[ Page 11415 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 11415

Mr. Perry

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Rose

The House met at 9:32 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $352,605 (continued).

MR. PERRY: I will resume where we left off last night. I was still seeking an answer from the minister as to whether he feels it's in the public interest for tobacco companies to be granted the privilege of advertising.

Coincidentally, this morning there was published a full-page advertisement — which I will table in the Legislature for your benefit, Mr. Chairman — for the Symphony of Fire, the international fireworks competition, with the name "Benson and Hedges Inc." very prominently displayed.

I see the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) applauding and shouting that there will be tens of thousands of people and lots of tourists, and I wonder if he means there will be tens of thousands of new British Columbians addicted to the products of Benson and Hedges.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Sales are going down.

MR. PERRY: He says the sales are going down. I wonder why he thinks Benson and Hedges is spending the money on advertisements like this — whether it's because their sales are going down. Even this minister with his questionable financial record should understand capitalism better than that. In a free enterprise system, usually people spend money on advertising when they think they have something to gain from it. What I'm really asking the minister is: where does this — and the enthusiasm of the Minister of Tourism for promotions like this — fit into B.C.'s tobacco use reduction strategy? When I'm finished with that I'd be pleased, if the Legislature so wishes, to table that one. I'm still waiting to table the Benson and Hedges advertisement for the record. This was published in the Vancouver Province this morning; it was a full-page advertisement in violation of the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law.

As I look at the B.C. tobacco use reduction strategy, I don't see anything about promoting Benson and Hedges products through fireworks displays. I see a very effective and encouraging three-page outline of programs aimed — for example, objective 3 — to help non-smokers, particularly youth, stay smoke-free. Many of the points in this strategy actually resemble points that I made in a speech in the Legislature last year or in a speech a couple of weeks ago. Many of them could be dealt with in legislation that has been brought before this assembly and is on the order paper.

I'd like to hear what the minister thinks. Is it a good idea to have these promotions or not? I'd like to hear the Minister of Health, who is the the key officer — just as the Attorney-General is the key law enforcement officer in British Columbia — with whom the buck stops in health promotion and the protection of public health in this province. I'd like to know where he stands on this matter.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I stand right here in my place in the House trying to respond to budget estimates and budget interests. I indicated yesterday to the member that I very much support local initiative and encouraging the initiatives of smokers to stop smoking. I don't like a heavy-handed approach, such as he is advocating, in terms of dealing with smokers. I suggest it's much better to encourage smokers to stop smoking and have them committed to that, rather than force these issues on the populace, as he seems to want to do.

We have taken a very proactive approach in encouraging communities to be very active regarding non-smoking. We have taken a very active approach in dealing with our young people in the school environment, recently through our Your Better Health magazine. If the member is really interested, we could give him some of the comments we got as a result of that initiative. We're doing a number of wonderful things. I would ask him to focus on those and to perhaps suggest in the next little while other things he would like, rather than bringing down a heavy-handed, big-stick approach to some of these issues.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, no one is talking about a big stick here except the minister. I have made ample suggestions in this Legislature; they're on the record in Hansard. The minister has to look no further than my statement of July 14 this year and July 13 last year for suggestions, if he wants them. Many of the suggestions are identical to those in the British Columbia tobacco use reduction strategy, 1990 — final draft dated July 9, 1990 — from his own ministry.

I think the record will make clear that I'm not asking him to overturn a decision of the Vancouver city council or the radio station CKNW or B.C. Television, which chose to support a major advertising event in conjunction with Benson and Hedges, despite reservations from some of their own staff. I'm asking him whether he thinks it's in the interests of British Columbians, in a country with a federal law prohibiting the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco because they are addictive and because they are the single most damaging agent to the public health in this country.... I'm asking a minister who comes from a party whose former leader, the late Premier W.A.C. Bennett, was an ardent champion of the cause

[ Page 11416 ]

of prohibiting the advertising of dangerous products at a time when very few people were taking that position. I'm asking him: does he think It's right?

I'm not asking him to overturn the city of Vancouver decision. I'm simply asking him as the Minister of Health — he's the only one we've got in this province — is it a good idea to have full-page ads in the Vancouver Province this morning promoting Benson and Hedges? I'm not aware of any other product that Benson and Hedges makes aside from tobacco, an addictive substance. How would he feel if there were cocaine manufacturers publishing full-page ads? How about a marijuana purveyor? How about a drug-runner from Columbia publishing a full-page ad for heroin or cocaine?

MR. REID: It's against the law. What are you talking about? Cigarettes aren't against the law.

MR. PERRY: It's against the law to advertise tobacco in this country, Mr. Chair.

I'm simply asking the minister to go on record. He's not just any member of this House; he is the Minister of Health. I repeat, he's the only one we've got in this province. Does he or does he not think it's a good idea for Benson and Hedges to advertise in full-page ads an addictive, lethal product in this province? Why is he so reluctant to declare himself?

Mr. Chair, I could use unparliamentary language, but I won't. I think the people will draw their own conclusions and use the unparliamentary language about him in newspaper editorials or in reports of these debates — if anyone is listening to them. I see some hon. members of the House are listening to them, because they've got kids that have been exposed to this kind of propaganda.

We know that in the United States, in the trial of Liggett and Myers, more popularly known as L&M, the United States Court of Appeal in New Jersey awarded to the widower of Rose Cipollone a decision that Liggett and Myers was liable for her death from lung cancer specifically because of the advertising that drew her and led her deliberately into addiction.

We know that the tobacco companies deliberately seek to addict the children of British Columbia. Why does the minister think that they're promoting this "Symphony of Fireworks"? Is it just so that young children like my five-year-old can have a good time watching the fireworks and getting excited about hearing the bangs? Perhaps my son Dustin will be woken up at midnight tonight or have a nightmare when he hears those sounds, for all I know. But is it just out of the goodness of their hearts? Is he really that naive? I don't think he's naive. I don't think he got where he is in politics by being naive. I don't always agree with him, but he's no fool.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I don't know about that.

MR. PERRY: The opposition House Leader isn't quite so sure about that, but he'll agree that this minister is not naive. Where does he stand? Does he think it's good or bad?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 38, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, the record will show that the Minister of Health in this province refused to answer that question, and he laughed.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: He laughed as he refused, says the opposition House Leader. Even though there are few people in the gallery, there are some witnesses. Hansard will bear it out. I don't think this is one of the minister's proudest moments. It's certainly not one of mine to see that the Minister of Health refuses to answer that question. Were I not in the House, I would use stronger language, Mr. Chair.

[9:45]

I would like to turn to the position paper on abortion of the Special Advisory Panel on Ethical Issues in Health Care that was not tabled in this Legislature but released, ultimately, by the Minister of Health yesterday. This report, paid for by the people of B.C., was not tabled, but at least after two years and two months we do have the right to read it as citizens of a free country. We've been allowed by the minister to read a report prepared by some of the leading health ethicists and physicians in the province such as the ombudsman, Mr. Stephen Owen; the distinguished Dr. David Boyes, the former chairman of the Cancer Control Agency of B.C.; and Dr. William Webber, the former dean of the faculty of medicine at UBC. Now we're privileged to know what they thought, and the report speaks for itself.

I would simply likely to ask the minister whether he has any serious intention of dealing with the concern that pro-choice and pro-life people in this province share alike, which is that in the future of British Columbia we can preserve the freedom of women to determine their own health status but reduce the number of abortions performed in this province by improving the education of young people, both men and women, in contraception and ensuring that they have not only the responsibility but the knowledge and the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

I'd like to quote briefly from a letter that I received from a very conscientious physician who disagrees profoundly with my party on the issue of abortion but who still respects the right of women to make their own decisions for themselves. At the same time, she remains very concerned about the implications of abortion for women and for society, and I'd like to give her the opportunity to speak in her own words in this Legislature, briefly, by reading some of her letter. I wrote back to her in response to a letter in which she expressed her concerns about my policies on this issue.

I asked her what constructive recommendations, as a young woman physician in this province who deals with women requiring abortion — some of whom she refers on, some of whom she counsels and who choose not to have abortions.... I asked Dr.

[ Page 11417 ]

Romayne Gallagher of Vancouver what recommendations she would have to address this problem in a humane and constructive way in order to improve the real status of women in this province.

Let me quote from her letter of June 6. She says: "If one actually looks at a pregnant woman's 'choice,' it is a dismaying list of options. She can choose to give birth to the baby and become a second-class citizen— namely, a single mother; she can look forward to a financial and social struggle while she tries to raise her child; she will likely lose education and career opportunities because of it.

"Another choice is to give the baby up for adoption, one which is all too often rejected. Likely, adoption is rejected because of the social stigma of being pregnant, the loss of job security and the difficulty of giving up a new-born baby.

"I feel there are specific ways in which we can reduce the number of abortions. I believe that both pro-choice and pro-life supporters would wish to see this happen, and therefore we should work together on the common ground that we can find.

"My specific suggestions are:

"1. Improve contraception education. I do not believe that increased education about contraception leads to increased sex. I believe teenagers and adults alike are searching for reliable, accurate contraception information. I would support advertising of contraception in magazines, radio and television. Also, the Health ministry has recently put out a quarterly newspaper on health issues, and this would be another useful means of access to the public.'

There is a suggestion, I add parenthetically to the minister, of frank treatment of contraception in the quarterly publication of his ministry — a constructive suggestion. I continue to quote, but I'll skip to No. 3.

"Improved counselling to those who are pregnant." She goes on to provide an extensive description of what could be done in that field 4. "Improve the quality of life for women who choose to give birth to the baby." Under that heading, she points out:

"To give birth to a baby from an unexpected pregnancy must be seen as a viable option. Thus there must be guidelines and financial support from the government to employers so that they will guarantee job security for the woman during and after the pregnancy. Maternity benefits from Ul should be broadened to ensure that all pregnant women qualify.

"Affordable and adequate day care is essential for single mothers so that they can maintain or improve their financial and social status. By improving a single mother's quality of life, we will help her maintain a loving and nurturing relationship with her child. We will also help society embrace a wider range of acceptable lifestyles."

Mr. Chairman, I see you listening, because members of this Legislature will recognize that it is a voice of wisdom that's speaking. It's the voice of a young physician who works frequently with women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. She knows what she's talking about in respect to her comments about the status of single mothers, because she deals with them daily.

I submit that we should listen to her. I submit that we need in this province a serious, unadulterated, unexpurgated, frank, yet modest program to ensure that young British Columbians of both sexes know what they are doing at all ages — not just children, but adults as well. It's time that we woke up and modernized our society. It's time we woke up to what the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) tells us about European societies where matters such as contraception are treated as a right of information, and where it's expected that a mature participant in society — someone who has reached sexual maturity — will understand contraception and their own human biology.

I'd like to ask the minister what steps he intends to take to improve the situation. How does he expect that we will be able to maintain the right of medical access described in the position paper on abortion of the ethics committee, at the same time that we follow a humane policy to reduce the need for abortion in British Columbia.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's of interest to receive correspondence, and particularly correspondence with a number of good ideas and good suggestions in it. In the next few hours of debate, I hope we're not going to have a number of correspondence items being introduced to this House. Yesterday we spent probably half an hour listening to a story and some correspondence received from another member, and today we're having another letter read out in great detail. I would like to hear the member's own interests, his own questions, his own concerns and his own issues that he feels are important for us to address. This is a very large budget, and to this point in time we've had very little discussion about issues that relate to a very broad spectrum of health concerns.

Having said that, the ideas reflected in the correspondence that he has put forward are good ideas. I hope he will have the courtesy in the next little while to give me a copy of that so I may look at some of these issues and have the opportunity to perhaps meet with this physician and talk to her about some of the things put forward. They're good ideas.

Perhaps the member is not aware that we recently — and he should be aware, given that he is a member of BCMA — produced, with the co-operation of the BCMA, a comprehensive guide to birth control planning. That guide is now available through health units and doctors' offices. I'm surprised he didn't mention it; perhaps he's not aware of it. If he isn't aware of it, I would hope that he would avail himself of that information.

As you know, recently in the Strengthening the Family program we included a pregnancy resource guide and a services guide listing key community based organizations throughout the province which provide family planning counselling and advice.

We have an excellent program in our school system — grades 7 to 12 — that gives a very good educational opportunity.

The idea about incorporating this matter in one of our issues of our Your Better Health magazine is an extremely good one, and I have made a note of it.

[ Page 11418 ]

We'll certainly look at that for one of our future issues.

