[ Page 12913 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 38: minister's office –– 12914

Mr. Perry

Hon. J. Jansen

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Richmond

On vote 39: ministry operations –– 12926

Mr. Perry

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1991

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. HUBERTS: From the great constituency of Saanich and the Islands, we have with us today 33 students from Lake Hill Elementary School, along with their teacher Mr. Bob Wall. Would the House please assist me in welcoming these students.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

The matter is the failure of the government to ensure that there is a vehicle ferry operating between Victoria and Seattle, with the resulting loss of tourist business in southern Vancouver Island amounting to some $75 million annually.

Following the disposal of B.C. Steamships in the fall of 1988 and after writing down the assets by some $11 million, the government obtained a three-year performance guarantee from the purchaser, B.C. Stena Line. The province turned a blind eye when Stena failed to have the Crown Princess Victoria renovated at a Canadian shipyard and stripped $600,000 worth of safety equipment from the Princess Marguerite.

The government cooperated with Stena's plan to leave town. In exchange for the final payment for the assets of $2 million, the government agreed to let Stena off all its obligations.

Since then, the government has obstructed the efforts of local entrepreneurs in Victoria....

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I consider the comments by the member argumentative.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is making a proposition to the House under standing order 35, and it's in order. Would he proceed, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

Since then, as I said, the government obstructed the efforts of local entrepreneurs and Royal Victoria Cruise Lines to get a vessel in service by July 1, by refusing to contemplate a short-term lease for Ogden Point. The government apparently prefers Mr. Avenel's Normandie Cruise Lines proposal, despite the fact that Mr. Avenel has no experience in the steamship business that we've been able to determine and no reputation with travel agencies as a cruise ship company.

The bottom line....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Standing order 35(2) says that the member shall rise and state the matter briefly. I think we are hearing debate now which would be properly entertained if the motion is approved by Your Honour, but we are certainly not hearing brief debate.

MR. ROSE: Perhaps I could assist the Chair somewhat. I would like to argue briefly that in order to justify the motion, my hon. friend has to give his reasons why this is a matter of pressing urgency. I think he was setting about to do that when he was shot down in full flight, not once but twice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank both hon. members for their advice on this matter. I would assume that the member is well aware of the requirement in standing order 35 that his presentation be brief, and that he will be concluding his remarks forthwith.

MR. BLENCOE: The bottom line is that the taxpayers are out around $13 million, and on top of that, we have no car ferry service to Seattle. I have no other opportunity to present this case to the Legislature. I understand that the ferry service is now scuttled, and we need that run. Time has run out. This is an unusual set of achievements

HON. J. JANSEN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The comments are rambling and argumentative. It's not a question of privilege at all; it's a question of whether the member wants to make a statement in the House. He has an opportunity to do that on Fridays as a member's statement, or he has an opportunity to ask the minister responsible the question that he wants to put forward. This is ridiculous. It's a waste of the time of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is seeking to convince the House that his subject is worthy of special and emergency debate, and I would impress upon the second member for Victoria that we are looking to the end of these remarks so that we can proceed with the next order of business.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. This is an important matter to this community and south Vancouver Island.

To conclude, this is an unusual set of achievements even by this government's standards, and one which I submit is urgent for us to discuss as soon as possible.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. As is the custom in this House when matters are raised under standing order 35, the Chair will take the matter under advisement and report back as soon as possible.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Labour and justice to sit this morning at 10:30.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

[ Page 12914 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $360,045 (continued).

MR. PERRY: I want to begin this morning by expressing my outrage and disgust at the government's announcement yesterday that it will curtail the debate in this parliament, just when it was beginning to get going. In deference to our beloved mentor.... We were beginning to hit on the serious issues of mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility in that ministry. We were beginning to point out some of the cost-saving measures that could have been undertaken by the former Minister of Health, now the Minister of Finance, who has brought in a $1.2 billion budget deficit, and who claims to be a fiscal wizard and know how to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just remind the member that we are discussing vote 38, and we are not debating the proposed closure of the debate. So I would ask the member to stay in line with subjects contained under vote 38.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, while the public is watching, that the government is trying to muzzle the opposition in debate on the most important estimates of this government and the single largest budget item, accounting for a third of the entire budget: $5.4 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that there are members on this side who have not had the opportunity to speak, and who will be denied it by this government, which wants to cut and run. They may be able to run from this parliament, but they can't run from the people. The Premier may try to pull a Devine, but if necessary the Lieutenant-Governor will dissolve the Legislature and call an election, if this government doesn't have the guts to face up to the people.

