that if people are devious enough, certain things can be done.

I gave you the example before of how a lowly bookkeeper in a bank can defraud the Bank of Commerce for a period of four years and get away with it year after year, with all the audits that they do internally and externally; I suppose it can happen.

What I'm saying to the House today is that I will look into this. I will make sure that we get to the bottom of it if there is something still going on and the system still is not properly in place to avoid this type of crime. And it is a crime, let's face it.

MR. LOVICK: I think it was about a week ago I listened to a rather extended discussion in question period between the Minister of Health and my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger). I wanted to get involved in that process and, unfortunately, was unable to. Therefore I'd like to pick up from where we left off, if I might, and start with a question.

I'm afraid I have to raise my question with a little heat, because I wasn't entirely happy with the response the Minister of Health gave to the questions from my colleague. As we all know, my colleague is a new member in the chamber, and it seemed to me that the minister was not being entirely fair in his answers. He was suggesting that she didn't understand what she was speaking about and so forth. I want to suggest that that is not the case and that her questions about the hospital capital construction project were entirely in order.

We were simply trying to get from the minister as firm a commitment as we possibly could regarding when the money will be spent in Nanaimo and when the proposed expansion of some $25 million will occur. The answer we got back, and it's one I've had for some time now from the ministry.... I think I understand how the system works as well as any. We know that there is a planning process, and at the end of that, there is an initial approval for construction, and finally, subject again to planning approval, we

[ Page 6420 ]

get the go-ahead with the construction budget. Nobody's arguing that case.

What I want to say to the minister, however, is that if the process is indeed that elaborate and that far removed and one that takes at least two years to come to fruition, why then, and how then, can the minister come into my constituency on the eve of a by-election and announce that the funding is in place? In short, if it isn't in place and we have to wait nine months more for it — which is what I certainly derive from the answer you gave my colleague — then why do we have this public relations and press campaign going on? You were suggesting, Mr. Minister, with all due deference, that we were trying to make this into a political issue. I submit to you that it was you, sir, who made this into a political issue by trying to get the full announcement and public relations value out of it.

I would be more than happy now to yield the space to you and allow you to respond to that statement.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I would never do that. Furthermore, I was very kind to the other side. I always am very kind, because at my age, if I get excited it may hurt my health.

I have to go through this whole process again, I suppose. All hospitals in the province, when there is a project in the offing, lobby me continuously. They phone; they come to my office. So did Nanaimo. I do the best I can to assure them where it's at at this particular time, where we might be able to get some more funding for the next phase, and I did exactly that. I went to Nanaimo and said that the planning process approval has been given, and they were very happy. As a matter of fact, the board and my ministry get along very well. They were happy that we finally got to the place where planning money was available and they could now proceed.

We haven't even got that planning process in my office — it's not returned yet — and you are asking us to make the next announcement on the construction phase. I said the other day in the House that I cannot do that, and I'll repeat it. The intent of my office is, and has been since I've been the minister, that we do not advance planning money unless we are quite certain that it will proceed to the construction stage, but the Finance minister would shoot me on sight if I started making an announcement of $25 million before the planning process is in place. I can't do that. I say again that my intentions are good, and I believe I can proceed. When that planning process is complete and comes into my office and my senior people go over all the figures and facts and say it is in order and that we can proceed, I will then put a request to the Finance minister: "I've got a global budget of $150 million, and I would like to advance so many dollars for this construction phase that is beginning in Nanaimo." Hopefully that's the course it will take.

[3:30]

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that answer. I notice he adroitly sidestepped the principal contention that I offered: namely, that we seem to be getting, however, all kinds of public relations and political announcements.

Let me remind the minister of what he said. I'm not disputing that process. I accept the process; I understand it. What I'm talking about is the rather aberrant other process that seems to go on despite this rather lucid and clear and methodical planning and construction process that you've just outlined.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Which one — lucid and clear? Yes, and methodical. I'm giving you credit. Take advantage. You won't get it too often.

Just in passing, I appreciated your reference to your good intentions. I know you have good intentions, but just remember: the road to Hades is paved with good intentions. We know that stuff — right?

The point I'm making is that the minister's opening comments in answer to my colleague were that planning approval had been granted a year ago. In a response dated February 9 to a letter that I wrote, the minister reminded me that this planning process had been going on for some two years: "Thank you for your letter of January 27, 1989, regarding the recent approval of construction funds for the expansion at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital." The next paragraph goes on to say: "I do this because I want you to know that I am committed to the planning process and therefore acknowledge the attendant construction costs that go with it." So we don't disagree.

My question, though, still obtains, I think quite fairly: if it's not political at all, if there's no public relations value, if we don't know for sure what's going to happen, why do we then continue to come into communities such as mine and make public statements that suggest things are coming along nicely? A rhetorical question, Mr. Minister: how many announcements of this project will there be before the sod-turning ceremony occurs? A fair question, I think. I rest my case.

I want to pose a couple of other questions to the minister. Some time ago I noted with interest a news release from the ministry — dated, just for information's sake, October 21, 1988 — concerning the Ministry of Health allocation of some $383,000 for "quick response" to the Kelowna area. When I read that I thought, what an interesting concept, and it certainly seems to be a worthwhile one. Could you tell me whether that same kind of quick response program is being tried out in other areas? Was this a pilot project? Is there any likelihood that this kind of project might be introduced to the hospital in my constituency? I can elaborate if you wish.

HON. MR. DUECK: The pilot project was in Victoria with the Victoria Health Project. Since that time we've developed one in White Rock and one in Kelowna, and we plan on another two in the near future; perhaps in the Fraser Valley and the lower

[ Page 6421 ]

mainland, but exact location has not yet been identified. Provided that funding is available, we believe it is certainly cost-effective. And not only cost-effective; I think it's also very good if the individual can be treated at home rather than in an acute-care hospital. It's a total focus on looking after people in their homes, in their community, rather than in an acute care facility.

The Victoria Health Project, the pilot project here in Victoria, had tremendous success and still enjoys tremendous success — as a matter of fact, beyond our expectation. You say Nanaimo. I haven't got that answer for you today, but being a major centre, certainly when this expands it will perhaps be in keeping with that process.

MR. LOVICK: The minister will very likely get some lobbying from Nanaimo and the board of directors at NRGH. Indeed, I wrote to them some time ago, suggesting that given we in Nanaimo are a regional centre for Vancouver Island, given, moreover, the changing demographic structure and picture — namely, that we have an increasing more aged population — my response to this particular announcement is that we would be a logical place to introduce this kind of cost-saving measure, certainly a more efficient approach to the provision of health care.

Another direct question to the minister. I must apologize, because I did not hear the initial reference to this sum of money and what exactly it was about; therefore I would ask a question now if I may. When you were talking to my colleague about funds coming into NRGH, our hospital in Nanaimo, you made reference to the figure of some $529,000. Would you explain to me please what that was and where it came from?

HON. MR. DUECK: I would have to have a few moments to see that particular amount. I believe it is a base-funding increase, but I would have to look that up.

MR. LOVICK: I have only a few questions, and therefore I'll give you my other one right now.

I recently received a letter from a doctor in my community who draws attention to a problem that I think by itself is rather small but may indeed have significance beyond the specifics of the problem. The letter, addressed to the administrator of the Cancer Control Agency of B.C., talks specifically about a new manual called "Cancer Treatment Policies." The burden of that letter — a copy of which, by the way, was sent to the Ministry of Health — is that we're apparently sending out what is a glossy, expensive, good and worthwhile publication using a kind of broadcast approach rather than to specific and targeted audiences. The doctor says sending this kind of information to doctors in communities throughout British Columbia is probably a wasted expenditure insofar as the great majority of those people do not deal with cancer patients, and he wonders whether there might be some cost-saving by a more selective and targeted approach.

Is the minister entertaining any proposals, programs, whatever, in order to achieve some of those kinds of cost-efficiencies which he might like to share with me?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm pleased you brought that up. Of course, it would be entirely up to the Cancer Control Agency, but we constantly tell them that they must be very efficient and frugal; they only get so many dollars and they often ask for more funding. I've made a note of it and we will check. We don't produce that; the Cancer Control Agency would do that on their own. I don't want any agency that we fund to spend money foolishly. We'll check it out.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer, but I note something that happened a few minutes ago when my colleague for Vancouver East was asking questions. The answer there was essentially the same as the one I just heard: namely that what we do — that is, the Ministry of Health — is to provide money to hospital societies or to the Cancer Control Agency, whatever it may be, and then effectively rely on those agencies, operating independently, to manage their own affairs well. In your opinion, Mr. Minister, do we have the kinds of financial controls and efficiency measures built in so that we are indeed guaranteed that kind of service from all of those agencies, which, as they all claim, are chronically cash starved? They always say that. Do we have sufficient assurances from your point of view that we are indeed getting the value for money we ought to be getting?

HON. MR. DUECK: We have controls in place, of course. When you talk about a glossy folder being sent out.... I suppose something like that could be missed, even if our review teams go in. We watch programs very closely. In other words, no hospital can buy a piece of equipment that impacts on operations. That's the kind of control we have on all hospitals. They cannot go into a program that is not approved by us in advance. Some of them have, in past years, and we refused to fund it. We let them find the money elsewhere, and they suffered for it. We found — this was not so some years ago — that if we didn't do that, I got into trouble, because I also have a fixed amount of money. Those controls are in place.

If we find a hospital that runs into difficulty.... We have had a number of them. For example, a letter comes in, or they want to see me, and they say: "We're running a deficit of $100,000" — or $200,000 or $300,000, depending on the size of the hospital. We say at that time: "Fine. Would you like us to come in?" Sometimes, even if we don't say that, they invite us in, because they want to know how they are going to get out of that deficit.

We'll send in a review team made up from my ministry. They're very knowledgeable; they know the operations of hospitals. They can go in, and in a very short period they can tell you where some of the problems may lie. If that isn't enough, or doesn't work well, or they say, "We don't agree with your team, because you're biased. It's the ministry," we'll

[ Page 6422 ]

say: "Fine, we'll put in a peer review team, made up of various hospitals that have no axe to grind, to look at the operation." They come up with some very surprising evidence. They would probably pick up something like this.