MR. PERRY: I welcome that response. There are many opportunities for constructive dialogue, and I have employed a number of them in private correspondence over the last year and will continue to do so.

In regard to the pamphlet on birth control, I'd just like to point out that the same Dr. Gallagher wrote to me about her concern over an error in it. The pamphlet stated that spermicidal jelly may be added to the diaphragm or cervical cap. In fact, as she points out, it is the essential ingredient. She wrote: "I have a new patient who became pregnant several years ago because she did not realize this. It is crucial that contraceptive advice be accurate."

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: I'm sure she'd be delighted to meet with the minister, and I'll convey that to her.

I also point out that Planned Parenthood, which has probably been the leading world organization in the provision of reliable, accurate contraceptive advice, has been the victim of discrimination by the Ministry of Health. In fact, it was left off the birth control pamphlet specifically because this government apparently does not like Planned Parenthood's approach to the provision of accurate, reliable information to all British Columbians who need it. Perhaps I could ask the minister whether he is prepared to review the relationship between his ministry and Planned Parenthood, given the tremendous reputation that the organization has in the worldwide community.

HON. J. JANSEN: I would appreciate it if the member would outline a number of questions rather than have me stand up to answer yes or no to one or two questions. It would save a lot of time if he would outline his questions for me, and I'd be pleased to address a number of them rather than pop up and down on a regular basis to say yes or no to simple little questions.

The obvious answer to his question is that we're always willing to do that.

MR. PERRY: I'm going to defer to one or both of my colleagues for a minute and then return. It's important in the interests of parliament and this Legislature that the opposition preserve its traditional right that we decide which questions we're going to ask, what ground we're going to cover and what material is appropriate to introduce into the public record of this province. That's our role as opposition, so I don't intend to yield it.

MS. MARZARI: I'm interested that the minister would consider my colleague's questions to be "simple little questions" and that he'd like him to bunch them together and give him solid and rounded concepts for the educated mind of the minister to be able to work on. Let me assure the minister that these are not simple little questions. Questions relating to abortion as a medical service, questions related to the personhood of women in our society are not simple little questions. They are very fundamental to how our society is going to unfold over the next few years, and, more politically and close to home, they are very much to do with why this government, the Social Credit government, has lost the support of women in this province in the last two years in particular, and is struggling very hard to regain that support of women in this province. These are not simple little questions. These run to the very heart of women's right to choose and women's ability to function in society as complete individuals. More to the point, it runs to the heart of this government's attempt to try to regain popularity with 52 percent of the population, women, who are asking questions about why they do not feel treated as full human beings in our civilized society.

[10:00]

So a simple little question. My colleague from Point Grey asked the simple little question: what is the minister going to do now that he has brought to light the recommendations of the ethics committee that were put together for the former Minister of Health in 1988? I commend the minister for making these recommendations public, as he did yesterday at 2:15 in the afternoon. I would ask him, though, what he intends to do with them today and what he intends to do with the recommendations tomorrow. The right of the public to see this document has been well taken care of, after two years. My colleague and I both ask, however, what you are going to do, Mr. Minister, with recommendations 5 and 6 of your ethics committee report?

Recommendation 5 in your report is "Abortion Funding," and it reads: "Abortion should be treated as are other procedures of comparable severity. Hospital and medical costs related to abortions should be publicly funded." If I may interpret this recommendation, Mr. Minister, it is basically advising you as Minister of Health, your predecessor and your government that abortion is a medical procedure women have a right to choose. Procedures related to abortion should come out of the public purse, as do other medical procedures which are funded publicly. It would suggest that by any kind of rational thinking, therefore, the Everywoman's Health Centre should be funded; that those costs ancillary to the actual medical procedure, such as counselling, follow-up and assistance to the woman in making the decision initially, should be funded under MSP.

Recommendation 6, "Reasonable Access." "The women of this province should have reasonable access to abortion." One line, a few short words; the minister might call it simple. However, it is in recommendation 6 that we have to begin to look at women's access to abortion in our province, where many publicly funded hospitals — a majority — are predominated by anti-choice boards which do not permit abortions.

[ Page 11419 ]

We have asked questions in this House repeatedly over the last two years: "Is the Minister of Health prepared to deal with hospital boards as they prevent access to important and necessary medical procedures?" The answer has always come back ringing falsely, in my opinion, that it is a question of local democracy. The Medical Services Plan is not a question of local democracy; it is a question of safeguards and universal parameters established by the province and by the Canada Health Act. This recommendation on reasonable access recommends to the minister that he take active steps to ensure that each hospital in this province — publicly funded, or even private, produces and prepares the infrastructure necessary to do necessary medical procedures, abortions being one.

I would ask the minister — it is not a simple question: now that he has made the report public, what does he intend to do with recommendations 5 and 6 of the report?

HON. J. JANSEN: The member opposite has twisted my words, as the other side is wont to do on a number of occasions. When I made my comment about simple questions, it related to whether I was prepared to sit down and discuss items of interest with people, and that to me is a simple question. It has a simple answer: yes. Don't put words in my mouth that suggest that some of the complex issues facing our society are simple, because they are not, and they don't have simple answers and solutions.

As the member indicated, yesterday I released the medical ethics report. I'm surprised that the interest in this report from that side of the House during my term as Health minister came about only as a result of the press coverage. I have not had one single request from my health critic for that report. To my knowledge I have not had one single request for that report from the member who just addressed me. Now I'm hearing comments They're obviously very concerned, because suddenly they’ve been caught without having expressed this interest previously. If they had approached me eight months ago, I would have given it to them.

In any event, let me talk about the report. The medical ethics report makes quite a number of interesting recommendations. The member is selectively focusing on two of them. I'm surprised that she has overlooked some of the other comments in the report. I'd be interested to learn whether she is also supporting the other recommendations, or is she selectively supporting two recommendations which we are already doing? She knows that I will be standing in this House saying to her: "We have agreed with those last two recommendations that she referred to."

I'm surprised she hasn't talked about the other recommendations which state that abortion on demand is not supported and that there are a number of recommendations regarding staging of abortions which are entirely different than Bill C43, which is currently before the Senate.

The recommendation — and the member has twisted it — says that abortion should be treated as other medical procedures and funded by government. In fact, that is the case. Like other medical procedures, they are funded by government. Then she jumps from there and says: "But you should also fund counselling." That's an entirely separate issue which requires a different focus and a different policy decision. But don't twist the two; don't intersperse the two. "They're related," she says. Well, all sorts of counselling is going on in connection with all sorts of medical procedures. Is the member suggesting that through the clinics in the province — and there are hundreds of clinics for a number of services — we should now be in a position to fund those clinics for their operational costs, their counselling costs and everything else they may think is important in terms of addressing the issues? Those are important policy decisions, and if she wants us to do that, I'd be pleased to hear her suggestions in that regard and take them under advisement.

She also talks about reasonable access, which is always a question relating to medical procedures. When I go to the north of the province, people there complain about reasonable access given to them for open-heart surgery or cancer treatment and things like that. In their minds, it is unreasonable to suggest that they take a flight to Vancouver to receive tertiary care. It's a valid point. It's an issue that we in government are intending to address to ensure that we bring services to the people of the north and the rural areas. It is extremely important. But the fact is that we are providing reasonable access for as many procedures as we can, and over time we hope to expand those.

The statistics suggest that abortions in British Columbia are the highest per capita in all the land per capita. That's a very simple benchmark, I agree, and perhaps not an appropriate one, but it does suggest, without considering other data, that abortions are reasonably being made available in British Columbia.

MS. MARZARI: The minister raises the point that this side of the House hasn't requested this report. We requested the report time and time again, beginning in April 1988. It may be that the minister has not received a letter from me or my colleague in the last three or four months, but we have done the business of this House in the House. We asked yesterday and the day before for the document, and it appeared — to your credit, Mr. Minister.

Taking this passive approach, knowing that your predecessor and your government has been asked for this report, and knowing that you have rescued them from the accusations that we have levelled, should make you feel reasonably good. You needn't hide behind the fact that we haven't formally asked you in the last few months for this report.

Let me ask you, Mr. Minister — you've played passive before on this. We asked you in the House whether or not you had talked to the doctors about Bill C-43. As you know, many doctors in this country,

[ Page 11420 ]

because abortion has now been recriminalized by the new bill, are withdrawing their services. Many doctors are beginning to wonder whether or not they should provide service. Many doctors in this country and this province are saying that perhaps they should withdraw abortion services, because under this bill angry husbands, boyfriends or anti-choice groups could be bringing them to court, suing them, harassing them, or bringing legal sanctions against them with private prosecutions.

Many doctors are not ready to face up to that. Many of them are brave enough to provide the service that's requested. I asked the minister in this House: had he sat down to talk to the doctors? He gave me the same answer that's he's just given this morning: the doctors haven't asked him. The doctors haven't come to him. They haven't said: "Mr. Minister, we're worried about the recriminalization of abortion services, and we're wondering if there's anything you can do that will assure us that we can continue to provide the service without fear of legal harassment."

The obvious thing for the minister to do, if he had concern for women in our community — women as persons; not as bearers of children, but as full, complete people who happen to also be mothers — was to have gone to the doctors. He might have sat down with them. He might have gone to the Attorney-General and tried to work out some agreement, as other Attorneys-General and health ministers have done in this country, that would have tried to protect the medical profession and women from harassment by groups and individuals who might be laying private prosecutions and treating the right to choose as something that had to be contested in the courts.

[10:15]

What we've got here is a situation where women in our country, and perhaps in our province, might die because the perception is that Bill C-43 could criminalize them and put them behind bars — could put them in jail. We've been through it before. Abortion was criminalized in 1969, and in 1988 with the Supreme Court decision it was decriminalized. Now we find in 1990, in our day and age, it's been recriminalized. Have you, as a minister, sat down with the doctors yet, or are you going to hide behind the fact that they haven't formally approached you on this subject?

Second question: are you now prepared to look at Everywoman's Health Centre and understand that abortion services are not simply the straight medical fact, but also a complementary group of services that surround women's needs at a very vulnerable moment in their lives, when a major decision is being made? Are you prepared now, because of the recommendation here, to assist women to have a more complete service provided when they approach a hospital or clinic?

Are you prepared to do that, Mr. Minister? Are you prepared to go to the Attorney-General and work out with whoever that may be an arrangement whereby doctors and women don't have to feel as if they're going to be criminalized by seeking an abortion if an irate husband, boyfriend or anti-choice group chooses to sue them? Are you prepared to do those things, rather than take a passive stance on this?

HON. J. JANSEN: It would help me a lot, as we do our debates, if members do not make these vicious little comments that are totally inappropriate — that the Health minister has no concern for women in British Columbia. What an outrageous and offensive statement. I take exception to those kinds of things. She obviously doesn't know what she's doing in terms of trying to put forward that kind of position. It certainly doesn't give her much credibility. It is offensive on this side of the House.

Bill C-43 is not law. It is currently before the Senate. There is much speculation, and it's the type of speculation that's being put forward today in the House by the member about what the impact could be. At this point in time I don't know what the impact will be. I understand that the Justice minister, Kim Campbell, has offered to meet with the medical profession and with other people before giving royal assent to or implementing the bill. I would suggest that process should be supported. Hopefully some of the concerns that are raised during that meeting would be addressed.

I think it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on what may or may not happen. It's interesting to note that the legislation is more liberal than even our own medical ethics committee report on abortion that you asked for yesterday and that I released yesterday.

I was also asked what I have done in terms of meeting with the medical profession in this province to discuss this issue. I've had a number of meetings with the medical profession; I've had retreats; I attended their convention; there were informal discussions as recently as last week. Those issues have not come forward from them. She says, why don't I raise those issues? I'm saying I thought there was a process in place. The Justice minister, whose Bill C-43 is a federal bill, has offered to meet with the medical profession; I will be pleased to be aware of those comments and I will be asking her for her comments subsequently. At that time maybe it will be a good opportunity for us to discuss what the resolution is, or the questions that have not been resolved and need our attention.

The funding of clinics throughout the province is a serious question and a serious problem for us in terms of the demand on the taxpayer. If we are going to be involved in operating costs for clinics throughout the province of British Columbia, it will mean that we will have to find funding from the budget in other areas. I would hope that over the course of discussion the member would identify which areas of the budget I would take that money from to enable us to fund clinics.

MS. MARZARI: I'm not going to tell the minister where he can take his money from. I think that's his

[ Page 11421 ]

job, and when I'm on that side of the House it will be my job.