I want you to know that the member for Rossland Trail stands here — and was here last night — prepared to sit late. The government adjourned the debate without any discussion with our House Leader. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was prepared to debate last night on urgent issues of mental health and problems in his constituency and around the province. The member for New Westminster made a special trip to be back here in time to take her place in the debate on issues affecting seniors, on nutrition and on continuing care issues, on which we have not even begun the debate yet; that's a major portion of the budget estimates, on which we have not yet had any debate. The government proposes to censor that debate and not allow the elected representatives of the people to review those issues.

The member for Vancouver East was prepared to address issues of fiscal irresponsibility — and is prepared to, if the government will relent and release that iron hand of the censor it proposes to level, like those regimes in eastern Europe which the Premier apparently likes to respect.

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who sits here right now, is prepared to address urgent issues relating to the proposed sale of the Riverview Hospital. The member for Surrey Guildford–Whalley wishes to raise issues concerning the treatment of AIDS in this province. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, I urge you to bring this member to some relevance regarding vote 38. He is talking about everything but the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

MR. ROSE: I would like to assist the Chair in its very important decision here. It seems to me that what my hon. friend is really talking about is the number of things that need yet to be covered, and yet we know that the guillotine is about to fall in the next three-quarters of an hour. He's been trying to explain to the House, and also to the people of the province, the number of other people who want to speak on local issues dealing with health and the crisis in health. He's attempting to explain why he thinks we should be allowed to proceed and have a full-fledged debate on this subject. "Not a dime without debate" was the slogan from the other side some 15 years ago. What we're doing is giving it back to you: not a dime without debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: So that I may clarify for those who may possibly be watching this morning, to say that we are stifling debate is absolutely untrue. If we look at the record, last year the opposition debated the Ministry of Health estimates for seven hours and 14 minutes. They felt that was sufficient. This year we have already been debating these estimates for some 23 hours, more than three times the time last year. So I hardly think that the Bill Bennett slogan of "Not a dime without debate" applies.

There is meaningful debate, Mr. Chairman, and then there is tedium and repetition, and that is what we have been witnessing here. We have been at these estimates now for some 23 hours, and I served notice last night — rather than bring the guillotine down, as the opposition House Leader says — that you had an hour left to make any pertinent points that you wished to make. You seem to choose to waste them politicking to the people of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can appreciate the points made by both House Leaders, of government as well as the opposition. However, as I said earlier, we're here to debate vote 38, and I would like all members — particularly those of the opposition who are asking the questions and trying to get the most benefit from this debate — to proceed on vote 38 and leave the other matters for some other time.

MR. PERRY: I'm simply pointing out to you that, in part because of the inexperience and lack of knowledge on this subject of the third Minister of Health, we have been filibustered by him. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, a large proportion of that limited time of 22 hours — or

[ Page 12915 ]

whatever — has been consumed by the minister giving nonsense answers.

We have many questions that I've raised in this House to which no answer has been delivered. Let me give a few examples: what was the answer to the question about why a resident of Trail, Chetwynd, Prince George or wherever is not allowed to travel to Vancouver and use the Travelers Dialysis Clinic, whereas residents of other provinces are allowed to do that? There was no answer to that question. Where were the answers about problems in the mental health system? There were no answers to those questions. Where was the answer about the Pharmacare review report, a report which might lead to savings of $50 million in the Pharmacare budget alone? There were no answers to that question. Where were the answers in the debate yesterday about financial information and the review of the Terrace Regional Health Care Society? There were no answers, merely accusations against the elected chairman of that board — a highly respected local citizen in Terrace. Where were the answers to many other questions I've raised? They're not there and we're trying to get them out of this government, because the government has hidden from the people for months.