Not too long ago the Cancer Control Agency had problems. We said: "Look, that is your problem, unless you can prove to us that there is something beyond your control." Then we have to look at the funding area, where the number of patients were, the population increase and various factors that we bring into play. The Cancer Control Agency found that they had only about a 60 or 65 percent bed occupancy. Why were they open? They closed them. That caused me a lot of pain, because people said: "There's a waiting-list and you are closing beds." Not so. There was no one waiting for a bed who didn't receive one. The waiting-list was in the radiotherapy section. That's where we put in extra dollars, because we saw that it was beyond their control. We put in $500,000 or $600,000 to start up a night shift to catch up on the waiting period.

These are the things we do. We come in and help out where we have to. We don't go in and say: "You've run a deficit. Fine. How many dollars do you want?" Things that you mentioned — perhaps a small thing on the face of it — could be much greater. If they are negligent in a small area, they may also be negligent in a larger area. For example, have they got too many physicians on staff for the numbers they are putting through? Are they paying their physicians too much? They are on salary. Are they doing some things that they should perhaps not be doing, instead of looking after patient care? There's a tremendous out-patient program that the Cancer Control Agency has developed. Incidentally, they are very efficient, and they do an excellent job.

Other than what you mentioned, I have to say that they are cooperative. They are happy with the ministry, and we are happy with them. We don't always agree. They want more money; I haven't got it. By and large, they are operating a good show. I don't know what more I can say, except that when I see inefficiency.... By nature, being from the private sector, inefficiency really bugs me. I used to go around in my businesses and switch off lights after everybody was gone. I don't do it at home, but in my businesses I was very concerned. I'm tremendously frugal in that area. I'm cheap.

[3:45]

MR. BRUCE: I would just like to offer a few points to the Minister of Health. First of all, I appreciate the difficulty of the demands throughout the province on our health system, with communities throughout the province looking for new and improved facilities. It would surprise me if there was anywhere you could go in the province today that wasn't looking for some type of improvement to facilities and operations.

On the global side, I would like to mention that without a doubt we have one of the finest health care systems in the world. I would like to say that some of the advanced medicine we do in the province is exemplary. I have had some personal experience with some of the heart units in this community. The work, the professionalism and the manner of dealing with that is absolutely outstanding. That being said, of course there are still things and ways that we can improve upon in regard to our health care, and, as has been mentioned by others in times past, much of that comes down to how we as individuals look after ourselves.

Just so my good friend the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) does not feel left alone in looking for new and improved facilities: as he is in his area, so am I in mine. We're not big spenders in Cowichan-Malahat. We're just looking for a little amount of money. We're not looking for some $25 million of construction funds to move ahead. All we're really looking for...

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: It's a small town but, by golly, it's dynamic.

All we're looking for is some planning go-ahead. Some time ago there was what I thought was pretty much an undertaking in respect to the Chemainus Hospital, when we moved it from an acute facility to an intermediate and extended, that we would see, at least in this year, the planning process be given the green light. I was wondering whether the minister could tell me whether or not consideration has been given to the planning process for the Chemainus Hospital, and whether I might see a green light. You don't have to say yes or no, just whether or not there's consideration.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not going to say yes or no; I will say that consideration will be given.

MR. LOVICK: Is that my answer?

MR. BRUCE: I'll try and do what I can for you, my colleague first member for Nanaimo. Maybe with a little persuasion I might be able to get the good citizens of Nanaimo their $25 million as well; I'll do what I can.

What I would also like to ask, Mr. Minister, is in respect to the Cowichan District Hospital. We have been looking there for a discharge planning unit. It is a well-run, efficient operation. When one talks about cost effectiveness and control, as there has been some of the discussion about here today, I know firsthand that they've implemented several measures. Certainly the value, the efficiency, of the dollar that's spent there on behalf of this province for the taxpayers and the citizens of Cowichan is well spent. We're in a position today where a discharge planning unit would greatly improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the dollar spent. That, too, is something that we are looking for, and I am wondering whether the minister can tell me whether that's under consideration as well for this year's budget?

[ Page 6423 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, consideration will be given, and I can speak to the member on that later also.

I have the answer to the question that was posed by the member from Nanaimo. There was in fact $529,000 given April 1, which was to recognize workload pressures. That, of course, will then form a base budget for the coming year. So they were recognized for the work pressure they had at that time.

MS. MARZARI: I want to approach the minister regarding some aspects of women's health in our province that have traditionally been overlooked.

As I mentioned some weeks ago, women in British Columbia are looking for three things, basically: equality, security and choice. I wanted to address myself to a few areas of women and health that I think could use some attention, not because they in themselves are the outstanding needs that pressure the health system today, but perhaps because they are needs that have been somewhat overlooked, not properly inventoried and not studied to the extent they need to be, and therefore treatment services have not been made available to the extent that they are now required.

I thought I would begin by discussing eating disorders. Very often in our community now we come across situations of young girls who have developed a disease called anorexia nervosa. As the young girls grow older, very often the disease or the eating disorder takes the form of bulimia. These terms have become almost commonplace in our lexicon in British Columbia, just as across Canada and North America as people have discovered it or come upon it and started to describe it more and more.

These seem to be diseases of women. From the information that I've received over the last few months, most notably from a whole issue of the British Columbia Medical Journal, March 1989, devoted to eating disorders, there are quotes from people, reputable doctors such as Dr. Roger Tonkin, who runs the youth clinic at the Children's Hospital, and these doctors are saying that we aren't serving our young girls well. We have statistics that suggest that one in a hundred girls might have this disease — five or six in a high school. Of those who develop the eating disorder, there can be a 1 percent mortality rate. Kids are dying because they perceive their bodies as being too large, because they perceive they must fast and that they cannot eat; in fact, they put themselves into a situation where they literally can't eat.

I am also told by this journal that 20 percent of middle-aged women have some form of eating disorder. Obviously an invisible disorder, obviously not something that people talk about. They probably feel a great deal of shame about it. It's not visible so therefore you don't recognize it. It's something that people might laugh about or not regard as serious, but when we look at the mortality rates we can see that it is very serious indeed.

In the American Journal of Psychiatry it is suggested that up to 13 percent of college women might have a serious eating disorder. That's not just people dieting or talking about dieting, or people for whom weight is an issue, but it's a serious disease affecting a person's ability to function in the community.

I'm putting this forward because I know from talking to Dr. Tonkin, who operates out of Sunny Hill Hospital in a rickety old shed out the back of the hospital, because the Children's Hospital is overloaded and the youth program there seems to have lost beds because of pressures on the hospital.... Dr. Tonkin has dealt with many hundreds of kids having troubles — and their parents. I talked with him and other doctors who run similar services out of St. Paul's and Shaughnessy. I notice here that Kelowna General also has a program, and there is a limited program at the UBC hospital. I want to ask you, Mr. Minister, what you can do.

I notice that you are in fact trying to catalogue the incidence of the disease right now, but I am interested in talking to you and receiving some response from you on your recognition of this disorder in many of our young women and what we can do better to relieve the problem, both by investing more medical service, investing more capital dollars to provide for better location and better sites for the disease itself, and in terms of research and study of this particular phenomenon. It strikes me that the three things that are required are: the treatment, which is the medical personnel, the psychologists; the space in which to do treatment; and better knowledge of the disease itself. Can you talk for a few minutes about that?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, the ministry has recognized this particular illness for some time now, and we have taken some steps to address it. The Ministry of Health is committed to a coordinated response to the problem of teen-age eating disorders. The ministry has contracted with McCreary Centre Society at Sunny Hill Hospital in Vancouver to establish a reference committee to advise on all aspects of eating disorders. The committee, representing hospital and community health programs and professionals, will prepare a report on the scope of the problem of eating disorders, summarize current research, identify existing resources in British Columbia and propose a framework for a provincial program response.

In addition, the successful 1988 summer program for youngsters with eating disorders will be developed further as an option to decrease hospital utilization. The contract with McCreary Centre Society builds on work carried out by the Fraser Valley regional mental health services during the last year. An information booklet was produced about eating disorders, listing available treatment resources. Training for Ministry of Health staff was provided, and funding was provided for the development of support groups through Surrey Community Services in consultation with community mental health professionals.

You asked if we did anything. I think you went even one further, with capital construction. This may follow after the total review is done.

[ Page 6424 ]

We recognize that there is a problem. The hospitals, of course, also deal with it, although not all are equipped to deal with it, as you mentioned. Some believe it's just in their mind that they don't want to eat; we recognize it as an illness. When you talk to physicians who deal with this, they freely admit that it isn't something you can take or leave. These people have a problem, and there are quite a growing number of them. I've only been aware of this in the last couple of years. I was amazed at the percentage who are sick, and some people are dying. We've got evidence of that, statistics of people actually dying. It is a fatal disease if it's not checked in time.

MS. MARZARI: I'm looking forward to hearing about that report. The faster we move on this the better. It has been an invisible and neglected area. If we are looking at five or six kids in each high school suffering from this disease, I think it's a problem of pretty large proportions.

Another area I wanted to canvass briefly today has to do with another neglected group of women: older women. According to Canada's health promotion survey on drug use, over 21 percent of older women are using prescription drugs: namely, sleeping pills and tranquilizers. This seems to be a phenomenal amount of money — to put it quite crassly, the bottom line — to be expended on sleeping pills and prescription drugs.

[4:00]

Those older women, according to the recent survey, seem to suffer from a disease called loneliness One-third of the women canvassed by the Health and Welfare department suggested that they saw virtually no one regularly. Literally one-third of those 21 to 23 percent of older women saw no one. Their social isolation takes them to the use of sleeping pills and tranquilizers. It seems to me that there's something wrong with our system if it finds it cheaper to give these women prescription drugs rather than provide community jobs or keep them engaged in society in some way.