It's clearly a question of priority. If you regarded women as full citizens, as 100 percent human beings who have full rights, freedom from violence, freedom from insecurity and freedom to choose, then you would find the money. You would find the money if the political pressure was on you to such an extent that you had to. You find it for highways; you'd find it for women.

You'd find it for day care if you took seriously the business of the letters that have been read out by my colleague. My colleague read a letter from a physician who wasn't particularly a feminist or necessarily pro-choice. She suggested that birth control, day care and freedom from violence might be some of the things that women could benefit from. You called them good ideas. I don't call them good ideas; I call them functional prerequisites to having a healthy community that recognizes women as full human beings.

The fact that Bill C-43 is before the Senate now, the fact that the Minister of Justice is having discussions with different attorneys-general and ministers of health — that doesn't help women. Women in this country right now feel that they could be prosecuted if they chose to have an abortion. Doctors in this country feel that they could be prosecuted if they chose to give an abortion. Whether or not this bill has been put through the House, whether it's passed the Senate — that did not help Yvonne Jurewicz in Toronto two months ago. She died of hemorrhaging after an abortion because she was afraid, obviously, to go to the hospital. This is going to happen again, and it's a sad, sad feeling I have, thinking that we in this province have to wait for a woman to die from a botched abortion because she's afraid of going to the hospital.

These women are not aware that the Senate is sitting on the bill. These women are not aware that the Minister of Justice is trying to modify the bill with Attorneys-General. That has nothing to do with it. That's a technicality. The bill was passed. Women are going to lose their lives because they think they'll go to jail. That is the situation that this bill has put us in in this province.

Mr. Minister, you're going at it ass-backwards You're backing towards this problem with your hands over your eyes because you don't want to look at the full complexity and the connections and the larger social implications of the problem that you're faced with here. You've got to deal with your hospital boards; you've got to talk to your doctors; you have to talk to the Attorney-General; and you have to find the money to make sure that women are treated as full human beings.

I turn the questioning back to my colleague from Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: I'm not wont to use vicious language, but I'll use frank language. Let's cut through the b.s. here. I'm sure there would be an unparliamentary expression in the Cariboo that is considered pretty usual up there, and if my colleague the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) were here, now maybe he'd feel less constrained than I. But I'll just call it b.s.

Let's be clear about something. The minister is well aware that in this House I requested the report of the ethics committee on abortion last year of the former minister. I did get, during the estimates debate last year, an answer that the prorated cost of that report was $8,000. I did not get the report.

It is correct, and superficially so, that I did not specifically ask this minister for the report. It so happens that the press report in the Vancouver Sun is a direct result of my having mentioned to a reporter who was concerned about freedom of information the opposition's inability to obtain that report.

The minister surely was aware that the ombudsman of British Columbia resigned from the ethics committee specifically because the government would not release that report. The minister surely was aware that the former chairman of that committee, Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge, was extremely discomfited and unhappy about the refusal to release that report. Other members of the committee were unhappy at the time.

The minister surely was aware that his own ministry was sending to physicians around British Columbia another report of that committee concerning the right to die — an interesting report about the issues involved in, and proposals for, a living will. This minister was not so naive as to be unaware of the public controversy over the suppression of that report, so let's cut through the b.s.

Let's look at another example of whether this minister was prepared to be frank with the opposition. I've raised this many times; I raised it again last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before we proceed, when we speak of unparliamentary language, I think "b.s." would be classed as unparliamentary language; also the comments of the previous speaker. I'm sure that everyone in this chamber is quite capable of carrying on debate without the usage of unparliamentary language. Therefore I would just caution everyone and ask them to please proceed, using temperate language.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your timely advice, and I apologize and withdraw any remarks I have made that offend either the House or the minister.

Let me remind the House that on April 26, 1990, on page 9198 of Hansard, volume 16, I requested of the minister Dr. Keon's report on open-heart surgery in B.C. I'll read verbatim what the minister said on that page. I quote from Hansard: "The report that the member is referring to is about two years old. It relates to open-heart surgery. We have implemented all of the recommendations except for one. If the hon. member would like a copy of the report, I would be pleased to give it to him."

[ Page 11422 ]

I now quote from Hansard at page 10070, volume 18, from June 5, 1990. I asked the minister: "On April 26 the minister promised to provide me a copy of the Dr. Keon report on the problem of the hospital waiting-list for open-heart surgery. I have reminded him of that promise, and he has failed to provide me with that report. Has the minister now decided to..." provide it to me? The minister responded with, as you know, a rather intemperate attack — a personal attack on me. He accused me of not opening my mail and of some things considerably worse that that, and indicated by inference that he had sent it to me. Of course, he later phoned to apologize and recognize that he hadn't sent it to me.

On June 9 I asked again. He indicated that he would arrange for me to be briefed on the contents of the report but would not provide to me. When I asked him again yesterday, he indicated that what he really meant was that a briefing note would be prepared, and when that was ready, I could have it.

Seriously, does this minister really expect that in the face of that stonewalling, that refusal to provide to this Legislature material which the opposition felt belonged in the public domain...? Does he seriously think that we would have continued to importune him on bended knee for the ethics committee report on abortion, having been stonewalled by the previous minister and the Premier? I mean, really — come off it.

Let me return very briefly to this issue, and then let us go on, if we may, to some other issues. I will point out that I've made many constructive suggestions to the minister over the eight months since his appointment. I took the trouble to write to him; we exchanged lengthy correspondence. I wrote to him in the first week or so of his appointment with constructive suggestions. I've continued to make them over the year. I even, at the first available opportunity, made a courtesy visit on the minister to establish a reasonable and productive relationship, only to have the visit interrupted after about five minutes by his announcement that he was leaving immediately to announce the royal commission on health.

[10:30]

I happened to have agreed with him. It was a good thing to announce, but it was his timing to schedule my courtesy visit just as he was leaving his office. Seriously, if he wishes more constructive input from this side of the House, we would be delighted to oblige him. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, had you been in my position, would you have felt encouraged by that kind of contact?

Let me return to the issue of abortion and birth control in B.C. I'm going to send with the Page a brief dated April 10, 1990 from the Planned Parenthood Association of British Columbia in response to the minister's offer to welcome constructive input. I will not read from the brief, in order to spare the House the time, but I will read from a letter I received from an individual familiar with the success and programs of Planned Parenthood who wrote to me in 1990 describing the difficulty Planned Parenthood has felt as persona non grata status where the Social Credit Party is concerned.

The letter contains some specific examples. I quote from the letter, although I don't feel at liberty to disclose the author of the letter. You can see for yourself, Mr. Chair, that I have the letter in my hand. My colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) has read it and would be happy to vouch for its authenticity. I quote:

"Another batch of dollars" — these are provincial dollars — "was used to produce some pamphlets on birth control, which again isn't a bad idea, except that they used birth control information that Planned Parenthood had provided for something else quite some time ago, and did not ask us or any other body of experts to update it. Also, Planned Parenthood produces up-to-date pamphlets which could easily have been distributed at a fraction of the cost.

"Another pamphlet was produced for professionals, listing community resources for family planning and pregnancy counselling. I was informed by people in the ministry who were involved in gathering the information that Planned Parenthood's services were listed in the draft but were deleted at some point when it was passed through the Premier's area."

Mr. Chairman, doesn't that sound familiar? Surely we've heard that story before. When I read this, I thought to myself: this gives me a sense of déjà vu. I remembered it later on during the year when I saw the final version of the AIDS video as released from the minister's office. He didn't, of course, see any apparent or significant changes in the film, but thanks to the courtesy of CBCs technology, which experienced difficulty in transmitting the film from here to Vancouver, I was privileged to view that film about eight times over and over as they tried to transmit it. The more closely I watched it, the more clearly I realized that something funny had happened to that film on the way through the Premier's office.

When I began to think about it, the AIDS video — the one that cost B.C. taxpayers $65,000 -that was intended to encourage kids, in this case, to protect themselves from a fatal disease, had some interesting changes made. A useful inclusion of the new government AIDS education pamphlets were added and were seen at the bedside of the boy in the film. An intriguing deletion: the condom which had been at the young man's bedside was no longer there, and in its place were the two AIDS leaflets and a set of keys. The condom, of course, remained to be given to the young woman.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

As one of the wags of the opposition staff put it, the final message to the teenager watching that video, if it ever is shown to teenagers, apparently became: "When you go out on a heavy date, for God's sake, don't forget your keys." That was the final message of the video. I see the hon. member for Delta smiling, and I think he understands what I'm talking about. This was a video addressed to teenagers, and it's probably going to cause some of them to smirk if they think about it, if it is ever shown to teenagers.

[ Page 11423 ]

How did that censorship get done? How did that come about? Since it is my privilege as the opposition critic to ask questions, I do have a burning question of personal curiosity. When I looked carefully at the film, it struck me that the arm reaching in to retrieve the keys — where formerly the condom was retrieved by the young boy — is no longer the same arm as the arm in the original version. I've had a burning curiosity since I saw that film down in the basement of this building in the CBC studios to know whose arm it is. Could it possibly be the Premier's arm or Eli Sopow's arm, because clearly that revision was made in the Premier's office or in the office of Eli Sopow. It didn't look to me like the same actor's arm. Perhaps it was, and perhaps he had aged considerably in the interval.

I hate to think what the message of that would be. But it did not look like the same arm to me. I speculated at the time I saw the film that something had happened somewhere outside the Ministry of Health. Presumably the 80 copies of the film, which are worth some thousands of dollars or perhaps tens of thousands of dollars, are still locked in the ministry's vaults somewhere, securely protected from the prying eyes of the public who paid for them. Perhaps they're not; perhaps they've been burned by now. But that revision of the video version, at least, must have taken place through the direct intervention of the Premier's office.

This is really making a spectacle and a mockery of the public health practice in this province, and it has made us the laughing-stock of the country. I see the former Speaker, the second member for Delta (Mr Davidson), smiling. As the former Minister of Tourism puts it, even in that other country of Quebec we're a laughing-stock. I know the former Speaker has many contacts with people in that province. All across the country we've become a laughing-stock for that policy.

I'd like to make the point constructively to the minister that in the case of the AIDS video and the contraception pamphlets, apparently the listing of Planned Parenthood — the original and still probably the best agency working in this field — was deleted from the pamphlet.

What's going on? Can he tell us what happened with that AIDS film? Is he willing to tell us, since ministry staff confirmed to me that my speculations were correct? Ministry staff had recommended that the original video or film be released intact, just the way it was screened in public theatres last summer, at the expense of the opposition and of Mr. Brian Calder. Can he explain to us what actually happened to that film and why Planned Parenthood's name was taken off the birth control pamphlets?

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, I want to compliment the previous chairman for bringing the House to order to admonish those members for making obscene comments in the House in terms of the use of language that is reprehensible — particularly that relating to the end product of cattle, because that is a useful product in the Fraser Valley. I thought that the comments they made were far from useful; in fact they were garbage.

The members keep on complaining about what the requests were years ago. I said to them that no one from that side of the House has requested the medical ethics report since I was Health minister. It came about only as a result of news coverage; suddenly their interest was activated again. At that point the question came forward, and at that point I responded to them. Let's deal with these things in an honest and open way, Mr. Member, because sometimes it's difficult not to lose sight of the facts in all this mirage of garbage that is going on.

He also makes reference, and I would correct him.... I hope he's going to have correct information as we go through these estimates. In fact, Dr. Kluge was never the chairman of the medical ethics committee.

He also talks, in his show of openness, about the fact that he's prepared to meet with me and that I don't seem to be responding. I cannot recall in the last few months a request from the member for a meeting in my office to talk about issues. I've certainly seen letters. He can maybe put that document forward in the House.

I think there were 12 items that he wanted for Christmas in his Christmas letter. He had 12 wishes, but I forget what they were. It's funny that most of those wishes have already been addressed by government. It sort of gets back to the fact: is this member aware of what's going on? Is he really interested in this job, or is his interest somewhere else in terms of being health critic? I would again today in Hansard — the public record — suggest to the member that if he's wanting to meet with me to talk about issues that he feels are important for us to address, we'd be very pleased to do that.

I'm offended — as, in fact, all British Columbians are — by his joking about AIDS and his joking manner in dealing with an education program that has received outstanding acclaim in the country and internationally. He has joked about it. A sad day.

The AIDS video he talked about is an important communication message to the young people in British Columbia. I saw it necessary to incorporate elements that were missing in that documentation. One was the fact that AIDS is a serious killer for our young people, and that is not referenced once. He jokes about us having incorporated that in the message. Shameful!