It brought in a record-late budget. It did not allow the House to sit. It adjourned the House precipitately last March when we were all sitting here prepared to continue debating. It is not our fault. If the government thinks that 24 hours — one day in the life of this province — is too much to spend debating a $5.4 billion budget, I suggest the public might have a different view about how their money is being spent. This government displays an absolutely cavalier disregard, not only in the grotesque waste of money in government advertising and in flying around the province, single passenger to the jet.... That government House Leader, who was one of the most notorious abusers last year, doesn't want to hear that thing discussed in this House, and that's why he's trying to censor and muzzle us.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, the member once again is not even anywhere near the content of vote 38. I would submit to that side of the House that if in our opinion you were offering some new and pertinent debate, and asking some pertinent questions instead of plowing over the same old ground for 23 hours, we would be quite willing to allow the debate to continue. But you are defeating your own cause when you stand up there and just keep plowing over the same questions and wanting to talk about me doing my job as a Minister of Forests, flying around this province to meet with those who earn their living to pay for the health care that you are debating.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, and I would advise the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to stay with the debate on vote 38.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the point of order is well taken at all. All I heard was some huff and puff from the other side that had nothing to do with the question at all, explaining why he's flying around the province. I'd like to know why he's flying around this Legislature. Nothing has happened. The offer to continue this, dealing with pertinent questions, could have been made a long time ago.

Day after day on the Finance estimates, Mr. Chairman, with you in the chair, we listened to interventions from that side of the House that had nothing whatsoever to do with our finances; they had everything to do with the finances of another province. It was out of order time and time again. So let's not have any of that self-righteous stuff, because we've had it up to here with that kind of stuff.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I can allow that particular comment to go unchallenged. When we're debating Finance ministry estimates and we're talking about budget philosophy, the question the opposition House Leader raised, it is appropriate discussion to compare philosophies in other provinces.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that I can allow any further speakers on this point of order. I would ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to continue on vote 38.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, let me just point out to you and to those members of the government side who didn't bother to listen to any of these debates and obviously haven't read them: we were making progress. The Minister of Health has frequently commended this side for making useful suggestions.

We have taken more time at that than I would have liked because, for example, the government and the minister and his senior officials had not even read the coroner's autopsy report that I described in debate two days ago. I had to refer to it again yesterday because three months after it was published they had not even bothered to read or react to that report, a report describing one of the most tragic and preventable deaths in British Columbia in the last year, the death of a very prominent citizen, with very major implications for how the health care system is run. Yesterday I made useful and constructive suggestions about how the ministry might respond to that. I attempted to ascertain on behalf of the public whether the ministry had made any constructive response of its own, whether the minister even seemed to be concerned about it. I have to admit I didn't see any sign of genuine concern in his responses. But if that's not what we're here for, if that's not why we're drawing our salaries as elected representatives, then what in the deuce are we here for? Is it just to sit here in the Legislature in the evenings — we could have been debating last night — and do nothing? Mr. Chairman, that's not my idea of what parliaments are for, and I think this government has shown throughout its tenure that it has a very warped idea of what the British parliamentary system is about.

Let me get on, since the government will undoubtedly wield that club. I will raise, just for the record, some issues that I would have liked to debate at length.

[ Page 12916 ]

The report of the B.C. Nutrition Council dated October 16, 1990, is entitled "The Poor Can't Afford to Eat in British Columbia." I would like to know whether the Minister of Health has read that report and whether he and his staff have any response to the implications of that report. It suggests that children and poor families cannot meet an adequate standard of nutrition and therefore cannot protect their long-term health through adequate nutrition.

HON. J. JANSEN: I wanted to give a few comments respecting the debates of the Health ministry. It is the biggest ministry in government and has a profound impact on the entire province. We have a good story to tell, a story that shows that we are one of the most progressive and concerned of Health ministries and we have the greatest Health minister in the country.

When we get into debates of a major budget that has that kind of an impact on the province, you would expect the debate to give some insight in terms of the vision of the future — what some of the concerns are, how we as a province should address those concerns, what the answers are to the challenges that we're going to face in the future — and one would expect that to come from a Health critic.