I cannot help but make some connection between young girls starving themselves for whatever reason — their own fright, nervousness, fear of the future — and these older women not facing reality, by the use of sleeping pills and tranquilizers. One can only assume that we have a lot of women in our community — young girls through older women — who feel very much excluded by our communities and our society.

I further this along and make the larger connection, between that and what women earn in the workforce, their lack of opportunity and access to post-secondary education and the professions. I have to see that women very often get excluded from the mainstream of our society.

My question to you today has to do with the use of sleeping pills and tranquilizers by older women. Has your department taken any active initiative as a result of the Health and Welfare study to see what can be done other than to simply prescribe these pills to women who obviously are asking for far more than that? Are you coordinating your efforts with other services and agencies to try to provide a sense of community, a sense of society, for women who seem to have given up?

HON. MR. DUECK: The Victoria Health Project is a good example of what we're doing for seniors or what seniors can do for themselves if there's an initiative started or promoted by us — in this case the Ministry of Health. We find it very true that many senior citizens go to a doctor to ask for prescription drugs because they are lonely. However, I think education is about the best answer for that. It's not just education for the elderly; it's education for the physician or druggist. All these people should get involved. Our strategy thus far.... Again, it's something quite new, and we realize they have a problem, not just with prescription drugs but also with alcohol. Because they're lonely, many of these things follow suit. Our strategy thus far has been that the seniors' drug action program, which we call the action program, will work with a number of partners — the British Columbia Medical Association, the Registered Nurses' Association and pharmacists — to develop and deliver a number of education and training initiatives to improve prescription practices and encourage informed consumption of medication. A total of $790,000 has been allotted for this initiative over the next three years.

I should tell you that there is.... We call it abuse. In some cases it's a desperation move. I think I mentioned the other day that in Edmonton a physician did a raid on a number of patients' homes and found enough Valium to put Edmonton to sleep for ten days. We will take part of the blame, but I think it's a matter of educating people. The medical profession, the BCMA, the nurses' association and everyone must get involved. Seniors must get involved — seniors helping seniors. This is why the Victoria Health Project, in my opinion, is going to be a tremendous success, because we are going to get seniors involved with seniors. When they have some occupation and something to fill their void, they will be much happier, I'm sure.

We also have a program we just kicked off the other day, as you well know: Toward a Better Age. That will be one of the topics, I'm sure, that will come out in the recommendations about the overuse of prescribed drugs in society. I'm sorry to say that it's not just the elderly. Prescription drug abuse in all of Canada is absolutely unreal. We're using more prescription drugs than ever before.

The Ministry of Health is committed to promoting and improving the health of seniors in British Columbia. One indication, of course, is the Choosing Wellness program, which we introduced and have just completed. The program encourages Ministry of Health staff to work in collaboration with other community leaders to develop and support community-initiated programs. The ministry also provides Choosing Wellness education materials for seniors, community facilitators and others who are taking a leadership role in seniors' health promotion. We are

[ Page 6425 ]

on the way — perhaps not fast enough, but I think we are doing the right things.

MS. MARZARI: I think the minister has broached the subject that I wanted to hit here, which is basically that there are many problems faced by women in our community that are considered health problems. But they are not necessarily going to be addressed by the medical model alone, and coordination with pharmacists and doctors isn't the only answer.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: I said that you broached the subject.

We also have to look towards the psychological and the emotional, which brings me to the subject of the use of psychologists in our medical services system. I bring up another subject at this point, as I will a few others, just to look at this.

A number of women and children have been sexually abused in our community. This is a problem that once again has surfaced in the last decade, and that we have only begun to understand the depth of. We all hear horrid stories, terror stories, of what sexual abuse can do to people — the terror and fear they have for many years, whether it was a single encounter with an abuser or a systematic period of incest in a family. Many people are suffering. Perhaps as many as one in four women has been suggested by statistics that seem to be reasonably reliable, and certainly a number of men as well. Certainly the case heard in the Kootenays just in the last few days, in which the judge suggested that we are in for an epidemic of these cases, is a warning to us all.

Once again, we have an illness in our society. Once again, it has to be related to mental health. Once again, how are we going to even begin to deal with this unless we can give those survivors, which is what the victims call themselves, some protection? Certainly we can't eradicate the experience unless we go into a full enforcement program, which I would certainly advocate. We have to deal with it using psychological and psychiatric services. It strikes me, and many other people as well, that we have to look at the possibility of providing MSP for psychological services and counselling to people who have been abused. Similarly we have to provide that same kind of counselling for women with eating disorders; similarly towards women who are perhaps using drugs to avoid reality.

I would put that forward as a suggestion, and ask the minister how far along we might be in terms of re-evaluating our mental health services and our capacity to incorporate the psychological service, or the psychologist, into our Medical Services Plan?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. DUECK: We provide psychologist services through sessional payment rather than MSP. We are not denying anyone who requires that service, but it has not yet come under the MSP schedule of fees.

You mention that child abuse and sexual abuse is becoming more prevalent or more known. I think it's both. I think more people come out of the closet and mention it and bring it to the attention of authority, but I also think that there are perhaps more being abused than ever before. At least, this is the information I have from psychologists and psychiatrists.

I have a note here that the number of sexually abused children receiving mental health services has increased from 480 in 1986 to 1,200 in 1988. That's the children. Women also, whether it's sexual abuse or physical abuse: I think society has to deal with it. We do, although we are now going across ministries; a lot of that is in the Social Services ministry.

I should mention too that since 1986, since I became minister.... In those two and a half years, there's been quite a shift from ministers protecting their own turf, saying: "This is mine and that's yours, and don't bother me; it belongs in that category and that ministry." We are now saying: "What is the problem? Can we deal with it?" We do cooperate with various ministries. For example, when it comes to abuse, there is the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Social Services and my ministry. They all fit in, in one way or another. We cannot say: "I'm sorry, we look after providing a few counsellors; now the other thing is up to you." Sure, we have a role to play, but at the same time we must coordinate and we must cooperate. We are doing that.

The Ministry of Health has established a women and health coordinating committee to provide a forum for information exchange and policy coordination on women's health issues. This goes back to you asking if we are doing anything in that area of women's health. The focus of this committee is to consider health-related issues and papers which have a particular impact on women and to relay information to appropriate jurisdictions on women's health issues. Perhaps you can criticize that we are too late. But it is an issue we are addressing. We know there is a problem. Maybe over the years it was overlooked.

MR. ROSE: I'm filling in until my colleague comes back, because he has some questions. But I have two or three comments that I would like to make.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I know. I'm all-powerful. I'll just look after this side. I don't need any help at the moment.

Do you want to declare a brief adjournment? I want to ask some questions. I understand that the minister has certain personal problems that he has to attend to. I can well sympathize with him. There are a number of things that perhaps the deputy could take down and provide the answers for, when the minister gets back.

[4:15]

The other day I asked how many people — nurses, psych nurses and others — who have retired at Riverview have since been hired back on a contract. That was the information that I sought when I spoke in this debate earlier.

[ Page 6426 ]

The other thing is that I did read parts of "Toward a Better Age." I wasn't impressed with all of it, but I was impressed with the part that called for better pensions for people. As you know and as I pointed out in my little pension speech about seniors the other day, over half of the people over 65 — in Canada some two and a half million people, so about one and a half million of those — are so poor that they qualify for the supplement.

These loneliness problems that were talked about by my colleague from West Point Grey and the problems associated with drug use and that sort of thing in the older population, both male and female, might be due to poverty. A good deal of it is because they are locked up because they can't afford to get out or go anywhere. They are increasingly caught between a fixed income which is inadequate, if all they get is just OAS plus the supplement — most people don't get CPP because they haven't worked or they haven't worked long enough to qualify — and ever-increasing costs for rent, food and the like. There is some indexing on both those programs, but if it is inadequate to begin with, that indexing is on too small a base.

The minister talks about a better age and better pensions as one of the solutions to poverty. We're not talking about freebies; we're talking about contributory pensions that will preclude the contribution holidays or the employer scoffing off the surpluses. We're talking about pensions that are adequate, indexed, contributory and with defined benefits that are related somehow to the current cost of living.

I pointed out the other day that those companies benefit from inflation. At the same time, defined benefit plans fail to meet the expectations and the needs of elderly people who have worked all their lives. The direct question is: what is the minister prepared to do about this, other than just flag it? Is he going to bring forward through the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services or other ministries some sort of a provincial pension benefit standards act? We don't have anything like that in this province. We're one of the two provinces without it; P.E.I. Is the other one.

There have been a number of representations made to me by the registered nurses that they want to have the power to retire at age 55. I know we have a shortage of nurses. We're going to have a shortage of teachers too, but that goes back to a number of things including restraint. Has the ministry considered this in conjunction with the superannuation commissioner — to permit those people to voluntarily retire?

As everyone knows, once you get older, your strength isn't as great. It seems to me that after 30 years on the job, that length.... You haven't noticed that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. ROSE: You haven't noticed my strength is....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: After 30 years in service from age 25 to age 55, surely there should be provision to pay up a contributory pension which would permit these people to retire if they wish. I realize it's complicated right now by the fact that you're suffering a shortage, and I think you're going to continue to suffer a shortage as long as the rewards for nursing are much greater somewhere else than they are here.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know about that, but I've had experience with my own family of a niece going down and working in California because she frankly made more money. And they may be coming this way now. I know that Toronto, for instance, is importing them from England. They go from England, where they're trained, to Canada — like we used to steal many of our teachers right after the war from another jurisdiction and paid for by another society.

The minister is here now, so I don't need to pad anything further. The minister has satisfied his needs. He's been out, and he's back.

The three questions are.... Nurses retiring at 55 on an adequately funded superannuation pension: can it be done? Have you investigated into it? You outlined it in "Toward a Better Age." How many retirees have been hired back at Riverview? Those are the two or three items I wanted to talk about.

HON. MR. DUECK: Those are good questions, and I haven't got very good answers, because they are complex. Nurses retiring at 55.... Of course, right now I hope no one retires at 55, because we can't afford it; we need them.

However, in the future, this is something they have to consider in their negotiations with their employer, rather than through us. It may become a policy with us at some time in the future; I'm not sure. I have not delved into that at all.