Secondly, the other message that was missing — and a message that I saw as extremely important — was the fact that we had to instill in our young people the responsibility to find out more about this deadly killer. Does he find offence in us doing that? Does he joke about that? Then he talks about keys. It was important— in a joking manner, he talks — that the final message was that if you're going out tonight, you had better take your keys along. It's not a joking matter, Mr. Member. You can sit there, in your smug look and your smiling face. It's not a joking matter. The final message was left with the young people to

[ Page 11424 ]

inform themselves about the seriousness of AIDS. The keys were in both clips. Refresh your memory.

Maybe what the member isn't aware of is that this AIDS video now has been requested by the youth television network in Toronto — Toronto! — to include in their special youth life education that they are developing for airing this fall. We are also making this available to the Canadian Public Health Association for part of their national youth and AIDS campaign.

Mr. Chairman, I have spent a lot of time talking to street kids. I have been involved in some of the programs of our outreach, working with our street nurses, becoming fully aware of the problems, serious problems—  and I'm offended by comments suggesting that this is a joking matter. This is a very serious matter. I have spent evenings seeing the tragedy in our society in deepest and darkest Vancouver. I'm surprised that this member hasn't even shown enough interest, Mr. Chairman, to get out and see these problems himself, firsthand, and to deal with the people that are dealing with these problems.

They sit there smugly in their environment; in fact, in the constituency of one of the members. He hasn't even bothered going out to some of these offices just to talk to them. No, he sits there; he's being a critic. He lives in his comfortable little Point Grey home. He has talked about all these things from a very clinical aspect. Maybe you should get out into the field where it counts, once, and talk to these people. That would be most appreciated. I think it would give you an insight into some of the problems that you don't have currently. I'm prepared to talk about this issue, Mr. Member, because I have a lot of things to say about it.

[10:45]

MR. PERRY: Before I try to continue the debate, let me make an offer to the minister. The Legislature is under pressure to adjourn. There have been agreements between both caucuses to attempt to meet a timetable. I'm prepared to stay all night, right through the night, to go over these issues in detail with the minister — I'd like to make that clear to the House — be that tonight or tomorrow night or any other night that's available. Certainly tonight is available, and potentially tomorrow night as well. I want to make that clear. I'm in absolute earnest. I have pared my file down to the absolute minimum that I thought it was essential to raise in the public interest. A file close to a metre thick has now been whittled down to 20 centimetres. I want to make clear to the minister that I'm not afraid of any of his questions. I've got plenty of my own to raise. If the House will allow us the opportunity, I will stay up all night long. I've done it before in my life and I'll do it again.

Mr. Chair, let me address some of the points the minister just made, because they really call for an answer. I don’t know who he is speaking to or if this is for his constituency mail— out in Chilliwack. Clearly he is not going to have the effrontery to distribute his comments to the general public in British Columbia that will see through them.

To address a few of the points that he made: I visited the needle exchange project and the streetworker project long before he did. I visited the Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society, also known as DEYAS, as soon as I learned about the needle exchange project they had begun, an innovative project which has become now one of the most successful projects of its kind in the world in the attempt to prevent the spread of AIDS in the intravenous drug-user community and among street people in Vancouver. It was followed up by a program in Victoria. I have made repeated attempts, over all of my brief career in this Legislature, to ensure that the provincial government would avail itself of the opportunity the federal government offered last fall for joint cost-shared funding. I have done everything in my power to raise that issue, including a question as recently as yesterday afternoon in this Legislature.

When I requested initially of DEYAS to go out on the street with the needle-exchange worker last summer, last August, they were unwilling to take me. They felt it would violate the confidentiality of their program. After the minister was so escorted, I made the request again, and I was taken out in the street. I made a point of commending the minister on his initiative not only in his presence, but outside his presence. Anytime I was asked about him, I made a point of commending him for having taken the initiative to go out and see what they were doing. As soon as I had the opportunity, the federal NDP health critic, Mr. Chris Axworthy, and I were out on the street.

The opportunity arose in February or March of this year; I forget exactly when. Last August I had been to the offices of the needle exchange program, and I've been there on at least two other occasions since for meetings to deal with the financial problems they were facing with that program. Last August I met with the medical officer of health for the north health unit in Vancouver, Dr. Bardsley, specifically to explore this problem. That was before this minister even had his current portfolio.

I've met with the chief medical officer of health for the city of Vancouver, Dr. Blatherwick, to explore this particular problem. I have met with nurses involved in the problem. I have raised it on every conceivable opportunity in an attempt to browbeat this incredibly stingy and recalcitrant government to take its public health responsibility seriously. I repeat: we've been the laughing-stock of North America at the government level. At the ministry level, at the level of the director of communicable disease control or sexual disease control and at the level of the hospitals and nurses, we have a sterling record in this province. We have a health community profoundly dedicated to dealing with the AIDS epidemic. It has been at the level of the political leadership — the former and the current Minister of Health and in particular the Premier of this province — that we have been failing. I have done everything in my power to raise those points publicly.

I note that the hon. former Speaker, the second member for Delta, also has taken his responsibility.

[ Page 11425 ]

Subsequent to and perhaps — if I don't flatter myself too much — influenced by a speech I gave in this Legislature on July 7 of last year on dealing with the AIDS epidemic.... That speech was interrupted by the former Minister of Forests' joke about "Sodomy Forever — the new NDP theme song." It was a speech which the media did not report because they focused on the grotesque inappropriateness of the former Minister of Forests' comments. Subsequent to that — perhaps influenced by it, perhaps not; perhaps purely independently faced with the same facts that I was — the second member for Delta wrote to his constituents in his MLA report dated August 21, 1989: "The AIDS crisis is fast approaching epidemic proportions." He continues to give a very humane and moving description of how the AIDS epidemic affects people in Africa.

I note that he's one of the few Canadian politicians who pointed out that: "In Africa alone, population centres have been virtually decimated by this disease which has affected both males and females of all age categories." Anyone who saw the program about the death of the Ugandan rock star, Philly Lutaaya, last April 2 on CBC television, will know what the second member for Delta was talking about.

He pointed out — and I quote again from his letter:

"This is not a matter for politics, nor is it a matter for religion. It is a matter for all humanity to address, resolve and conquer. As a pillar of his faith, a true Christian recognizes the need for compassion, understanding and love, not an opportunity for vengeance or benign neglect. "Whether it be a needle exchange program, an educational program, or money and resources for research, steps must be taken immediately if we are to effectively fight this plague."

It's not just this side of the House that has recognized this as a profound social problem that was not being adequately addressed, whether you call it benign neglect, as does the second member for Delta who is more experienced in parliamentary language by virtue of his experience as the former Speaker, or whether you call it something stronger, as I do.

Mr. Brian Calder, the former president of the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, who is a well-known small "c" conservative and certainly no member or supporter of the New Democratic Party, recognized the same things. He volunteered to help in the distribution of the censored or banned AIDS film last year. He has met with me at the Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society, along with the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and officials from the government who are members of a Paedeic Justice Society who are attempting to develop a housing project for intravenous drug users infected with HIV because of the case of a native Indian women infected with HIV who had to live in St. Paul's Hospital several years ago for eight months because there was no other place for her to live. She not only occupied a hospital bed — preventing its use for other patients — but experienced the torment and suffering of having no other home but a hospital, because there were no alternatives for her. That gave rise to the Paedeic Justice Society, which is a multidisciplinary society on which even the Ministry of Solicitor-General and corrections branch are ably represented.

The medical officer of health for the city of Vancouver represents the health field as well as nurses and doctors from St. Paul's Hospital; social workers; members of the AIDS community are represented. That group has been trying to achieve a residence for people infected with HIV who have no home other than the street, to allow them to live in some dignity and hopefully to provide access for them to health services so that they may be treated humanely and compassionately and are less likely to spread the virus to other uninfected people.

I met at DEYAS at 223 Main Street with the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). I invited many other members from Vancouver, none of whom had the courtesy to even answer my invitation. Some others did. The chairman of the Business Council of B.C. was invited and couldn't attend; he responded. I have done everything within my limited ability to attempt to raise the profile of those needs and to encourage the ministry to respond. For the minister to sit there and suggest that somehow I don't know what I'm talking about and that I haven't been out in the field is not only unfair, it's ridiculous and absurd, because the very basis of my concern is the fact that I have been in the field. That's how I first got interested in this issue, dealing personally as a physician with some of the first AIDS patients in the city of Vancouver and having colleagues who continue to face that. People I trained with and hold as esteemed friends are now facing the crunch.

Let me raise another example. I brought to the minister's attention recently the issue of services for women infected with HIV in this province, of whom there are estimated to be 140, but of whom at most 14 are known to be receiving AZT. There is consensus in the medical field that women are undertreated. The reasons for this are very complex. I do not pretend that the minister can resolve this problem overnight. If he could, I would hope — and I feel marginally confident — that he would have, but the problem is exceptionally difficult.

Many of these women are street women. Some of them are in the sex trade; others are intravenous drug abusers. Some of them, for cultural reasons, do not have or partake of reliable access to the health care system. Many of them are probably uninsured. They still receive health services from physicians and nurses who participate in the system, as would others. But some of them, because they are uninsured, may, like other patients in that position, be reluctant to seek services. I have recently run into a pregnant woman in that position who is not infected with HIV, but who is pregnant and reluctant to use the services at the Reach clinic, where formerly doctors and nurses were salaried. Now this government insists on paying them a fee for service, and it becomes a question of access for an uninsured

[ Page 11426 ]

woman — whether she will be seen during her pregnancy.

I brought to the minister's attention the issue of women Infected with HIV. He has received a long letter which is somewhere in my file — I can't lay my fingers on it right now — from Rebecca Fox and others. Rebecca Fox is a nurse-practitioner who works in the herpes clinic at UBC and VGH, and has also worked in the AIDS clinic at St. Paul's Hospital. She is joined in that letter by Dr. Karen Gelmon, a distinguished hematologist, who is one of the original members of the AIDS care team at St. Paul's Hospital.

I have drawn this issue to the minister's attention, and I have also drawn it to the attention of the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran). I have received an acknowledgment from her, but I've yet to hear anything from the minister in response to my letter of early June.

The letter to the minister from Rebecca Fox and others, including Carol Herbert, the head of the division of family practice at the University of British Columbia, which has received only the most noncommittal response, was dated May 24, 1990. My letter to the minister following up on this and other women's health issues was dated early June and was also signed by the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari). So for him to suggest that these issues have not been brought to his attention is completely unreasonable. For him to suggest that somehow it is the fault of the opposition is equally unreasonable.

[11:00]

It's a matter of public knowledge — perhaps not of public record, because the minister has refused repeatedly to table the reports of the AIDS advisory committee — that the government has been well and fully informed about the need to deal with the AIDS epidemic; that its AIDS advisory committee has recommended to it an extremely aggressive strategy, comparable to that of any jurisdiction in the world; and that for political reasons this government has not been willing to respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. Under standing orders, your time has expired.

MS. CULL: I'm very interested in the comments being made by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and I'd like to hear him continue.

MR. PERRY: I'm going to yield to the second member for Delta for a moment.

MR. DAVIDSON: I just have a few brief remarks on the proposal for a hospital facility in North Delta. As the minister will recall, just a short time ago I submitted in this House some 4,000.... I didn't actually bring the 4,000 in; I saved the Chair that trouble. There were 4,126 individuals who took the time to sign a petition asking for some kind of hospital facility in North Delta. We're very aware that the recent significant announcement of additional funding for Surrey — some $60 million-odd — has gone a long way to alleviate some of the problems facing my community. We also recognize the significant addition of money earmarked for the Richmond General Hospital, which also serves the Delta community. But there's no question that the growth we've experienced in the catchment area of North Delta–Surrey is tremendous. It's among the fastest-growing areas in the province, and there is a real need for a localized facility.

One of the local developers has indicated that he could possibly make some land available — Mr. Dennis Elsom of Delsom Estates. Delta has been very good to him, and he feels he can reciprocate by providing a site for a facility. In addition, it has been suggested that there might be an association of that kind of facility with a training program for nursing, which might even be in a specialized area.

I know the demand on funds in that ministry is a high one. I realize full well that significant moneys have already been earmarked for development of new facilities as well as significant additions to older ones. Nonetheless I would hope that in the course of organization and planning some consideration could be given to the needs of the North Delta community which is going to serve close to 100,000 people and possibly more than that as time moves along.