For some reason last year the opposition did not see fit to debate that particular ministry. They didn't think it was worthwhile to debate on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia; they saw fit not to do that. They had a different agenda; I don't know what it was. This year they're complaining that they were enabled three times as much time — in fact, more than three times. They also had an opportunity to debate the Health ministry, which they did, during the supply bill, and yet they are not coming to grips with the challenges that we're facing. Not once have I heard the Health critic come forward with some insight as to what he thinks the answers are for the future of health care in the country. We are going to be faced with very serious challenges. There isn't any question that we, whether we're socialists or free-enterprisers, are going to have to sit down and come to grips with it for the benefit of the people of the country.

I find it a sorry state that we're not having that kind of debate. We're focusing on specific situations and instances in various hospitals and union matters brought forward by the member opposite, who probably has his marching orders from the unions. I know he does and that's unfortunate. He had an opportunity to make a presentation to the royal commission. What kind of presentation was made? What kind of insight did the people of the province see from that particular Health critic of what he thought the challenges were to be? He rehashed the initiatives we already have, and unfortunately....

MRS. BOONE: On a point of order, I'd like to draw the Chairman's attention to the fact that we are debating the Minister of Health's estimates not the critic's estimates, as we don't have any estimates Would the speaker please get on to debating the minister's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the point of order, and I'm sure the Minister of Finance will direct his comments accordingly.

[10:30]

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely offensive that the opposition is trying to stifle debate in this House. If we don't have an opportunity to stand up and talk about the future of health care in this country, then that's a sad day in this country.

We were talking about the royal commission. The royal commission is going to give the blueprint for the future of health care in this country. For you to stand up on a point of order and say that's not pertinent to this discussion is offensive to the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: Again, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is making rude noises. I know I'm touching a very delicate part of his critical exposure here, but I want to say that I am concerned. I don't want to attack him; that's not my concern. My concern is to talk about what the challenges are that we face as a province in terms of health care.

We believe strongly that health care services should be distributed and allocated to the rural parts of our province and, as much as possible, reflect the needs of the individual communities. This year we put in place an initiative to ensure there is a travel allowance to bring people to tertiary care. I don't know why the member opposite has been debating that — whether they think it's a good idea or that there are problems with it. I listened to and read all the debates so far, and I didn't find anything.

The member talked about the need for cancer clinics in British Columbia. I can still remember the day I stood up and answered the question from the opposition leader, who is never here — the 20 faces of the opposition leader. We very rarely see him in the House. But I remember standing up and answering a question he put forward respecting the need for a cancer clinic in Kamloops. I indicated to him then that there were cancer services in Kamloops, and I eventually indicated that we were committed to placing a full-service radiotherapy clinic in Kamloops. Then I hear from the opposition Health critic that for me to say that spat in the face of the people who advise us on cancer care in the province. I'm trying to reconcile that.... We have thousands of people living in Kamloops, and when I suggest that we put cancer care in Kamloops, the Health critic says I spit in the face of people who provide health care respecting cancer treatment. I find that offensive; the people of Kamloops find that offensive, and they will, when the final ballot is taken, reflect that concern, I'm sure. I know he's going to say when we eventually have a cancer clinic in Prince George, which I hope will happen in the future, that again we're spitting in the face of the people who advise us respecting treatment for cancer. Isn't that offensive, Mr. Chairman? You know, we see so much of that happening.

[ Page 12917 ]

We had the question of doctors' pensions. The opposition leader — I forget who he is — stood up to ask this question and showed great offence that we had a pension plan for the physicians and surgeons who serve this province so proudly in terms of health care. He forgot that his Health critic had previously said that he supported the pension, and he also forgot that in conversation with the BCMA president he indicated support for her.

My point is that the Health critic and the opposition leader are playing games with the lives of the people of British Columbia. What are their positions, Mr. Chairman?

MR. PERRY: This is the third time I've listened to that member misstate my position on the doctors' pension issue. I'd like him to withdraw that comment, please. The public record makes it very clear that my position is identical to that of my party. This is now the third time I've listened to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not a point of order. I would ask the Minister of Finance to proceed.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think that the member has had opportunity to stand up in his place for 23 hours in this House respecting the Health ministry, and he's going to have more opportunity to do that, I'm sure. After the election he probably won't have much time to do that; he will be doing other things.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I've indicated again that I find the member's remarks offensive, in that he is attributing to me remarks that I have not made. I have asked him to withdraw them. The standard in this parliament has been that when a member asks for withdrawal of a remark considered offensive, it is withdrawn. I would ask the minister to do the right thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't heard anything that may be offensive in the way of It wasn't unparliamentary, but it may be offensive in the way of opinion. So please proceed, Mr. Minister.