Seniors. There are more and more seniors coming on the market now with private pensions that are indexed. There are more seniors living the life of the golden age — if you want to put it that way — with more money than they had before. When we made up the strategy paper, that was one of the questions asked. That was one of the concerns that was put forward. It will certainly be discussed when the task force goes out. We'll see whether they're interested in that issue, and whether they want to take it further.

In the consultation process, if you saw the paper we issued, there was a wide range of suggestions from people that they would like to discuss. Hopefully, when that comes back, we'll have a better idea of what their concerns are. I don't know if I addressed all your questions, or if there was another one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I think I addressed that yesterday. There were 14. I believe you were out of the House when I brought that information back. We

[ Page 6427 ]

asked 50 if they would like to come back on contract, and in fact, 14 agreed.

MR. ROSE: I don't know if the minister is aware, but the current superannuation arrangements we have in the provincial fund for municipal workers and the like really don't permit retirement at 55 years. Sure, it could be bargained for. But when the government embarked upon its early retirement program and encouraged people — many middle-management people took advantage of it with, I think, some disastrous results as far as the ministries were concerned for a while — they had to pay into the fund some $25,000 per retiree between the age of 55 and 60 years. Right now you cannot retire without penalty, even if you wanted to, even if you are dragging yourself along.

There is another point I want to make and have the minister look into. I haven't got the figures before me, but I think you will find that there are very few private pension plans that are indexed to inflation. Most are plans that shrink 50 percent of their value within ten years at 5 percent inflation. The only ones that I know of are those in the auto industry, and they were won by a tough guy by the name of Bob White. Elsewhere any indexing or retroactivity is fiercely resisted by the pension industry. If we can't fight them, we'll have to do it through a government plan.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The politicians are not doing anything about it, that's why.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just recently I met with a delegation of Friends of Fred. The minister may have already heard from this group. It is a group that is organizing in Surrey in support of the bone marrow transplant program with the Red Cross.

Fred is a 30-year-old man who lives in my constituency of Whalley, and his friends are organizing to try to encourage people to go down to register for testing to see if they are compatible with Fred's blood type. In that process, however, we have come to realize that while we, through the Red Cross, have perhaps the most advanced registry — thanks to the initiative of the RCMP and a donation by the Lottery Fund to the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society who actually got the registry off and running, one of a very few in Canada that have several people registered on it — the problem is that while there is a 70 percent success rate in unrelated transplants of bone marrow, there is a bit of a holdup in that there are only two recruiting officers and two and a half lab technicians. The initial blood test takes five to eight hours and must be done within 24 hours of taking the sample.

While the government made the first commitment of that $300,000 through the lottery, the commitment is not, as I understand it, an ongoing commitment to the registry. The more that people get involved with this process, the more obvious it becomes that it is a very cost-effective way of saving people's lives.

I would like to know from the minister during his estimates whether he anticipates any support going to the registry. If not, why not?

HON. MR. DUECK: I should also add the name of Harold Long to that list of people who got the Denniston program underway. I shouldn't mention Harold Long by name, should I? The member for Mackenzie must be noted at this time as being very instrumental. As a matter of fact, had it not been for that member, this program would not have got off the ground, and I have to give him that credit. As a matter of fact, he went at it so hard that at times I didn't know how to get rid of him.

We did go to the Red Cross. The Ministry of Health — I have to give credit to our people — spent hours and hours putting this thing together with the Red Cross. Then moneys were made available through the lottery to the Red Cross as a one-shot deal. Of course, Red Cross is funded by the province, so it is funded on a regular basis through the Red Cross Society. But it was a one-time $300,000 amount that we gave to this registry, which is operating very successfully now.

The problem is that it takes anywhere from 100,000 to 750,000 donors to find a match. We are working now to perhaps tie into the United States, if we haven't already done so, and to Europe, so that when someone needs a match, that's on the computer — they can go down the list and we can find the match. You're right: anyone who has only the one chance to get a bone marrow transplant, or else life is at an end.... It is very important.

It's a complex system, because it requires so many matches, but I think we're well underway. I'm proud of the program. I'm really happy that we did get it started, but I can't give enough credit to the member for Mackenzie for bulldozing this thing to the stage where it was possible to go ahead. Much credit goes also to the people from his area and the RCMP who were involved.

[4:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to recognize the member and all of the community people who fought for the registry, the RCMP and the many private donors, as well as the money made available through the lotteries to get this registry up and running.

Now that the minister has recognized that this is a very valuable resource we have here in the province, I want to stress that for someone who is dying of leukemia or another related illness and is in need of a bone marrow transplant, and for the family and friends of that person who want to help, willingly giving of their time, of their energy and of their financial resources.... The Friends of Fred, for example, have organized in the next month a huge garage sale, a dance, a fun run, a soccer tournament, a slow-pitch tournament, all in support of bringing money to the Bruce Denniston fund to match the province's donation of $300,000. However, in addition to raising money in support of the society, they are encouraging people to go down and be tested to get their names

[ Page 6428 ]

on the register in hopes that they themselves may be the match for their friend, for Fred. The numbers that I have for that match are that for a common match it's one in 450; for the more uncommon matches it goes all the way up to 7,050. Perhaps those are the numbers you just gave.

This organization is hoping to give some support to their friend beyond the raising of money for the organization, and perhaps some support to other people. As they continue to organize, people come to them. A mother with a four-year-old child has just joined the Friends of Fred in hopes that her child may also find a donor.

The problem, though, that I want to bring to the minister's attention.... There is a need for ongoing support for this program. It's fine to get it up and running, but it does need ongoing support. The problem is that it takes time to process those who want to be tested and find their name on that register. The problem in the time-lag seems to be in the resources the registry has at its disposal. Again, the registry has two recruiting officers and two and a half technicians. There is a time problem with the two and a half technicians and the lab time available for the tests that need to be done to get those people on the register.

I'm hoping that the minister will see the value of this registry and continue to support it and allow the processing of all of these people that the Friends of Fred have found, some 200 to date. I think only 60 have been processed, and the organization has only just started. In hopes that we are able to find a match for Fred's bone marrow and for that transplant, we need to process a lot more people. We believe that Fred may be of native Indian ancestry, and one of the genetic markers may indeed be the marker that is necessary from the native Indian community. A call has gone out in that community, which will mean that increasing numbers of people will want to be tested to see if they are compatible and can donate bone marrow. I want to emphasize, before I sit down, that to be able to process and staff the tests that are needed in time to help this young man — Fred's time is somewhat limited — there needs to be support for the registry. I ask the minister to consider that.

HON. MR. DUECK: It is gratifying to hear that when someone is in trouble — you mention the Friends of Fred — so many people get involved. It makes me feel good that we still have people in our society who are willing to volunteer, give money and give of their time without.... They don't ask for any recognition; they do it because they feel it's their duty. We don't ever want to take that away from them, of course.

As for not having enough technicians, I am not aware of the Red Cross even requesting any extra funding for that. It may be so. We'll look into it.

I want to explain that the numbers I mentioned — 100,000 to 750,000 — are unrelated compatible donors. The figures could be skewed if you mixed them with related relatives, for example. Then, of course, it goes way down. I think the matches are really the problem, because it takes such a massive number of matches before they can find one that's compatible. That takes time and money.

I'm glad people are getting behind this and helping out in whatever way they can; they've obviously shown that in this case. We will look further to see if there is a holdup, and see if some of these people can't get in to get matched. Maybe there's something we can do.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank the minister for making that commitment. I assure you that both I and the organization from Surrey will be back to you. It is a very energetic group.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I understand the commitment was to look into it.

I also understand, from what the minister said, that he recognizes that it does take a large number of people to process those people. Given the time required for testing, we need an increased number of technicians and more lab time. I think it's a logical conclusion, but I look forward to the minister's inquiries into that and hope that out of those inquiries the minister will find some money for additional support.

MR. LONG: With regard to bone marrow and the conversation that has been going on here, I would like to thank the Health minister for his involvement in obtaining money for bone marrow in the past, which my town of Powell River was very much behind.

I think one of the problems we were running into and one of the reasons the Health minister went to bat and funded it by matching the funds of the private sector for bone marrow, and got it into place for the people who have leukemia.... That is one thing. But I think that down the road, probably nationwide, we should be looking at why bone marrow was left out to start with. We have organ donors, which is a solid substance, and we have blood donors, but somehow bone marrow slipped through the cracks. It was neither organ nor blood. Now that the Red Cross has taken on this role of looking after bone marrow, I think maybe it's time we looked at encouraging the Red Cross. They already have their donors in place, they already have identification of most blood, and they already want more of the blood donors to be bone marrow donors at the same time. The funding for blood donation could be enhanced, and it could possibly work as blood and marrow donation, rather than just blood. I don't know how far it's gone through the ministry, but I would encourage that, because it makes one avenue for blood and marrow. I think that would cut our costs in the long run. It's just a suggestion. I know it would help so many more people, seeing that we already have the bulk of the cost paid for through the blood banks. And it would make the marrow come on faster for more people in the future.

[ Page 6429 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just one further question. As the previous speaker was making his plea for that change.... When I was talking to one of the recruiters at the bone marrow clinic, she indicated that there was some federal funding in the budget for the Red Cross. Has the minister or his staff had any discussions with federal counterparts with regard to that? While the Red Cross program for bone marrow transplants has a component in each and every province, I would hope that the Red Cross or the federal ministry of health recognizes that B.C. has the only functioning, up-and-running component. That should be recognized and supported, so that if there is any further money coming from the federal budget, the project underway here in B.C. should be recognized and get a good portion of that money to keep it going.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I didn't mention it before, but we were in some competition to have that bone marrow unit in Vancouver and British Columbia rather than in central Canada. We had quite a problem getting it here, but I should mention that the Red Cross is funded by all the provinces, so they all have a stake in this. The Red Cross is, in fact, funding the bone marrow clinic, and the provinces fund the Red Cross. Indirectly it is involving all the provinces, and as we grow with this clinic, I'm sure that the Red Cross will receive more dollars for this purpose, because as you mentioned, it's just off the ground.