On those suggestions I would hope that the minister could offer a little encouragement to the people and indicate today that he would be prepared to have staff look at this a bit more closely than they have in the past, and also to possibly give some indication of whether there would be any hope at all of having a nurse-training facility incorporated into a small hospital setting like that. It would enable a program to be launched at the North Delta facility.

We're not even suggesting that it would have to be specifically in North Delta. It could even be in the adjacent part of Surrey, as long as it serves that immediate community. But possibly there could be some enhancement of the facility through a training program for nurses, which again could serve the White Rock–Surrey area and take a bit of the pressure off the St. Paul's and Vancouver General situation where nurse-training is primarily carried out at this time. There are people on our side of the Fraser River who would certainly welcome that opportunity from both the proximity factor and an opportunity factor. Nursing is obviously one of the key areas where we have to spend some time in training.

I would hope that in the long-range plans of the ministry some very serious consideration could be given to the North Delta proposal. The offer for land, if that's available, would have some minor impact on the government budgeting, but the ministry has an opportunity here to encompass both some kind of acute-care or long-term care facility, enhanced by a nurse-training program. That opportunity exists. I hope the minister will give it some serious thought and maybe come back to the House with a commitment for at least a serious study of that request.

[ Page 11427 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: I'd like to thank the second member for Delta for his comments. Yesterday, when I made my opening address in terms of dealing with the budget, I indicated that the fastest-growing area of the province, and I think in all of Canada, is in Surrey and the lower Fraser Valley. It has seen tremendous growth. We have projected that 100,000 additional people will be living in the area by 1995.

As a result, we announced some very significant expansions to three hospitals — Delta, Surrey and Peace Arch — in their acute-care and continuing-care delivery. Also, what I have requested — and I've had extremely good cooperation from all those hospitals — is that they coordinate their efforts in terms of what the future face of health care in the community will look like. We have put in place the Fraser Valley strategic health plan, which is taking Delta, Surrey, Langley, Peace Arch and some other hospitals in the adjacent areas and planning in a coordinated fashion the requirements for future facilities.

Having said all that, we are very aware of the growth needs of North Delta, and the saturation in terms of the size of the Surrey facility. We are very pleased to look at some aspect of the viability of the construction of other health facilities in the North Delta area, recognizing that we have to address those needs. It will require some study on our part and working together with the community. Together with the other hospitals in the area — who are very supportive of looking at this, I might add — we are prepared to continue to address the interests that the member put forward.

I also want to take the opportunity to address the comments from the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey in terms of the tremendous efforts that our street workers are making in the needle exchange program and also working with the serious health needs of street people. When I became Health minister, the first thing I did was ask staff to arrange for an opportunity to do an outreach into a number of these areas and to understand, from my perspective, a little more about what these issues were and how we could address them. As a result, I visited the downtown east side centre that the member is talking about, and I spoke to Mr. John Turvey, who is doing an outstanding job dealing with these issues and working with our street nurse program. I asked him: "I am curious. Has any member of the NDP been here with you to tour this facility, to show an interest?" He said: "NDP?" I said to him: "I'm just curious. They're always speaking about these issues, and I just wondered if they have ever shown interest in going there." He said: "Well, as far as I can recall, the only people who have shown any interest are government members." Mr. Turvey said: "The only other interest I can recall — and I don't even remember the MLA of the area coming here — is when the Leader of the Opposition visited a community centre together with the cameras." It wasn't to show interest, but together with the cameras.

I said: "Well, I'm here only as myself; I have not told anyone I am doing this, but staff are aware I'm here tonight." And I went for three nights, not just one night for a little visit and a little discussion — three nights at three different centres. And you know, I also asked Dr. John Anderson, the president of the BCMA — whom I have a lot of respect for — to come with me on one of these street walks. At that time he was president of BCMA, and he quite willingly came along. We spent one night with him and with the street nurses. Terrific interest, terrific commitment. I indicated to him and to the BCMA that we were prepared to work with him to deal with this issue as best we could.

MR. PERRY: Why won't you help fund it?

HON. J. JANSEN: Maybe the member's not aware, but I spoke last night about our commitment of a street nurse program and said we were expanding it further. He talks about the federal commitment; yes, we are meeting with the federal government in terms of nailing down their commitment to these programs. We have expanded the program significantly. We see a good opportunity to involve all three levels of government. Indeed, it is an interest of concern to society. It's not just a concern as to whether it's federal, provincial, community or local government; it's an interest in helping to deal with the very serious nature of this problem. We are going to be, I'm sure in the next little while, able to advise both the CRD and the city of Vancouver in terms of what the new budget will provide for them for expansion of programs and give the results of our discussions with the federal government in this regard.

MR. PERRY: The truth usually has a way of finding its way out, and if anyone is listening to this debate, even if it's the individuals in the gallery who are mortifying their flesh on those uncomfortable seats, I'd encourage them, particularly the people's representatives in the parliamentary press gallery, to check with Mr. John Turvey to see whether opposition members have been to visit the offices. Because the record will show, as I told the House, that I made an inspection visit last August; that I requested a chance to go out on the street. At that time they were reluctant to compromise the confidentiality of the relationship with their clients — the intravenous drug users and prostitutes on the street. They subsequently changed their policy, perhaps through the intervention of the Minister of Health.

[11:15]

The record will also show that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has been on one occasion to a meeting there, and on another occasion he sent his staff representative to meet with Mr. John Turvey and others of the Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society and the Paedeic Justice Society in an attempt to stimulate a program to develop housing for people with those severe needs. The record will also show that the Vancouver city caucus, chaired by the mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Campbell, met last December. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), in conjunction with the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCar-

[ Page 11428 ]

thy), proposed a motion recommending that the government of British Columbia apply to the federal cost-shared program to fund these needle exchange projects aimed at the prevention of the spread of HIV, the AIDS virus.

The record will show that that resolution — drafted in the hands of the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain and proposed by the first member for Vancouver East, in my presence and that of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and many other individuals — was, for whatever reason, not released by the mayor at the time.

On February 2, another meeting of the Vancouver city caucus was convened, at which Members of the Legislative Assembly in attendance were the second member for Vancouver Centre and I, along with many other officials. At that meeting, priorities for dealing with the AIDS epidemic were raised by the staff of the city health department, Dr. Rekart, AIDS Vancouver, Debra Mearns of the Paedeic Justice Society, Mr. Turvey and representatives of virtually every other significant group working in the AIDS field.

A policy statement was issued, to which we all subscribed unanimously. As the minutes of that meeting of February 2, 1990 show — although they don't include in detail the comments of observers such as me — they do mention on page 7: "Dr. Perry suggested that the legislative committee should also meet to discuss a national AIDS strategy."

Let's not kid ourselves about where the impetus has been coming from for action in this field, and let's not kid ourselves that the government has always taken this seriously. Since the minister thinks that we find something funny about this epidemic, let me quote from an editorial in the Invermere Valley Echo of December 6, 1989, entitled "T-Shirts Waste Taxes," in which it is pointed out that under the tenure of this minister, in early December, an article of clothing was sent to British Columbia newspapers — a white T-shirt with the logo containing the words "World AIDS Day."

That may have been a useful device for people in the field to wear on the street, but what exactly the use of sending the T-shirt to newspapers was I'm not sure. This newspaper, for one, interpreted it as a waste of taxes. The headline was "T-Shirts Waste Taxes," and the editorial states: "Acquired Immune deficiency syndrome is a serious disease and not one to be made light of. That's what is so ridiculous about this latest promotion. Not only is sending T-shirts an expensive proposition for the B.C. taxpayer; it is an ineffective one."

I think what that editorial was getting at — and it goes on to say it — is:

"Perhaps the T-shirt distribution is the ministry's attempt to 'get modern' after it rejected a video promoting the use of condoms because the Premier and the former Health minister thought it might promote promiscuity. The video was supported, however, by many officials who deal directly with AIDS research and treatment.... It was rejected only after production was complete, to a tune of $100,000."

The evidence is overwhelming. For example, I see in my file the April 1990 edition of the British Columbia Medical Journal, and the article written by Dr. Bardsley and Dr. Blatherwick, John Turvey and Dr. Rekart of the B.C. Ministry of Health in the AIDS update column on the needle exchange program, pointing out the success of the program, its importance and the difficulty of achieving provincial funding. They are very diplomatic in what they write there. But let it be clear on the record that the problem in dealing with the epidemic is the political will at the highest level; in this case, the Premier.

I want to turn to the challenge the minister issued to me a few minutes ago to respond to remarks he made in his answer to my Christmas-Hanukkah wish list, a letter that I sent him dated December 2, 1990, in which I proposed 12 constructive areas for action. One of the areas I pointed out was the serious problem of hospital waiting-lists. The minister responded to me by saying, intriguingly, on page 2 of his letter dated January 23:

"As you are aware, the Ministry of Health monitors waiting-lists for surgery in the province. You may be interested to note that for general elective surgery, approximately 80 percent of cases are operated upon within eight weeks — a waiting-period which I am advised members of the medical profession deem acceptable."

I note parenthetically that on the order paper is a written question tabled at the beginning of this session in which I requested waiting-lists from all the hospitals in the province so that I might review them myself in time for this debate. I've had no action on that request.

I wrote to the minister last February 5. I then wrote to the Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services on two occasions in May. Most recently, I tabled a motion, which will appear in the order paper tomorrow, requesting that the House direct its Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services to review many of the issues I'm raising today.

So let the minister not state that the opposition has not proposed constructive alternatives. In my notice of motion I have detailed eight suggested areas that the legislative committee review. I've indicated repeatedly my willingness, as a member of that committee and as an elected representative of the people of Vancouver–Point Grey, to work on the committee, and my firm belief that the committee could offer constructive advice to government and to the people of B.C.

Let me turn to the minister's assurance regarding hospital waiting-lists. I have no basis to question his figure that approximately 80 percent of cases are operated on within eight weeks. What I do question is his sanguine contentedness and the glibness of an answer like this, which appears superficially reasonable but belies the reality of what's going on in British Columbia. Let me give you a few examples.

[ Page 11429 ]

I'll begin with a letter from the same Dr. Romayne Gallagher. I hope that even after I read from her letter, the minister will still be as eager as he was earlier to meet her and hear from her, because she really is a very fine physician and has some very constructive suggestions to make.

Parenthetically, let me read briefly from a letter I received from Mrs. Marilyn Sparks in Oliver, B.C., dated July 6, 1990, in which she recounts a situation the minister and others are wont to speak of, contrasting the situation in the United States with what we experience in Canada. We like to flatter ourselves that this could never happen here. In case there are any Americans visiting us today in the gallery who are humiliated by what they are about to hear, let me add that I'd like to welcome them here and assure them that this is not directed at them personally.

Mrs. Sparks writes:

"Dear Mr. Perry:

"While in the emergency ward of the Ashland Community Hospital, Ashland, Oregon, I watched with mounting dismay as a 54-year-old mother of four and caregiver to three grandchildren was diagnosed and treated. She had been unable to get medical insurance and therefore had allowed a breast lump to grow until it ruptured and she was forced to seek medical attention. While the nurses and GP in the emergency ward prepared for surgery, the surgeon was phoned. When he learned that the woman had no medical insurance, he ordered her stitched up and sent home. The hospital staff was compassionate and their behaviour first-class, but they could do nothing. The problem was — no medical insurance. I could do nothing for that woman, but I vowed that our medicare system must remain healthy.'

Hence this letter and a copy of an article that she enclosed.

Mr. Chair, we like to think that we're far removed from that abysmal and atavistic situation. Nothing like that could ever happen here. Of course we know that with one unfortunate, brief recent exception, to the best of our knowledge nothing like that has happened in British Columbia in recent times and hopefully ever. We can hope that it never will. But are we really so far removed from that situation?

Let me read what Dr. Gallagher has to say in response to the letter I sent her with my Christmas-Hanukkah wish list and the response that the minister gave me on January 23 of this year. She writes:

"I read with interest your 'Christmas wish list' and Mr. Jansen's reply. I disagree with his estimate that 80 percent of general elective surgery is done within eight weeks. In my practice I have patients waiting six months for heart bypass surgery, 15 and six months for knee replacement, and a patient who waited four months for removal of a liver cyst. This latter patient had a cyst which kept growing, and finally the cyst began to bleed into itself, causing a lot of abdominal pain."

She told me, by the way, on the telephone that this woman had to quit work because of her pain.