HON. J. JANSEN: Thank you. I can understand his concern. I too would be concerned if I were portrayed to be incorrect sometimes and to be inconsistent as a party and inconsistent as an opposition, because I know it is problematic when you're trying to introduce politics into something so fundamental as health care. He has done that, and time and time again the socialists say one thing and he says another thing. Then they correct themselves and don't know where they stand. It is always because they don't have a vision, and they don't have a position. They're always trying to mend fences and trying to say, "but this or that, " or find things in a negative sense.

For once I would like to have the opposition side stand up and tell us what they think about the health care of the future, and what they think the challenges are that we as the people of this province will face respecting health care. For once, instead of attacking and always trying to find opportunities to spend more money, because that's all they ever do.... When they debate estimates, they want to find more ways to spend more money. Whether it's vacant office space we've created by downsizing and consolidation because of government efficiency.... They would like us to fill it with people. They would like us to spend more money, because when there are people in those offices, obviously this government is doing a good job — because they're spending money. They only have one reflection: if you can spend money, you're doing the right thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind the minister that he's getting away from the actual debate on vote 38 –– I would ask you to make your comments in relation to vote 38.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think the old question of office space is an important part of the Health ministry. Probably the Health ministry is the biggest consumer of space in the entire province. And of course, we're talking about budgetary concerns, which are probably the biggest concern to the Health minister. When you're growing at 10-11 percent a year compounded, it's got to be a concern. When has the member from Point Grey stood up and said: "We are concerned about the spiralling cost of health care"? He talks about "errant bureaucracies." When he's talking about the proud women and men who work in the 130 hospitals of British Columbia, he collectively refers to them with a derisive tone: "Errant bureaucracies." What kind of nonsense is that? What kind of reflection is that on those proud people who work in those facilities?

We hear his interest and his concern. We also heard his debate respecting the need for additional funds for our physicians and surgeons. That indeed is regrettable.

MR. CASHORE: How many empty beds?

HON. J. JANSEN: I hear the member — from Coquitlam, is it? Maillardville-Coquitlam. Wherever he is. He talks about empty beds. So again, they would like to see people in hospital beds, instead of not necessarily having to go to the hospital. They would like to see that we fill all the hospitals so we can pay for all the physicians. One of the advisers to the BCMA said it. There's no question about it.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: I can hear the member from Point Grey. There's no question about it. He'll agree with the statement: "If we have people in the hospital, that's the biggest portion of our income."

Interjection.

[ Page 12918 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: So now he's saying: "Why should we build hospitals?" Isn't that interesting. The member from Point Grey says they're just errant bureaucracies anyway. We hear time and time again about the hospital boards. "Hospital boards are fine as long as they agree with our ideology. If they don't agree with us, then we should interfere." It's the whole centralist type of mentality they have over there. The answer is always: from Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, under standing orders I must advise you your time has expired.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to get this debate back on track about spending priorities and about people who are served by the Health ministry's budget. We've been talking over the last period of time about a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the people we represent and want to speak about in these estimates. I must note that I am very concerned that there may be some attempt to prevent me from making my relatively brief but important comments about a very significant and vulnerable population, because of the government House Leader's announcement that he intends to close off debate.

I was somewhat encouraged that he gave some indication a while ago that government might be prepared to continue this debate. I hope that they will, because what I want to raise today deals with matters that I believe are important, that should be raised in this House and that the minister and government should respond to.

Most of my comments today have to do with proper nutrition for people in facilities licensed by the Ministry of Health. I want to first of all look at some information that has come forward as a result of an extensive review of licensed adult care facilities in the Victoria area, where some very severe deficiencies in feeding people in intermediate care facilities, personal care facilities and specialized residential care facilities have been exposed.