Although we have done bone marrow transplants in British Columbia for a couple of years, they were generally matches from relatives. This registry is very recent; it has just got off the ground. I think it's a good program. I think it will expand and that British Columbia will probably be looked upon as the initiator of this, which in fact it was. But the Red Cross is funded by the provincial and federal governments. So yes, there are funds provincially and federally, because they fund the Red Cross, and the Red Cross funds this.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would first of all like to congratulate the minister for coming to Alberni and my constituency in December, putting on a Father Christmas hat and awarding the funds for the start of an intermediate-care home, a second facility in Alberni to supplement Fir Park Village, which is probably one of the finest facilities in British Columbia.

I'm glad that the project has been approved, and we look forward to building those 70-some beds. Hopefully the native community, the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council, will come through with 30 beds to add to that fine facility and bring the complement to 100 beds. We have need of 85 beds immediately, and I'm sure that by the time the intermediate-care home plans go through and construction starts and the time delays involved in that are over, we will fill all 100 beds.

As the minister is undoubtedly aware, in the Alberni riding, West Coast General Hospital has been working on an expansion to the tune of some $7 million. That is coming to a completion date through his ministry, and hopefully the funding will be coming forward out of this year's budget for that.

[4:45]

I thank the minister for that. It's much needed in the riding, and we haven't had a lot of new Health ministry funds come into that riding, even though the job market has gone down there and we have lost citizens. In fact, we are the only city on Vancouver Island that has a declining population. The population does tend to get older, and as the ministry is aware, those people still require adequate health care.

Another matter I would like to ask the minister to include in this year's Health estimates is the fact of a health study being done in Alberni, a study that Alberni has been after for some time because of its pollution problems. We would like to determine the effect that the drastic pollution has on the residents of Alberni. Well over 1,000 people make the trip every day over what's known as the hump, to escape the pollution problems that affect an area such as Alberni. It is a valley with has a fog problem in the winter which prevents the pollution from the four big mills that operate there — particularly the pulp mill — from escaping. Anybody with an asthmatic condition is virtually forced to move. I happen to be one of the people who has a son with an asthmatic condition and who has literally been forced to move out of that community.

We've been after that health study since the sixties. In fact, when complaints were made to the former Premier and he came to Port Alberni, we had a large demonstration, and we were greeted with the wonderful remark that it was nothing to worry about; it was the smell of money and we should be grateful for it — or words to that effect. However, active participation was taken in pursuing the health study, particularly by our regional district and the clean air committee in Port Alberni, and we were actually promised funding by the former Member of Parliament for Alberni, Mr. Schellenberger. Our mayor, Gillian Trumper, made a number of trips back to Ottawa to secure the funding for a health study. In fact, on one trip we were told that the cheque was in the mail. The cheque, however, never did arrive. The provincial ministry also did not seem to think that the parameters of the study, done by Dr. Vedal of UBC, fit into their plans.

That study is now going ahead, funded by the United States government. The government originally wanted to do the study because of pollution concerns in Portland, Oregon. However, Portland has many other industries that might offset the study and its findings. Other pollution factors may enter into trying to find out whether the pulp mills in the Portland area were causing the health problems. In Alberni, of course, we don't have that problem. We only have sawmills and the pulp mill, which produces the greatest amount of smoke and pollution. The American government thought that this would be an ideal place to carry out a health study to find out the effects of pulp mill pollution on citizens. That's why I

[ Page 6430 ]

rise in the House today, Mr. Chairman, to urge the minister to take part in that study.

They are now supplying two offices in the local health unit for Dr. Vedal's assistant, Jim Blair, to carry out that two-year study on the health of outside workers. It has about 25 collection devices in place. Formerly the Ministry of Environment had two or three collection devices — not as sophisticated as these, mind you — on buildings in Port Alberni. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases the devices were not operating when they went to collect the data from them.

Also, a study will be done on schoolchildren and will follow them through two or three years, and possibly a longer term, to see what effects pollution has on their health.

The amazing part is that when the researchers went out to ask the people in Port Alberni if they wanted to participate in this and if they were willing to take the time to be involved in the study, everybody agreed. I'm sure that if more people were asked, we'd have a much bigger study.

I would like to ask the minister at this time if he would be willing to participate in the study, which has already been started. I'm sure it will be useful, not only to the people of Port Alberni in their concerns about health, but to people in areas such as Prince George, Prince Rupert, Howe Sound, Kamloops and any other location where there are pulp mills. This study could lead to defining and inventing new ways in which we could control pollution from pulp mills and make British Columbia a leader in the field.

HON. MR. DUECK: First of all, in regard to the long-term care announcement, I have to say — and I don't mind telling the House — that I've never seen such cooperation between so many people of various backgrounds. They got involved, Mr. Chairman, and all agreed on what they wanted in long-term care There were the union, the native organization, the hospital board, the regional district, continuing care and maybe some other societies. They all came to the same conclusion; they all agreed on what they wanted. I have to admit that it was a pleasure dealing with them. It was really well worth.... The work they did was coordinated, and they came to a conclusion about what they wanted in their area. It was even a little advanced for us to make this announcement, but I just couldn't resist when this type of cooperation was in that community.

As far as the health study is concerned, I'm trying to get some information. I'm aware of it. I know the Americans are funding it; I believe they're using our offices. Exactly where we fit in, or whether we've made a decision, or whether we were requested to participate, fund, help or coordinate.... I'm not sure whether the Ministry of Environment was involved in this. I'd have to get some information. I'm a little bit hazy on that.

MR. G. JANSSEN: There were a number of groups involved in the intermediate-care home. I thank you for that announcement. There was a great deal of cooperation. I'm sure you couldn't resist coming up at Christmastime and playing Santa Claus, as the newspapers so aptly named your photo.

Perhaps you were not the minister at the time the health study was first requested. I hope you will look into it to see what your ministry can do to help and participate in the study, so that we can indeed become leaders in British Columbia, if not in the world, and help other communities facing similar pollution problems from pulp mills.

The mill in Port Alberni is presently spending a great deal of money bringing their standards up to the new limits laid down by the Ministry of Environment. They had requested a variance permit; that was denied. Some pressure was put on by various groups in the community. I'm glad for that. A number of years ago, when the economy was not good in Port Alberni, virtually everybody agreed to go along with the variance. The MacMillan Bloedel operation there was having some great financial difficulties, and we didn't want to put any more strain on them than they already had, so almost everybody in the community agreed to go along with the extension of their permit. However, now that the economy has picked up and MacMillan Bloedel is in a better financial position, I'm glad they're doing that study. Hopefully, the results of the health study will prove — because the pollution equipment will go into effect before the study is over — that there is a marked improvement in the health of people in Port Alberni.

I'd also like to address the minister about his ministry's policy on funding out-of-province cases. I make reference to a young lady in my riding, Katrina Arbanas, who has Apert's disease. I'm sure he knows the disfigurement and what young children have to go through in a social way while they're attending school. My predecessor, Bob Skelly, was involved in this case, Mr. Minister, and it's been passed on to me, to give you an idea of how long we've been doing this. Funding was denied by your ministry on May 1, 1987, for the operations to continue in Texas, where she started these operations. It's a very serious matter to have a craniofacial operation done, as you're aware. However, the family has made available to me two letters from two people who were, in fact, granted cost coverage for similar operations at the craniofacial hospital in Dallas, Texas. I would just like the minister to explain to me, and of course to the families involved, why there is no hard policy on who gets to go and who does not.

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly don't make that decision personally, as you can well appreciate. If a procedure can be done in British Columbia, then of course it's done here. If it's a procedure that's accepted and the Medical Advisory Committee does make recommendations that they go outside of country, then we will pay.

I cannot give you an answer on that specific case. I'd have to look at my records. If you want to follow that through with me at a later date, I will certainly do so.

[ Page 6431 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I realize the minister cannot be familiar with every case in his ministry. I certainly have enough difficulty in keeping up with some of the mail that goes through my hands, and I'm sure the minister is much busier than I am. But I can guarantee him that a direct appeal was made to him by Bob Skelly, and he directly turned it down. I will raise the matter with him and send the information that I have available.

I believe that the policy of the ministry should be fair to all. I realize there are variances in individual cases. However, when a young child such as this one has started dealing with one hospital.... The minister is probably aware of the pain, suffering and fear that a child who has Apert's disease must go through. Some consideration should be given to the comfort that the child may have in going back to the same doctor, the same hospital and the same operations, rather than switching back and forth between Dallas, London, Toronto, Winnipeg and, as now may be the case, Vancouver; I'm not sure. I think those are some of the considerations the ministry should be taking into account, not simply the fact that the operation is available in British Columbia and the ministry can save some dollars.

[5:00]

HON. MR. DUECK: I remember the former member speaking to me about this particular case. It's not that I don't remember him speaking to me, but I don't remember the case itself and what was involved.

I have to tell this House that we have very specific criteria, and it is not ad hoc at all. It follows the criteria. It follows medical diagnosis, advance approval.... There are certain steps to follow. If we erred, and we want to go through that process again, I will gladly do so. But it's not an ad hoc thing where somebody looks and says that this one is okay and that one isn't. Not at all. It follows a very definite procedure, and if it does not fit or does not qualify, then it's denied. I can't give you the specifics on that case; I don't remember at this point in time. But I will gladly go through the whole process with you, since you're new and perhaps don't have all the background.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to raise a number of matters during the course of these estimates. I'm probably the last speaker, so the minister can know that we're just about finished on this side of the House.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad that brings nothing but delight to the heart of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston).

I want to deal with a number of purely local issues; exclusively matters that have come to my attention by way of correspondence. Again, if they are very specific and he doesn't have the background material on them, that's fine.

Before I do that, I want to make two comments. One, I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank the Minister of Health for his decision to provide funding with respect to a health clinic in Esquimalt. I know that is a matter I have raised in the House during the course of estimates in the last few years. It was something that was deeply desired by the community of Esquimalt and something which all of the four core municipalities had wanted to see occur for that municipality. The minister's agreement and decision to make sure that was provided was much appreciated across the community. I do want to make it very clear that I am grateful for the minister's recognition of that need and the application of funds to that.