"After being sent home from emergency once, I finally had to insist that she return to emergency and be admitted. I had to pretend that I had not spoken to the surgeon about this, for fear that it would be seen to be jumping the waiting-list. This 21-year-old lady finally had a six-litre cyst removed from her abdomen.'

This container is four and a half litres, and this container is two litres. In total they are six and a half litres, which is the closest I could find to an example of how large that is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would just like to remind you that exhibiting things in the House is not permitted.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought the point might be lost on the hon. members. Some of us are still struggling with the metric system. But I hope the point is received.

A six-litre cyst in the liver. Imagine that in your own abdomen, Mr. Chair; waiting four months in pain, having to stop work in a modern metropolis like Vancouver, in order to have that dealt with. It's shocking, and it belies the sanguine response of the minister.

I continue quoting from her letter, point 2:

"Another area of interest to me is home palliative care. A 44-year-old patient of mine died at home from cancer of the ovary. She saved at least 25 hospital days, but it cost her between $2,000 and $3,000 of her own money to do this. I wrote to the Health ministry and, to their credit, I received several phone calls in response. All those I spoke with agreed that better organization and use of resources was necessary. However, there was no suggestion of initiating any program to facilitate this care in Vancouver. I am aware of the hospice program and their home-visit service. However, I feel there is a need for a comprehensive home palliative care program that provides supplies, medicine and equipment to patients who wish to die at home."

That letter was dated May 30, 1990.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to hear what my colleague is saying. He was just getting warmed up, so I wonder if he'd carry on.

[11:30]

MR. PERRY: I think it's important that the minister and his staff be obliged to deal in this House with some of the reality from which they sometimes seem so remote.

Let me give you another example — a letter dated April 10, 1990, from Dr. Stephen J. Tredwell, a children's orthopaedic surgeon at the B.C. Children's Hospital, a copy of which was sent to the minister. A copy was also sent to the chairman of the board of directors of that hospital. He points out that he's a children's orthopaedic surgeon who works exclusively at Children's Hospital and that his practice is directed towards both the care of orthopaedic needs of children in the Vancouver area and the tertiary needs of the children of this province.

[ Page 11430 ]

"As I dictate to you, we have just cancelled yet another major surgical case because of Children's Hospital's inadequate resources. This young girl has adolescent idiopathic scoliosis that is progressive, causing increasing spinal deformity. She has pre-donated her own blood, and it is on hold for her in the blood bank, and, as you know, this will have a limited life span. The likelihood of us getting her into hospital for her surgery prior to her blood outdating is small. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual occurrence. Since January of this year, at least 50 percent of the major tertiary-level spine surgery at Children's Hospital has been cancelled, rebooked and some even postponed again. This causes tremendous hardship on the family and the patient. When a child is coming into hospital, the family will often take needed holiday time to be with the child."

He points out later in his letter:

"Within the past two weeks on the orthopaedic service at Children's Hospital, we have had two cases admitted where the delay in admitting the patient to the hospital has resulted in an increase in their orthopaedic problem to the degree that there was a significant increase in operative risk and a significant decrease in the expectations from the surgical intervention."

This is not my opinion; this is the opinion of Dr. Stephen Tredwell, who is one of the most distinguished paediatric orthopaedic surgeons in the province. Were this letter to be found in court, I suggest it might have profound legal implications. This is not a matter to be treated lightly; therefore I raise it in this House so that all hon. members will be aware of some of the true realities affecting patients in this province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chair, let me give you another example drawn at random from my files. I emphasize that I whittled down my files in the last few days in an attempt to meet the convenience of the House, but I have received literally hundreds of such letters over the last year. Here's one from Ms. Jill Weiss addressed to the Hon. Peter Seaton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Health Care. I hope we will receive — and I know we will receive — valuable guidance from that commission regarding these problems, but in the meantime some of them are urgent. She writes on May 28:

"Dear Mr. Justice Seaton:

"I am writing to bring to your attention a problem with the health care system in B.C. I have a disc protrusion in my lower back and have been waiting for a bed for back surgery at St. Paul's Hospital for four months. During this time I have been completely confined to bed and my ability to function has been severely limited.

"The surgery I require is important, urgently needed and essential. I have pain and neurological symptoms in both feet and legs as well as reduced sensation, strength and mobility. I understand that the neurological damage may or may not be reversible."

She goes on to point out that it was a problem of providing staff in St. Paul's Hospital that was at issue, and that her surgeon, Dr. Patrick Murray, felt that she should require the surgery within a few weeks of originally booking her, but that is the reality she experienced.

Mr. Chair, now that I see you in the chair, I mention a letter that had originally been addressed to you from Dr. D. Asmussen in Port Coquitlam, who wrote to the member for Dewdney on May 30, 1990 about a patient, a Mr. J.S., with severe congestive heart failure who could not be admitted to hospital and ended up spending time in the emergency room and being very angry at the way he was treated. I think one line on page 2 of the letter from Dr. Asmussen sums up the conclusion he drew: "Like myself, Joe used to vote Social Credit."

I could read from a letter from Dr. George Pugh, who is an emergency physician at Mount St. Joseph Hospital and Shaughnessy Hospital in Vancouver pointing out at point 3: "Patients sent home despite being frail and unstable medically. The provision of home care services still does not keep up with the needs of these patients" — and many other points.

I could read from a letter from Ivory Warner addressed to the Premier as an open letter on February 1, 1990, signed "Ivory Warner (an angry parent in Kamloops)." She writes about her daughter, who is 17 years old and was in a motor vehicle accident on April 21, 1989, which injured her left knee. She pointed out that as of February 1, 1990, "she has been on the waiting-list for 'elective surgery' since July of last year — a seven-month wait." She goes on to state: "My daughter, like many others awaiting surgery, has had her life on hold, unable to return to her full-time job due to pain and disability. Other people die while waiting for 'the best health care system in Canada' to respond to their needs."

Mr. Chair, I could and I will read from a letter from Miss Samantha Ripley addressed to the Hon. John Jansen, dated June 25, 1990. This is from Delta, British Columbia. She's a 23-year-old single woman who as a child 14 years ago developed glomerulonephritis, which resulted in the loss of function of her kidneys. She commenced dialysis in 1982. She had an unsuccessful kidney transplant in 1985, and has been on the waiting-list for four years for a new transplant. She points out that her life is extraordinarily difficult due to the need for thrice-weekly dialysis, and that she's now being asked by the dialysis unit at St. Paul's Hospital to move over to the day care centre on Willow Street, near the Vancouver General Hospital centre— the limited care unit — because the hemodialysis unit at St. Paul's Hospital can no longer accommodate her. She points out:

"Inasmuch as I am no stranger to dialysis, I am well aware of what my own body can take, and during my treatment three times per week, into the second hour I feel extremely ill with severe headaches, low blood pressure, light-headedness, nausea and a general state of exhaustion. Following my dialysis, I am in no shape to take care of a machine 'cleanup'."

She continues, pointing out that she works, and has to get up at 5:00 a.m. to go to work, and that it would be physically impossible for her make this change

[ Page 11431 ]

and return home at 11:00 p.m. and then get up at 5:00 a.m.

I spoke to her physician yesterday or the day before and confirmed that he agrees with her position, but he's in a double bind, because ministry officials and the government expect that because of our successful renal transplant program, somehow renal disease will vanish and we will no longer need dialysis in the future, and because the resources made available for dialysis are consistently insufficient to meet the real needs. It strikes me as an example of magical thinking on the part of this government: "If only it were so."

I could and I will read to you from a letter from the president of the Christian Medical Dental Society of Canada, Dr. David R.S. Neima, dated May 25. He wrote to me of his concern at comments of the former Deputy Minister of Health. I'll read you verbatim from his letter. He says:

"Several weeks ago Mr. Stan Dubas, the Deputy Minister of Health, attended a retreat for the board of St. Mary's Hospital at which I was present. He gave a speech in which he outlined the government's objectives and in which he outlined the need for the rationing of health care in the next decade.

"One of his major complaints was the increased use of dialysis at the Royal Columbian Hospital. He pointed out that on his foreign travels he had noted that in many countries, such as England, dialysis was not used for people over 60 who have other important illnesses. Time and again in his speech he reiterated the importance of keeping the Health budget to 30 percent of the overall budget.

"I can only say that I was quite shocked and dismayed as I heard him speak."

These are very serious comments. I wasn't present at this meeting; I don't know what the former deputy minister said verbatim. But this is a letter from an ophthalmologist, the incoming president of the Christian Medical Dental Society of Canada. When I wrote back to him, he sent me another letter. The first was dated May 25. He sent me another dated July 4, 1990, in which he explains:

"I appreciate your reply greatly, and I've written them several times, both to Premier Vander Zalm and the various Ministers of Health, and have never received a reply from any of them."

He points out his concern over the emergence of a two-tier system in ophthalmology. I quote again from his letter:

"As you are aware, over the next decade a marked population increase is projected for the Fraser Valley area and lower mainland in particular. We have good reason to believe that a large number of these immigrants, mostly from elsewhere in Canada, will be elderly people, many of them with eye problems. As you are aware, there are already very long waiting-lists for eye surgery in the Fraser Valley area. I have recently learned that this is not so in Victoria, which I find somewhat surprising.

"Given the projected growth and the need for cataract surgery in particular, but also for other forms of eye surgery, there is a real need for a hospital to have a dedicated eye surgery ward with a large out-patient facility and to be able to treat large numbers of patients.

"The Eye Care Centre in Vancouver is a fair distance away from the Fraser Valley itself. In addition, the physicians downtown are already well occupied with their own workloads.

"A continuing problem for ophthalmology, particularly in the Fraser Valley, is competition with more urgent surgery."

He goes on to point out that people with eye problems — with incipient blindness, in effect, and hampered significantly by their disability — fall last on the list of priorities. He suggests a constructive solution, and I quote: "I believe that the solution in the long run to ophthamology problems is the establishment of the independent day care surgery centre in the Fraser Valley for cataract and other eye-surgery patients in this area." He's not suggesting a profit-motive facility; he's suggesting a public one. He pointed out in his previous letter to me his concern that.... I'll revert to his letter of May 25 in which he says:

"Mr. Dubas was careful to deny accusations that the government was looking to force a two-level health care system. We are beginning to see this in New Westminster, where one ophthamologist has a private operating-room where patients can have their surgery done within a week or two, whereas all of the other patients have to wait about six months before they can have their cataract surgery. It is apparent from his speech that the current ministry has no dedication to individual human worth, nor does it have a real desire to serve each and every member of the population of British Columbia. They are looking for ways to ration health care."

Just so there is no misunderstanding, let me read the following paragraph. This is not from a traditional hard-core NDP supporter:

"As a devout Christian, it has always been my desire to serve all the sick people with whom I come into contact to the best of my ability, remembering how Christ gave his life for me. This faith has led me to a strong moral position regarding health care and regarding the need to seek a quality and benefit of life for each individual in health care."

When I tried to call this doctor last week to explore the issue further, I learned that he was in China doing missionary eye-surgery work. This is not some money-grubbing doctor who, as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) would have it, would like to bill every day for an imaginary patient that he sees to no avail. This is an outstanding physician who displays tremendous concern for his patients and the people of British Columbia. I find what he is saying very alarming, and I hope other members of this Legislature find it so as well.

I could read from a letter addressed originally to the former Attorney-General, dated May 30, 1990 an exceptionally poignant letter from Mrs. Baksho Ghangass of Kamloops, B.C.

[11:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, the member's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. LOVICK: I've been listening with interest to the comments of my learned colleague the member

[ Page 11432 ]

from Point Grey, and I certainly hope he will continue to offer them to this chamber.

MR. PERRY: I could read from this tremendously poignant letter. It's a very long one. Copies were sent to the minister, so I won't read it all. It was sent to his staff, Mr. Brad Gee, Mr. Peter Van Rheenen, the second member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond), the other representative for this woman, and to other members of this House. I'll just read briefly from it. It's very poignant:

"I am the parent of a four-year-old girl who has Down's Syndrome. She was born in Yellowknife, where there were almost no services available to us as far as our daughter was concerned. We made a couple of visits to the Vancouver-Richmond infant development...while visiting our family in Vancouver. We realized the importance of early intervention, which forced me to give up my work to spend time with my child at home and do everything possible to give her half the chance that you or I have. I did extensive researching into the subject of Down's Syndrome to enable me to supplement Marjeet's infrequent therapy sessions with all that I could do for her at home."