At the same time, if I may, it has come to my attention through one of my colleagues that certain information that was provided to me by the minister's staff may indeed have been privileged information. I did not believe that it was when it was passed on to me. However, if that was the case, I apologize for that. I think there is a system, in respect to the way things work around here, that all of us respect the various nuances and forms of operation that exist. I had not believed at the time that the information that was passed on to me was in any way privileged. Had I known it was privileged, I certainly would not have utilized it in the fashion I did. I think that it's better that I express that through this forum, in this way, on the record, so that is made clear. I emphasize that it just wasn't my intention to misuse anything that had been transmitted to me from the minister's office. I'm sure that will go a long way towards clarifying any misunderstandings that may have occurred.

Having made those points, I'll turn to matters that relate to concerns raised by my constituents. Most recently I received a letter that was directed to the Minister of Health from a constituent of mine, which is like many letters that have come to my attention in the past and continue to cause me difficulty. Just for the record — because I promised my constituent that I would raise the matter in the Legislature — I want to just read the text of the letter. The letter, if I can paraphrase it, deals with the period of time one must wait in order to get access to services in hospitals in British Columbia.

The letter is as follows:

"There has been much talk about senior people staying in their own home — with, if necessary, some assistance from a homemaker — and remaining independent so that they do not have to be sent to a nursing home or an extended-care hospital. I fully agree with that not only for financial reasons but also because the psychological effect of giving up one's home can be so devastating to the elderly.

"I am 74 years old, live in my own home without help, and until recently this has been no problem. Now, however, I have become the victim of osteoarthritis in my right hip joint. It became noticeable in 1987, and in November 1988 I consulted my family physician.... He prescribed anti-inflammatory medication, which seemed to help at first, but early in February 1989 the pain and discomfort increased. An x-ray was taken" by the doctor and "it was decided that I should be examined by another doctor," who is a specialist in Victoria.

[ Page 6432 ]

"I was told I needed a total hip replacement. The procedure was explained to me in detail, including the fact that the bone in the femur is thinning, which seemed to indicate the urgent need for surgery. My doctors closing remark was that I should prepare myself for a waiting-period of eight to ten months.

"I was so shocked that I decided to write this letter. I realize that the surgery that I need falls in the category of elective surgery, but am I expected to wait until the situation becomes an emergency? This whole matter is an incredible disgrace when so much money is being spent on non-priority issues. Surely the government has its own priorities wrong."

That is one of several letters. I don't want to read them all, but there is one letter from an individual who is elderly, who needs hip replacement surgery and looks upon the wait.

I understand that there are difficulties in our hospitals. My wife works as a registered nurse in a hospital, as I know the minister knows. I also understand that sometimes physicians' schedules add to the length of waiting. But it still seems to me that it's somewhat inordinate for someone to wait for that period of time when dealing with a hip problem. Eight to ten months is just too long.

In previous estimates I have brought to the minister's attention other situations where I thought that people had to wait too long to get surgery. This deals with hospitals in the greater Victoria area. I wonder if the minister, for the record, would like to add any comments with respect to the correspondence that I have received from Mr. Kerkhoven, who is a constituent of mine in Sooke.

HON. MR. DUECK: I cannot say that six months is too long. I cannot say that one year is too long or too short. I know that in other jurisdictions they wait an awful lot longer. That's not much excuse or much help to the individual who is in pain and waiting. But I can tell you, with the resources available, that we are doing everything we can to have people wait as short a period as possible. In some cases it is a very short period. The physician makes the decision about which is emergent and which is elective. Unfortunately some of them have waited longer than they thought they should have to wait. If I was in that position, I would probably want to get it done immediately.

We find, too, that the waiting-list for elective surgery in the summer months is suddenly not followed through with, because people then have more time, and maybe Aunt Nellie is out from England and it doesn't suit. That's why it is elective, because people adjust, and so do the hospitals and the physicians. I would like to see it much shorter. Unfortunately, elective surgery has a waiting-list. I believe 85 percent of all elective surgery is done within eight weeks; on average, approximately 80 percent of in-patients and 85 percent of day care patients wait less than eight weeks for elective surgery. That is the average, and that doesn't help the individual who has to wait six months or eight months. But by and large it's not bad, when I look at the other jurisdictions across Canada. I would like to shorten it, but unfortunately at this time it is not possible.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not our health critic, or I would take some time to respond to that reply from the minister; but I am sure that our health critic, the member from Point Grey, has dealt with these matters.

The statistics don't seem to jibe with the reality that people find themselves in. You listen to the stuff that comes from the government — and I'm not questioning the basis of it — and it doesn't appear that the waiting-period is that long. If you listen to people, on the other hand, who phone you and talk to you, then it appears as if the waits are a lot longer. It doesn't give much comfort to Mr. Kerkhoven to know that statistics don't apply in his case. Indeed, there is a discomfort there to a senior citizen.

I have another letter that came from a constituent of mine, Pam Mitchell. I should say that I know the minister has a tremendous workload, but it always seems that of all the ministries, the Ministry of Health seems to take the longest in replying to letters. We had to wait quite a while for this one. I'm not going to quote the whole letter, because it goes on for several pages, but she talks about her own experiences in terms of difficulty in securing services with respect to cancer of the breast. Then she says: "As you can imagine, just having to deal with this situation is traumatic enough for my daughter." Sorry, I should have said her daughter had the cancer.

"However, a further situation has arisen in that her 15-year-old son Patrick has to undergo what I understand to be fairly complex surgery on his spine to correct a deformity. Twice now, surgery to be carried out in Vancouver has been scheduled and at the last moment cancelled, the dates being September 11 and September 18. This is placing a great burden on my daughter...."

She goes on to explain why. Then she says:

"I write therefore to inquire if you can assist in this matter to resolve a definite date for surgery in the near future. I am afraid for my daughter's own health. She needs to concentrate completely on her condition, and the relief afforded by knowing her son's surgery has been successfully completed will be invaluable in enabling her to do that. I realize that the hospital is working under difficult circumstances because of government cutbacks and restrictions, and that is why I am hoping for some assistance from a politician. I also believe that the government should be made aware of how its policies affect the people it purports to represent. If this is happening to my daughter, there must be countless others similarly affected."

That's another letter I received from another constituent, which tends to reinforce the concern that people have about delays. The minister's comments are on the record, but again, as an MLA, I am finding now — more so than when I was first elected — a greater frequency of these types of letters. I only picked a few that have come in over the years. There must be some resolution to these problems.

It occurs to me that there is a larger problem with respect to delivery of health care services in this province. On the one hand we receive letters such as those I have exemplified here this afternoon, from constituents who talk about delays and difficulties and the trauma involved in that, and on the other

[ Page 6433 ]

hand I talk to those who work in the field. I must say that my sympathies go out to both. Nurses in this province are working under very stressful conditions. I think it is a tribute to the quality of person that we get as nurses in this province that they continue to work under some very stressful and very difficult situations.

Nurses in this province — and I'm sure the minister is aware of this — work in conditions where they have intolerably high patient ratios, where the nurses cannot provide the type of care they would like to provide or were trained for with respect to the people they're attending to in hospitals. You can't provide the level of care that really is required when you're running around trying to deal with eight or ten patients during the course of a shift. The reality of the workplace is far different from what people thought they were getting into during their training. The goal, it seems to me from the ministry's point of view, ought to be to bring the perception of what attracts people to go into nursing closer to the reality that they face in the workplace.

[5:15]

I don't want to dwell on this, but we know from studies forwarded to government that there's a critical shortage of nurses. I know the minister has a study on this, and my colleague has dealt with the issue; so has the former health critic, the member for Prince George. We know from the material that has come to the government that there's a need to provide better working conditions for nurses. We know there's a loss of nurses from British Columbia to other jurisdictions.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says no. My own life experience would suggest otherwise. Maybe my own life experience has been a peculiar one in that the people I interact with in that profession are unique. I'm well aware of situations where nurses have left this province for places like California to engage in their occupation there because of the nature of their employment here and the benefits and incentives available there.

Some of that you can deal with in terms of wages, and some of that you can deal with in terms of benefits. I think you can deal with a lot of that in terms of eliminating the stress these people feel in their workplace. I think you could eliminate a lot more — putting aside the issue of wages and benefits — if there was a better system. I seem to pick this up wherever I go in the province: a better system of communication between people who work as nurses in this province and people who administer hospitals.

Maybe my experience is different than the minister's. I seem to find, wherever I go and talk to people working in the health care field — particularly nurses — that there is a lack of communication between administration and nurses. Again, if there was better dialogue and sense of teamwork, I think some of the stress would diminish and the morale would improve. Those are the kinds of things that I think government must move towards.

I understand that it's a large bureaucracy. I understand we're dealing with a lot of people and a lot of money. Maybe it's just in the nature of large bureaucracies that we have this type — if I can call it that — of alienation that people who work in the field feel. Apart from the wages and benefits issues, it seems to me that these are very critical considerations. In terms of management of those resources and our hospitals in British Columbia, there has to be more attention paid by the ministry.

On the one hand, we have the situation experienced by constituents of mine like Pam Mitchell and Mrs. Kerkhoven. On the other hand, we have the experiences that come to my attention from people working in the nursing profession. We have concerns about occupational health and safety. I think I'm better advised to deal with those matters with the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) because they come under his purview. I will be raising several matters during the course of Labour estimates with respect to occupational health and safety, and how it affects the workplace with respect to nurses.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The Chairman seems ready to tell me my light has turned green. Let me move on and deal with one final issue. I have received a letter from a constituent. I want to just read this letter — it's just one of several — because it points out the nature of the problem.

"I am writing in regard to my mother, Mrs. Irene Williamson, who lives...in Victoria...is 80 years of age and lives alone. She is unable to walk more than half a block and does not take very good care of herself in terms of personal hygiene, food preparation and cleanliness of her home. In an attempt to arrange the proper support services for her from here in Edmonton, I contacted the B.C. long-term-care department of health and spoke...."