She points out that she moved to Kamloops in an attempt to secure better services. She describes the frustration she experienced:

"There is no coordination, no direction, no one to tell you what is available in this glorious city of ours, let alone how to access those services. By the time we have run around trying to find what is out there, accessing these few services becomes another story in itself. Parents of special-needs children constantly face burnout, nervous breakdown and tension in the home life. If you have the strength, energy and courage, you plod on until maybe one day you have what you want — many years down the road when it may be too late for some of our children."

I quote from a letter from another parent in the same area, also copied to similar officials, including the minister, from Sandra K. Robertson of Kamloops. She points out: "We have been in Kamloops since March 1, 1989, and we have felt nothing except anger, frustration and deceit in regards to the false impression that therapy services were available in this city." This was therapy for their young child affected with cerebral palsy or spina bifida — I can't find it right at the moment.

I quote from another Kamloops resident, Maureen Rothman, in a letter dated October 14, 1989 addressed to the Premier regarding her daughter Sidney, now three years old, classified as multi-handicapped:

"A year ago we requested an assessment for occupational therapy. We were placed on a two-year waiting-list. Today a parent requesting the same service is placed on a waiting-list of four years.

"Just last week I received a letter from the hospital stating that" — among other things — "'the waiting list for occupation therapy currently consists of 75 names and will take approximately two years to complete. Your child is number 51 on the waiting list.'

"If it has taken my child two years of one-on-one, once a week for one full hour of hands-on therapy, to learn to sit and crawl, I cannot see how 16 hours over four months will accelerate her progress, if at all. After receiving these 16 hours of therapy instruction, my child will be discharged from the program."

I'd like to draw to the Legislature's attention a letter from Prof. Michael F. Whitfield, associate professor in pediatrics, neonatologist and director of the neonatal follow-up program for British Columbia at the B.C. Children's Hospital.

Of course, the question arises to any Ministry of Health: resources are limited; is it worth putting adequate resources into meeting the needs of special needs children like those in Kamloops?

Mr. Chair, it offends me tremendously to hear the minister suggest I've not been out in the field. I met with those parents on February 5 of this year, after receiving their correspondence for months. It's one of the most compelling and poignant experiences I've had in my life to see young parents struggling to protect the future of their children, struggling with the burdens that their children's disabilities impose on their lives. I see the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) listening with interest, because he knows something about what this is like from his experiences with his son. I know from some of my own experiences with my daughter. Other members who have been exposed to sick children will understand what it is like for parents to cope with this problem.

But does the therapy actually achieve something? If it didn't, perhaps it wouldn't be in the public interest to invest in this field and to accord to such parents and such children the same rights that most of us take for granted.

Here's what Professor Whitfield says in his letter, enclosing a recent article from the New York Times of June 13, 1990; an editorial on "Low-Birth-Weight Infants: Can We Enhance Their Development?" from the Journal of the American Medical Association of June 13, 1990; and the first multi-site randomized trial entitled, "Enhancing the Outcomes of Low-Birth-Weight, Premature Infants," published in that same journal on June 13, 1990. Professor Whitfield points out that there now is objective evidence that these programs are helpful: "I run a soft-funded program in the Children's Hospital" — dealing with this issue. A soft-funded program is one where the funding is not reliable, a point I've made many times in my reply to the budget and in the debates of the Minister of Advanced Education and last year during the Health ministry debates.

He points out that the growing body of evidence shows that infant development programs are useful. On page 2 of his letter — a copy of which was also sent to the minister, dated June 29, 1990 — he says:

"Our society feels compelled to provide intensive care support for even the smallest babies with the highest risk of handicap" — he's talking about hospitals there, when the baby is a new-born — "yet funding for facilities to try to optimize the outcome of these children and help their families after discharge from hospital is difficult to come by, and many families are short-serviced or not serviced at all.

I do not believe that the infant development program workers are overqualified. I have difficulty

[ Page 11433 ]

understanding why they would continue to work at the very low pay rates offered for their degree of qualification were it not for their dedication and commitment to these families. If we as a society are unwilling to provide for the aftercare of these 'new survivors,' we should look critically at whether we should be supporting these children in the first place."

That's from his letter to Peace Arch Community Services, a copy of which was sent to both the minister and me and to many other ministers and members of this House.

Mr. Chair, I have offered constructive suggestions to the minister. I have requested that the Select Standing Committee on Health investigate this particular issue, because I thought we could add something to public policy in British Columbia. I remain willing — and I have a motion on the order paper which will appear in Orders of the Day tomorrow — to serve the people of B.C. at any time, should the minister honour my request that the committee be called to address that issue.

Let me give you a few other examples of what I'm getting at. The problem of thalassemia beta major. I quote a letter from Sara Sammarco, the mother of a 14-year-old girl who unfortunately died from this condition a few years ago. She's president of the Vancouver Thalassemia Society of B.C. These are only a few kids — maybe a dozen or a couple of dozen — in this province. They're not a big expense, not a big news issue. They don't make the front pages of the newspapers like murderers or sex offenders do. But they're important. They have a fatal illness. I've raised their condition both privately with the ministry and in this House before. Somehow they're left out. They are obliged to pay the 20 percent of the cost not covered by Pharmacare and the $325 deductible for the pumps required to treat their condition and to give them the hope of living a normal life and surviving until they can have bone-marrow transplantation, which can give them hope of a long and normal life.

After meeting with them on May 12, 1989, I raised this issue directly with the ministry, not in public but through the appropriate channel, drawing it to their attention.

Ms. Sammarco writes to me on April 30 of this year:

"Per our previous contact with you May 12, 1989, in respect to the financial plight the families with thalassemia beta major children are experiencing, we have, as of this date, not heard anything from the provincial government nor the kidney dialysis department to which the issue was referred.

"We would like to convey to our members and enable our families to feel that our concerns are being looked into and met."

When I checked about a month ago with the Children's Hospital, I was informed that this program is still not in existence. I've drawn this issue to the ministry's attention for over a year, and it had been drawn to their attention for several years previously by the families involved. These are families with very sick children trying to cope with the impact of that chronic illness — the very ones whom medicare was created and established to support.

I point out for the attention of the BCMA, by the way, in case their ears are listening in this Legislature, that it was not Hon. Emmett Hall who created medicare. He had a very significant role in establishing the technical aspects of the program. It was the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan who created medicare, and it was this party which fought for medicare in Canadian history. It's important that the people of Canada and British Columbia understand that.

Mr. Chair, I could give you more examples. I could refer back to the case I raised on Mrs. Doris Currie in this Legislature, one of many women.... Or I could refer to another woman — I won't mention her name, because I don't have permission — described in a letter from a Nancy Sernke to the minister dated April 9, 1990. Neither of these women was able to received timely radiotherapy when it was urgently required for the treatment of breast cancer. Mrs. Currie had the unfortunate experience of having been sent by her physician — one of the most respected physicians in the field of cancer in British Columbia, Dr. Basco — to Edmonton to receive that urgent treatment. When she returned to British Columbia, she thought it reasonable to inquire whether her transportation costs might be reimbursed. Which of us in her position would not have done the same, Mr. Chair?

Canadian Airlines International was understanding enough to reduce her fare by $200, because her situation was so urgent that she could not book an excursion fare and would have had to pay the full fare. Canadian Airlines International could understand the humanitarian aspect of her situation. That's not the first time they've done so. I've had personal experience with them myself, and I know they are capable of responding in that way. I greatly appreciate it.

[12:00]

The ministry was not, Mr. Chair. The ministry's response was, and remains, that it does not cover flights out of province. This may be a sensible policy in general, but is it sensible and humane when it applies to a patient directly referred to hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, for the urgent treatment of a life-threatening medical problem causing severe pain — referred precisely for the reason that the service was not available in British Columbia? This service used to be available in British Columbia in a timely way. Ten years ago this problem would not have arisen. Five years ago, in 1985, the last time I was involved in the treatment of a patient in a similar condition— a man with a brain tumour requiring urgent radiotherapy, because he was becoming paralysed and rapidly losing his speech — he received that treatment within two or three days. Now the treatment is not available in a timely way. It's a standing disgrace in our province.

What does it reflect? It reflects a failure of planning in this ministry. I don't hold this present minister accountable for that — obviously not. He was not the minister at the time. The failure was even

[ Page 11434 ]

partly during a previous government, although it was partly during the term of this government and the former Minister of Health. The failure was in not listening to the Cancer Control Agency when it recommended the expansion of facilities, when it informed the government....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, the member's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. ROSE: Since we're having letters today, I have one of my own, and it indicates the same thing. I think every member in the House has received them, because of unexplained delays. People are very fearful for their families and their loved ones. We get letters that are heart-rending, really.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of the deputy minister over there, and also the former deputy minister. If I make a personal appeal on these matters, I don't always get the answer I like, but I always get an answer. At this time I'd like to thank them for that.

These horror stories go on and on. I know the minister is probably tired of hearing them. He probably reads them daily. But we need more than just his concern; we need his action. I think the health professionals have been put through a punishing experience over the last few years. They look to the minister not as part of the problem but hopefully as part of the solution. I hope he can get the backing of the rest of his cabinet. They'll say, "Well, you can't solve all problems by throwing money at them." Well, if the problem is poverty, you can solve poverty by throwing money at it. And if it's health care and facilities and training of nurses, or getting people to remain on the job, a number of things can be done. For instance, we get constant calls — as I raised earlier — for early retirement for nurses. People say: "Well, we can't have that. We're short of them now, and if we do, they'll leave in droves." If we make the conditions better, maybe they'll remain on the job. Like firemen and policemen, some of the arduous kinds of things that they're called upon to do, I think, would probably be less arduous if they thought that there was a light at the end of the tunnel; that there was a time when they could retire with some dignity before they felt that they were burned out on the job.

I get letters from nurses all the time that say: "Look, I love nursing, but I'm so busy and rushed off my feet that I'm not giving the proper service to my patients." That's something that I think we need to be concerned about.

Sure, we've got far better care in this province than when I was a kid. Sure, our hospitals are better able to cope with a variety of diseases and illnesses and ailments. Medical science has moved a long way. I know we have high-tech operations today that we wouldn't have had in other days, when people would have just died. Now they're able to live useful lives. That stuff is expensive, but I don't have to remind the minister of that. We spend a lot of money on medical care, but why shouldn't we? After all, governments are for people. I'm quite happy to spend taxpayers' dollars — and my dollars, because I'm a taxpayer as well — on things that need to be done to improve the medical conditions in the community. For some ethnic groups, notably our native people, life expectancy is far too short. Early child deaths and those sorts of things are unacceptable in a society such as ours.

We are struggling to cope, but we've been failing the last little while. Maybe we expect too much. I don't know. That's what people say. I don't think we expect too much. We expect decent health care. We certainly wouldn't want to trade our model for the entrepreneurial medicine that they have in the States, where the doctors are running around with one hand on the stethoscope and the other one on the cash register. That's no good. The impoverishment of families because of the lack of proper backup and medical care.... I don't know what the figure is, but perhaps a third in the States are not covered by any kind of hospitalization or medicare.

We've gotten away from that model. You can have anything you want in the States as long as you can pay for it. Health care is a right here; it's a trust; it's something we have to preserve. The minister has an extremely heavy responsibility to preserve that. Doctor-bashing and nurse-bashing and discriminating between one kind of nursing and another is just not satisfactory and not acceptable to the public. The public, while they are not prepared to pay for some things — such as the ads for Music '91, with dozens of pictures of cabinet ministers gracing every cover — are prepared to pay for medical care, as they are prepared to pay for education.

Let me just read you one letter. I didn't expect to get all worked up about this, but you know, when I get up to speak, it has a dynamism all of its own. People say: "We're very anxious to hear what Mr. Rose has to say." I say: "I'm very anxious to hear what I have to say too, because I haven't really planned it." What comes out, comes out. My sincerity — I hope — shows through. Let me just read you a little letter that I said I'd take up. It says:

"I'm appealing to you on behalf of my father, who is currently being denied surgery. As a former nurse, I am unable to, cognitively or rationally, process the current reasoning for this power struggle among governments. I know the pat answer is 'shortage of beds.' Dr. Anderson, there is no such thing. I've been in several of our hospitals lately, including the Vancouver General, and there are lots of beds. There are also lots of unemployed nurses, particularly practical nurses, who once filled a vital nursing role. So why the lies? My father has the right to medical care. I think there is more truth, and I would like to know why"

She goes on to talk about her father who needs this care and is wasting away. I'll spare you the more grisly and heart-rending details. The point is that she thinks this is a ruse, and that there really is a lack not of medical services or medical care, but the lack of will to provide them. If that is the public image of what is going on out there, then you're in some trouble, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 11435 ]

I acknowledged her and said that I would bring this matter to your attention during estimates, because she wrote to you as well. I'm fulfilling my promise. I've only touched on one very light story here, but I have dozens of these letters from my riding. It's just not good enough. This is where people come to make their last and, I hope, highest appeal. That's what I'm doing.

HON. J. JANSEN: Those letters are important. They reflect frustrations and concerns, and they ask questions. We hope that we have an opportunity — in each one of these letters — to address those concerns and find solutions for them.

I find it somewhat regrettable that we've spent the last hour reading correspondence in this House. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey made an interesting comment. He said: "These are not my opinions, but opinions of others." As we go through these estimates, I hope that I find out his opinions, his concerns, his questions, his answers to those letters, his solutions, his assistance and what he provided to those people who wrote to ask for assistance. What did he do? Did he refer those questions, or did he simply file them? Is he now pulling out his files and reading out his filing system to us?

Mr. Chairman, when an individual writes to a member of government, the minister responsible or whoever it is and copies to another individual, he is requesting an answer to his question. What I really want to know is if the questions that the member has letters about have been referred further through the system to me to find a solution, to understand the question and to deal with it. Or has he simply filed them? That is a concern to me, and I hope that the latter is true — that the member is honestly concerned about these issues and in fact has referred those to us and has enabled us to address each individual item. I'm hopeful that he can ask questions about some of these issues and that I have an opportunity to respond.

He made a comment about a doctor refusing to treat a patient who was not under MSP. A doctor refusing to treat a patient in British Columbia: that's what I heard you say, Mr. Member. I hope that you will find it within yourself to give me the name of that person, the doctor who has done that. I will take immediate action in that regard.

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN: You said to me, and you said to this House, and I heard you say it, and we'll look at the Blues later on.... But I understood you to say that the patient was just simply sewn up and sent home again. And it was a doctor who refused to treat the patient when he became aware there was no MSP.

MR. PERRY: That was in Ashland, Oregon.

HON. J. JANSEN: You said MSP. I don't know what the member.... Hopefully, as we go along here, we will get his own questions and his own suggestions for improvement. I hope that we can get this debate.... That's what I heard him say in terms of MSP. He specifically said MSP.

The member has made a lot of noise about his motion to refer to committee. Whenever that side of the House is unable to deal with issues, they refer to committees. It's a great process: when you can't deal with something, refer it to committees and have some politicians debating some of these issues from their political perspectives.

What benefit will that be to British Columbia to have four, five, six politicians debating some of these issues in a committee environment? I think that we have a far better process, far more fundamental, far more grass roots, and it's called the royal commission. I sincerely hope that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey will take some time to make a presentation, identify some of the problems and suggest some of the solutions, because with that kind of feedback and input we can find a blueprint for the future of health care.

As we go through some of these letters that have been brought to my attention, we have found a reason for some of these issues and concerns. Generally speaking, patients aren't aware of their choices, and for a number of reasons.

Open-heart surgery. We talk to patients who come in and complain about open-heart surgery. I would submit today that we're not getting complaints any more about open-heart surgery, but when we did, we asked them: "Have you been advised of the wait-list for that particular surgeon? Have you been advised of the opportunities in other hospitals? Have you been advised of the opportunity to have your surgery in Seattle?" Invariably some of that information had not been brought forward. It's very fundamental in our system that we find a way to ensure that the patients are aware of their choices in having surgery or dealing with a medical problem.

[12:15]

We could talk about radiotherapy and the Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia — one of the most respected cancer agencies in all the world, I might say. We're talking about the lack of expansion. In fact, we are expanding very rapidly. Two or three weeks ago we started the expansion in Vancouver, and Surrey will be proceeding very soon thereafter. They are addressing some of the issues regarding radiotherapy technicians.

I can respond to some of these other things that the member has only referenced in passing. The KDS program we're talking about — we have increased funding in that regard. I can talk to you about the transplant wait-list and some of the other things. I would hope I would get some questions. I would hope I would have an opportunity to respond rather than listen to a filing system the member is bringing forward. I wonder if it is really appropriate. A person writes a member of government and has all their medical details suddenly put on the record. Everyone

[ Page 11436 ]

in the province now has an idea of the medical concerns of that person. I would hope, really, that you would extract some of the issues, and that I would have an opportunity to respond to you in a concise way on what we're doing about that issue.

MR. PERRY: It takes me back to the brief debate we had last night on the referendum bill. I think there's a different conception of the role of elected representatives in a democracy.

I've always understood that one of the reasons we're called representatives is to represent the concerns of our constituents, not just our own opinions. That is one of the most solemn and historic traditions in our English parliamentary system, or, for that matter, the French system or any other democratic parliamentary system.

That's what we're actually here for, believe it or not. That's why we're sitting here when the weather is nice outside and when many of us would like to be elsewhere; it is specifically to do that. That's why we have constituency offices: so we can meet with people, hear their concerns directly and relay them to the attention of government.

Why is it that the minister is so uncomfortable listening to some of these letters? Most of them he has received copies of previously; therefore it was not necessary for me to draw them to his attention, with my staff of one-half of an assistant in Victoria to handle the enormous volume of correspondence that I receive. Why is he so uncomfortable?

I think it's because these letters reveal that there is a profound malaise in our health system. The glib assurance that we have the best system in the world and everything is basically fine is not reassuring to people who get the short end of the stick, to ordinary British Columbians who don't have, by means of their position or their knowledge of this system, the ability to bypass a roadblock, and who suffer the consequences in the ways that are described in some of the correspondence I've read from.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, all of the letters I have used have either been on the public record because they've been copied extensively to government officials and sometimes to the media, or I have specifically determined that the individual who wrote to me wanted that case aired in this Legislature. Many of them have written to me after they telephoned or wrote once, and I suggested that if they wished their case to be raised, it would be useful to have their written permission to do so. I don't think there is any question of violating their confidentiality. I think they want their stories told. They have told them in their own communities over and over again. They've told them to their own members of the Legislature. In many cases they've told them to the ministry and not received a satisfactory response.

I don't think that what I am getting at will escape those people in the gallery who are listening, or those few members who are here to listen, or those who may read the debates of the Legislature. It won't escape them, Mr. Chair. I'm building a case publicly, in front of the minister and his staff, that there is a problem in this province, and that the voices of protest they've heard from nurses, psychiatric nurses, health care workers, home-care workers, public and community health nurses, physicians, hospital employee union members, patients, advocates for patients and organizations like the Friends of Schizophrenics or the Triage centre in Vancouver — who describe the difficulty experienced by often the most destitute and the weakest people in our society — are not crying about nothing. They have real problems that this government is not addressing.

Because of the absolute "bottom-line" mentality of the Minister of Finance and Premier in this province, this government is unwilling to address these problems. I put "bottom-line" in quotes because for them the bottom line is somewhat different from what it is for the people of B.C. In my opinion, the bottom line for the people of B.C. is whether when they really need it the health care system is there to meet their needs. When they're really sick, when they're really in trouble, can they count on getting the high-quality health care that our system is theoretically capable of providing? That's the real bottom line.

The bottom line, Mr. Chair, is that the people of British Columbia not only want that, but expect it and are willing to pay for it. They don't want the government to raise taxes. They don't want the government to wildly increase spending. If they choose members on this side of the House to form the next government, they will not want us to wildly increase spending, raise taxes or incur a deficit. But they will want us to address these problems and ensure that one way or another those real needs are met. That's why it's important to raise these issues publicly and to make sure that the minister can never deny that he's aware of these concerns.

Let's return briefly to something more constructive — again, a different concept of parliamentary democracy. Our system, in which committees don't sit for four years at a time — the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services has never met for any substantive purpose during the life of this parliament — is not normal; it's an aberration in the parliamentary system. It's an aberration and it's an abomination.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: The opposition House Leader points out that these estimates could have been — or still could be, for that matter - referred to a committee of this Legislature with the power to call witnesses.

I don't have quite the same contempt that the minister seems to have for the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia. Whether or not we are the best-equipped people to serve British Columbia — sometimes I share his doubts about that — we are the elected representatives chosen by the people. Every single one of us is here because we were elected by a plurality at least, and often a majority, in our own ridings. There is something very important — some people would even say sacred — about that

[ Page 11437 ]

concept. We are there at the pleasure of the people, and they can get rid of us when they bloody well want to, at least once every five years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I mentioned once before about the use of profanity.

MR. PERRY: Forgive me, Mr. Chair. They can get rid of us if they wish to, at least once every five years.

I don't find somehow contemptible the notion that we should sit in committee and exercise what little talents we have to review issues of major importance. Although the royal commission will undoubtedly do a comprehensive and sterling job of reviewing these issues, its mandate is so enormous that it would be stretching the bounds of the credible to conceive that it can address and resolve all of the difficult health problems facing this province in a mandate of 18 months.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: Feel free to quote me on that.

Even the Hon. Mr. Justice Seaton, his able staff and the members of his commission — I think even as modest an individual as Prof. Robert Evans — would probably concede that it would be difficult to address all of the health care issues of pressing importance in this province in 18 months. Perhaps they're more ambitious than I give them credit for; if so, more power to them.

HON. J. JANSEN: You should give them credit.

MR. PERRY: I have, and I will continue to encourage all members of the British Columbia public to participate in the commission's review. I have since day one, and I will continue to do so. I will have, I hope, some interesting suggestions for the commission myself on behalf of our party. But the commission's work in no way obviates the potential utility of us as elected members hearing directly from the public as well. I hope, in lieu of the parliamentary committee sitting, to travel the province as widely as I can in the fall and to listen to the public at the hearings of the commission. I will endeavour to the best of my ability to do so, I assure the minister, specifically to hear what the public is saying. But why should other members of the Legislature not have that privilege, and indeed even that responsibility?

Since the minister has invited me — in fact, urged or encouraged me — to make a comprehensive and thoughtful submission to the commission, I'm going to repeat, in the few minutes that remain before we break, some specific requests for information from him to help me prepare that submission. I would like to request him to provide to me data on Pharmacare expenditures by drug, by category of drug and by generic and commercial brand of drug, for all drugs prescribed under the Pharmacare program in British Columbia. I would like him to instruct the director of Pharmacare to ensure that I have access to any data of a nature not violating patient confidentiality that I may request in the course of the next year in preparing a submission to the royal commission. I know that the royal commission will have access to that data through its statutory right of subpoena. I would also like to have that data so that I may study it. I'd like to have his assurance before we rise for lunch that he will give me access to that data.

I would like to have the Keon report on openheart surgery, and I'd like to have the reports of the advisory committee on AIDS for my perusal. I would like to have his standing assurance that where other reports exist whose existence may come to my attention or which his staff feel may be useful to me, reports, for example, like the annual report of the Emergency Health Services Commission which, obviously, as members of this House will know, had vital and important information — that I will be granted access to those reports in a timely way.

There are many of them whose existence I am unaware of, and I can't possibly be aware of because they are normally regarded by government as secret. The royal commission, of course, will have access to all of them. Whether the minister wishes them to or not, they have that power of subpoena under law.

If he's serious about his intention that the opposition make constructive proposals to the commission, we will do our best anyway. But I urge him to stand up now and assure me I will be granted not only the information I just requested but any other information of a non-confidential nature — in the sense that it would violate the rights of the patients - which I may request.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm very pleased to hear the member now suggest that he will be making suggestions to the commission — having prejudged them before in his comments, which is very unfortunate. I hope he will withdraw those comments. The royal commission has dedicated people who are going to look at all of the issues the public will be presenting to them. I understand they have upwards of over 1,000 requests for presentations now, that they are going to be listening to the public to hear what the public has to say.

[12:30]

I'm also concerned and alarmed that he would suggest that we would pre-empt anything the royal commission would do by referring these matters to a House committee. I would hope that rather he would take those matters and refer them in his own presentation — as I and my staff are doing — to the royal commission to discuss some of those issues with them, because it's important for them to hear your viewpoints rather than have a political debate about some of these issues.

I have also promised the member the Keon report. I don't know how many times I have to say this. That report that he talks about on a regular basis is two years old. I have asked staff for an explanatory note

[ Page 11438 ]

in terms of the report. He will be getting that. There's no question, he will be getting that report.

Yesterday, he asked for another report I gave him. I want him to have as much information as possible, and I'm prepared to do that.

Mr. Chairman, given the hour, I move the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. J. Jansen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:32 p.m.