He names a secretary. I don't think it's fair to put that name on the record. He provided the secretary with the particulars about his mother.

"I called again on August 8, and I was referred to another person.... I am concerned, as my mother does not have any relatives in Victoria, that she was lonely and sounded very weak when I phoned her.

"No one returned my call. So I flew out on August 20 to spend a week with my mother and to make the necessary arrangements so she would be able to remain in her own home...."

I'm going to end the letter there, except to say that the letter then goes on and on about supplying homemaker services to his mother, and again the inordinate delays from various companies, including Upjohn, in taking a look at his mother.

I want to go on to what I think are the critical paragraphs:

"All my efforts and those of your department have resulted in undue anxiety for an elderly lady who lives alone and is very lonely and in need of contact and homemaker services. No proper service has been provided to date and no one has come from the vol-

[ Page 6434 ]

unteer agency to provide the personal contact Mrs. Haddock said was required.

"It has been four months since the arrangement was made. Cannot something be done to provide her with the care she requires? I thought helping seniors to stay in their own homes was the objective of longterm care."

What disturbed me about the letter, apart from the details that I have read into the record, is these incredible delays in dealing with people in terms of long-term care. The minister has responded, and to his credit, he has put in touch people in regional operations and home support from the continuing care division. But the correspondence was written in December; the minister replied in March. For that four-month period, plus the time-period referred to in that letter, this woman's needs were left unattended.

I understand these things happen, but they ought not to happen. It's another example of the kind of situation that seems to plague people on a day-to-day level which we, as members of the Legislature, find ourselves having to deal with.

The member for Langley is giving me a sign, so I must sit down in deference to her; but if the minister has any comments, I would be most happy to hear them for the record.

HON. MR. DUECK: I should make a couple of little points. Number one, my information is that there is no net loss of nurses; we get about as many in as leave. Also, I have had letters — there was a letter to the editor not long ago — about some of the experiences of the nurses who went south, but I haven't got them with me and I'm not going to bore the House with them.

Communication problems, of course, are not the Ministry of Health's; it's the hospital, the management, the administration, with the nurses. If there is a problem, we try to get involved and correct it. But really, it's a society; they work out their own labour problems from within.

You quoted a lot of letters, and I just happened to get this one yesterday. I have all kinds of letters like this, and I should have collected them. I think I should read this letter, because you read a lot of letters. It says:

"I am just emerging from a heartrending experience. After a long and painful illness, my wife died a few weeks ago. I can now fully appreciate the wonderful help which was given to me by the medical services of your ministry. Without your help, we would have never been able to supply the drugs needed to alleviate her pain, nor would we have been able to pay for the nurses who were so helpful and so devoted to our dear patient.

"I want, Mr. Minister, to show a small token of appreciation. I know my cheque is but a drop in the ocean, but at any rate, it will speak for us and our gratitude to the plan, the like of which I have never met — a plan which should be an inspiration to all other provinces. Enclosed is a cheque to MSP for $1,000."

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure the minister doesn't get letters like that every day, and those tend to stick out in his mind. We'll move on to another issue I just want to canvass quickly, and then we'll give the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Ree) the break that he is so desirous of.

I have a group of families in my riding who have children with heart problems. I don't know if any assistance is provided in this regard, or if the ministry is entertaining it. If they are, I would just like to know. The families often have to come from other parts of the province to stay in Vancouver or Victoria while the needs of their children are being attended to. It's my understanding that these families do not get any financial support, nor are they asking for a lot. But over time, the accommodation, food and travel expenses accumulate, and it becomes quite a financial strain, which that compounds the other strains associated with having a child with heart disabilities.

The British Columbia Heart Foundation, I understand, does not provide funding for this type of support for children, but it does provide it for research into the needs of children. Is the minister considering providing some type of financial assistance to families who find themselves in this type of an environment in order to help cushion them from the inordinate expenses they may incur? If a program is indeed available, I'd sure like to know so that I can transmit it to my constituents.

HON. MR. DUECK: I suppose we felt that wasn't really our role. We're in the health business. It's probably my colleague the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

But having said that, there are volunteer organizations, like Heart House here in Victoria and McDonald House, that help people who come to the city; but we in the Ministry of Health have not, up to this point in time, funded them. I can't say it's not necessary. It certainly would be nice if it could be done. But thus far we haven't got a program like that.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm disappointed to hear that, but I will take it up with the Minister of Social Services and Housing, who I'm sure is keenly listening as he sits there.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Do you want the answers tonight or in my estimates?

MR. SIHOTA: If he wants to answer now, he can.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No. You would only ask me again anyway.

MR. SIHOTA: That was a good comment from the minister.

It is true there are volunteer organizations that attend to some of these needs. Of course, the problem often is that the families involved in raising the funds and setting up some of these organizations are the very families that have children with these disabilities. As a consequence, you add a third level of stress in terms of the fund-raising and all of the extracurricular activities involved in bingos, car washes and that

[ Page 6435 ]

kind of stuff, which just serves to compound the problem.

I hope the government will consider this. Certainly I will take it up with the Minister of Social Services and Housing, who I'm sure, with his increased budget, has all sorts of money available for this kind of stuff. And as he is a generous chap, I know that funding will be forthcoming from his ministry.

Vote 35 approved.

Vote 36: ministry operations, $2,936,389,521 — approved.

Vote 37: Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare, $1,372,394,289 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 13: minister's office, $254,015 (continued).

MR. SIHOTA: I want to continue from where we left off yesterday when we were talking about the Charter of Rights and section 15 funding by the ministry.

The minister said yesterday — if I understand his comments correctly — that it is either under consideration or that he is mindful of the recommendation of the "Access to Justice" report, which will then allow me to raise that matter again either by way of applause or of criticism, should the government not provide funding for section 15 cases.

In the interim, it's also my understanding that the government has adopted a policy of seeking costs with respect to these matters. My question to the minister is: will the government adopt a policy of not seeking costs with respect to actions begun by some of the disadvantaged groups that I referred to yesterday?

[5:30]

HON. S.D. SMITH: The policy of the ministry with respect to costs has been and will continue to be that where costs are awarded against us, we obviously pay them. Where we're entitled to them and where the court — and as you know, it is for the court to make a decision — awards costs on our behalf, I must say that although we're entitled to collect, and there are times when we do, the most frequent result is that they aren't collected.

MR. SIHOTA: That sort of answers the question: it's a matter of policy. I'm not asking for it in every case, nor am I asking for it with respect.... In fact, I can understand why in some cases it would be appropriate to make that application for costs. I understand it's a matter for the courts, but it's also a matter for the Attorney-General's department to advise the court as to whether they wish to secure costs. In any event, it seems to me that the policy — and I think I've probably made it clear by the question — ought to be that costs ought not to be taken with respect to those types of groups that I referred to yesterday. I wasn't asking for a blanket exemption.

The federal government, as I'm sure the Attorney-General knows, has a court challenges program to provide assistance to various groups who wish to initiate challenges under the Charter. That program exists for the equality rights provisions and also for minority language cases. Interestingly enough, on the minority language end of it, funding is available with respect to both federal and provincial legislation, but on the equality rights end it's only available with the respect to federal legislation.

What I'd like to canvass with the Attorney-General is really a simple question. It's my understanding that the program is about to come to an end. I believe it had a three-year sunset clause in it. Has the provincial government made a representation to the federal government with respect to extending that program?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the Attorney-General advise whether the government is prepared to make such a request of the federal government?

HON. S.D. SMITH: There are a number of issues that we're discussing with the federal Minister of Justice, and if it's the member's wish, I can add that to the agenda and discuss it with them, and see what their sense is and what direction they seem to be headed in.

MR. SIHOTA: I would ask that the province make that representation, hopefully with a bit more vigour than seems to be exemplified by the tone of the minister's reply. It is important. I don't want to belabour the point; I don't particularly like, during the course of estimates, to go over and over the same point. Positions can be carved out fairly quickly, and people know where everybody stands.

There is a problem here. The study I referred to yesterday will become public in September. It has established very clearly that certain groups are not getting access to the Charter. That is canvassed at both the federal and provincial levels. I think the government should, albeit that the Attorney-General has now said — which was news to me yesterday — that he does not believe in the Charter, or is not supportive of it.... Well, you can shake your head. I'll go back to your comment; in fact, I could probably quote it if I had Hansard here. You would have voted against it — shall we put it that way?

Notwithstanding that, it would seem to me that the government would be well advised to lobby in that regard, in light of the findings of this recently conducted study, which is very extensive in its analysis.

Yesterday we discussed the Sunday-opening or Sunday-closing — however you look at it — legislation. Since we didn't complete the discussion on that, I want to know from the minister whether it is his intention to bring forward alternative legislation to deal with that issue in this province.

[ Page 6436 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I said yesterday, we are examining a number of options available to us. We are also watching some of the developments taking place in a couple of the municipalities, which themselves are seeking to regulate their hours of shopping rather than to deal with the matter of the day of the week. I really can't offer the member more than what I said yesterday.

MR. SIHOTA: I wonder if the minister could elaborate, so I can clarify in my own mind the options he refers to.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll try to encapsulate what I said yesterday at some length on the topic. Some of the municipalities are examining — and indeed have, through the current legislation — enacted resolutions of their council to deal with hours of shopping. Whether or not that will stand the tests that will inevitably be put remains to be seen. One of the other options that has been suggested is the so-called Sabbatarian clause, and we're examining that.

MR. SIHOTA: It is a bit of a political football, and I understand that it is a matter for the government to be looking at. It will be interesting to see what comes of the government's considerations in that regard.

I'll move on to another issue. Ontario has introduced legislation, Bill 174, which deals with the matter of costs with respect to interveners in dealing with public matters. This is a bit of an offshoot of the question I asked about the Charter.

In British Columbia we do not have similar legislation with respect to providing costs or assistance to interveners who appear in many public law matters In fact, I'm sure the Attorney-General is well aware that the Bennett government eliminated the provision that existed in the utilities legislation that allowed for that. We seem to be getting out of the matter of public input with respect to many of these types of programs. In fact, not only does B.C. seem to be vacating that field.... Well, I'll come back to that comment later. I'm wondering what the government intends, or if it intends to do anything, with respect to the provision of costs for interveners in public issues such as the utilities matter.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The position in this province is that there is provision for that sort of thing with respect to the Utilities Commission. I should advise the member that there isn't any provision in the budget this year for any extension of that.

MR. SIHOTA: I always stand to be corrected, but I thought that it was removed with respect to utility matters. If I'm wrong on that, I would like to know that from the minister. My recollection is that it was removed, but I'm sure the minister would be quick to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

It's a matter of policy and not purely a matter of whether or not there's an allocation in the budget. Is the minister then saying that it is not the government's policy to move in the direction that Ontario has in this regard?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I can say that there isn't any money in the budget to do that. In order for that to be the case, I would anticipate that if I were to raise that with the budget committees, the Ministry of Finance and treasury in cabinet, it would inevitably move us into a significant policy discussion. I think the two are bound up together.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that you haven't discussed it, and that there is no initiative within the government, as there is with other matters. You've talked fairly openly about the initiative the ministry has taken in terms of legal aid, and the government's policy to allow for an expansion of coverage, particularly in the family end with respect to legal aid, and your intentions over the next few years. Am I correct in saying that the government does not see that as even a likelihood, and that it is not even on the list of priorities of where the Attorney-General's ministry would like to go?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Certainly it's a matter that is frequently discussed. I can't disclose all the discussions that take place in cabinet; perhaps I can't disclose any of them. It's a matter that certainly is discussed, but it's not one for which there is funding this year. Quite frankly, the funding increases that I have sought for this year have reflected, I think, a somewhat different priority than the area of legal aid.

MR. SIHOTA: What is the Attorney-General's view with respect to the provision of costs for interveners?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The Attorney-General's views in that regard would be the same as the government's views, because obviously I have to reflect the government's views on policy. I have just explained that there isn't money in the budget this year for that kind of thing. It's a matter that has been discussed, and I'm sure it's a matter that will be discussed.

MR. SIHOTA: Is it a matter he's made submissions to Treasury Board on?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I think we're getting down to an area of impairing the confidentiality of cabinet and its committees. As I have said, it's a matter about which there has been discussion. Obviously, if I'm aware that there has been discussion, I think it would follow that I may even have participated in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, I would like to note for the benefit of both hon. and learned members that we're running pretty close to the edge in this discussion we've been having. It seems to me that we were discussing the necessity for legislation. As both hon. members know, that is not permitted in Committee of Supply.

[5:45]

MR. SIHOTA: I guess the point I want to make to the Attorney-General is that.... By the way, I should say that it's not really a matter that would necessarily require legislation. It may well, but what we're trying

[ Page 6437 ]

to determine here is government policy and to what extent the government is prepared to go that way. It's a significant issue in the realm of public law.

We've seen, if my memory serves me correctly, the Findlay decision. The Supreme Court of Canada has opened up the matter of standing to all sorts of groups and certainly has made the doors far more wide-open as a consequence, in terms of access to tribunals and standing as interveners in matters that have a public law implication. While other provinces, such as Ontario, are opening the doors of justice with respect to tribunals, this province seems to be going in the opposite direction, a direction not in keeping with what is happening elsewhere in the country. I see this government as behind the times in many of these progressive legal areas, such as legal aid. The government has been unwilling to provide adequate funding for that scheme, and the record on that is very clear. There are still tremendous gaps in coverage. I have enumerated those, and I don't want to go over it, but the government is clearly behind the times in providing adequate legal aid coverage in this province.

It's behind the times, in my view, with respect to its willingness to deal with Charter-related issues. I think the views of the Attorney-General on the Charter, which he discussed yesterday, demonstrate the extent to which the government is again behind the times. We have an Attorney-General who would have voted against the Charter, which gives some very basic rights to people. Because of that attitude, it's not surprising that we see in this province a government that pays little heed to the rights of women, natives or ethnic minorities.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Aw, come on!

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Culture says I am somewhat off base on this. I realize that multiculturalism.... We're not dealing with their budget, nor are we dealing with the multiculturalism budget. But we could go through all sorts of examples in terms of the cultural issue.

You're behind the times in legal aid. You're behind the times, in my view, in terms of the Charter. You don't seem to be very progressive in dealing with a matter of law that is opening up, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision that I referred to. It seems to me that government ought to be giving greater consideration to providing assistance to interveners. There are legitimate issues. This government talks over and over again about its newfound commitment to the environment. But when we have hearings, which are expensive and take time, where there is legitimate public interest in environmental issues, and when community groups want to bring forward evidence that often requires expert testimony and expert reports, there should be some provision such as other provinces — most notably Ontario, through Bill 174 — have agreed to provide. The decision to introduce that type of legislation in Ontario separates that province, in terms of its progressiveness on these matters, from what we're seeing here in British Columbia. Some type of commitment....

I'm not saying that the government must come forward tomorrow with a massive infusion of cash to deal with these types of matters; but there are legitimate public interest concerns out there that require and demand public input, and the public misses out on them. We have right now a tremendous debate going on in this province — and indeed in this chamber — with respect to the provision of a natural gas pipeline that would run through a particular watershed in Coquitlam and another watershed in Victoria. Again, community groups in this province would, I'm sure, like to make representations when the opportunity is available. That opportunity may well have passed. But the point remains that the cost to interveners is an emerging issue out there which the Attorney-General's department seems not to be particularly interested in.

Judging from the Attorney-General's response — maybe because it's 6 o'clock — there doesn't seem to be much vigour in terms of wanting to pursue these types of issues, or even a philosophical commitment from the government with respect to pursuing this type of issue. I remain somewhat disappointed with the government's indecision in this regard, particularly in light of where the courts are going and the greater complexity involved in many of these issues. My request to the Attorney-General, quite frankly, is for the government to give greater consideration to the provision of some type of assistance in this regard.

I want to move on to a different issue and deal with the matter of civil injunctions and the type of situation that we saw during the course of protests outside Everywoman's Health Centre in Vancouver. I don't want to go through all the facts of what transpired there, but there were some areas where, in light of the fact that we can take what I would like to call a sort of silver second look at that experience, some questions remain to be asked in terms of what we have learned from that experience and what, indeed, the ministry's intentions are for dealing in the future with these rather difficult and yet very delicate matters. We know that in the case of the Everywoman's Health Centre, the court ultimately called upon the Attorney-General to take action. The Attorney-General chose not to take action, and in my view, put the court in a very unusual and difficult position of having to make its own motion on its own initiative. During that situation we also had some fairly strong words from the court. We also had private litigants carrying the costs of that dispute, which was really a matter — I think the court is quite correct — that no individual litigant ought to bear, given the enormity of the cost involved.

I want to go beyond the Everywoman's Health Centre. These are situations that we are seeing today in British Columbia which we have seen in the past. We saw it during disputes on environmental issues, be it Meares or the Queen Charlottes. We saw it with this clinic. I am wondering, now that we have the opportunity in this type of atmosphere to reflect back

[ Page 6438 ]

on that experience, just what the Attorney-General's view is now in terms of how he intends to deal with these matters should they occur in the future.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm glad that the member wants to deal with the issue in terms of facts, because I think that's important. I suppose one of the greatest measures of the success of a particular policy is when people outside your jurisdiction want to emulate it. The authorities from Ontario — I know the member is quite fascinated by Ontario, and some of his earlier comments would reflect that — have been in the province of British Columbia recently to get advice and to get the kind of precedents that we used in dealing with some of these civil matters, because they have found that taking the alternative course did not work.

If the member wishes to know what our policy is with regard to civil disobedience, it is simply that we will deal with civil disobedience by use of civil remedies. In the case of, for instance, the clinic that the member refers to in Vancouver, I know that one of the justices of the Supreme Court asked for the Attorney-General to interest himself in the matter. I believe he used that phrase. Unfortunately, the justice could not be aware of — nor should he have been, because of the independence of the judiciary — exactly what was taking place and the extent to which the justice process in this province was in fact "interested" — in the way he was using that word. In fact, the Ministry of Attorney-General had been working closely with the policing authorities and all others to provide them with the kind of support that they needed and the precedents they needed to go to their court in order to pursue the matter according to the way our policy had been developing, and continues to develop, which is to use the civil remedy. That support had indeed been provided.

It becomes, after a while, a matter of judgment, or exercise of discretion, as to when those matters — in environmental issues and all other issues of that sort — convert themselves from a civil contempt matter, when you are dealing with the contempt issue, to criminal contempt. It's important that that discretion be left with the Crown to exercise, and there is a very important issue now going on in Canada as to whether or not that matter of criminal contempt ought to be codified or whether it ought to be left exclusively with the superior court. We have previously taken the view that it ought not to be codified. We are now reviewing our position in that regard, and I have had discussions with the Minister of Justice with regard to that matter. It is vitally important, in an era when civil disobedience becomes as extensive as it is, that the discretion of the Crown not be fettered to anyone, including judges. I made that point, I thought, fairly clearly.

I note that the judge who had asked for the interest from the Attorney-General simply was involved in an adjournment matter and was not involved the following days, when another justice came in to deal with the issue. He could not have been aware of what was going on and why it was going on as it was going on, because, quite frankly, when you're dealing with groups who may have some international connection, may have some level of organization that the public is not and cannot be aware of, then I think it's imperative that law enforcement agencies at all levels be left with the proper discretion to be exercised, and that they exercise it properly. In the course of protecting that discretion, they are going to have to protect it from many parties. They're going to have to protect it from all kinds of people who would want to interfere in that or would want to offer advice about it, which is quite legitimate. In this instance, it turned out that the way the process went, in my view, has achieved our fundamental and primary goal, which was to make sure that the public peace was kept. It has been. As I say, in another jurisdiction, they now are looking at emulating British Columbia, because they went another route. I think that is important.

I don't know if the member wishes to pursue this vote tomorrow. If not, I will ask that the committee rise, report progress and resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.