Let me just read into the record some of the facts from this study, which is a very recent one. It took place in March of this year. The study identifies a total of 922 residents as being at nutritional risk. That study represents almost half the people in the facilities studied — 43 percent of the total population. And in the case of specialized residential care, 48.6 percent of those people were at risk.

Let me note who these people are, because we often hear the names of facilities without recognizing the people who live in them. Most of us are familiar with intermediate and personal care facilities. Many who live in those homes are, in fact, older people. They are seniors, or they may be people who are disabled in other ways. In specialized residential care homes, most of which are small — under 25 residents — we have people who are chronically mentally ill, who have disabilities that require them to have support in their homes, or they may be mentally handicapped people.

So what does it mean when we say that these people are nutritionally at risk? How do we translate that into what they get on their table every day, what they have to eat? Before I comment on that, I think most of us recognize that nutrition — what people take into their bodies to feed their bodies and minds — is the most important aspect of preventive health. That's something we were just hearing about from the Finance minister opposite. How do we keep people healthy? How do we keep them out of hospitals?

We also know that food has a tremendous amount to do with people's psychological well-being. If food is nutritious, if there's enough to eat and if it's attractively presented, then that has to do with people feeling good. When people aren't happy about what they're getting at those important social- and meal-times every day, then their psychological well-being is undermined; and with that, of course, their overall health.

[10:45]

Let's look at the specifics of this study, in terms of what it actually means about what comes on the table at breakfast, lunch and dinner in these various institutions in the Victoria region. Fifty-nine percent of the menus were deficient in providing — this is the language — "recommended nutrient intakes." Fifty-nine percent of these menus provided less than 80 percent of the recommended common nutrients for the people who were eating those meals. We had a 20 percent deficiency, at least, in almost 60 percent of the meals that were reviewed. In terms of the caloric value — that's the energy that those meals provide — 42 percent of the menus in special residential care homes failed to meet the standards for calories for the people who were eating those meals. In many instances we had much below the minimum recommended amount of dollars for a nutritious food basket provided to those residents.

I was shocked, Mr. Chairman, when I read this report. I was shocked by those statistics. I was shocked by the extent of the problem that they brought forward. I was especially concerned because all these facilities are licensed. They're not something where people go because they chose to go into a boardinghome of their own choice. These are facilities that come under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health, and the residents, their families and the community expect this most fundamental aspect of care to be at a basic standard. We're not talking about anything here that's a Cadillac treatment. We're talking about caloric standards being below any of the recommended basic standards, about the intake of nutrients being below standards and about those facilities not spending what is known to be the basic average that's needed to be spent in order for a nutritious, well-balanced and palatable meal to be presented.

I don't think I have to say anything more about what that does to the fundamental health care plan in those facilities.

I want to note that there's been a tremendous increase in these facilities over the last number of years. For instance, specialized residential care homes have increased by almost 80 percent. These are the people who are leaving Woodlands, Riverview and Glendale to live in the community. One of the commitments that this government made was that these

[ Page 12919 ]

people would receive an equivalent or higher standard of care in the community than they were receiving in the facilities, like Woodlands in my community, or Riverview in the community of the members from Coquitlam, or Glendale for the members for Victoria. It is shocking, very soon after these people have begun to live in the community, that this most fundamental health need is not being addressed.

I want to ask the minister, first of all, what he knows of this report; and, since the report has been in hand since March 1991, very concretely what he has done to deal with remedies for this situation; and what assurances he can give us not only that this situation will be remedied, if it hasn't already been, but also that no report such as this is going to be able to be written again, because the minister is going to do something about standards.

Before the minister responds, let me just conclude with a comment about the kind of monitoring that goes on. "According to current workload statistics," the report says, "current staffing levels will allow an annual inspection by the sole full-time adult care facilities licensing officer once every one to two years and an annual nutrition and food service inspection by the half-time community care facility nutritionist once every two to three years." And we're talking about almost 1,000 people in this region having been identified at nutritional risk, and we're talking about resources available in terms of licensing and nutrition monitoring and advice that allows for an absolutely shocking standard of inspection and advice and monitoring for these people.

If we're looking at that situation here, my concern is that it may very well be replicated in other 'parts of the province. I don't have a concrete study that tells me that, but one would have to be concerned that if we're looking at those kinds of standards and those kinds of problems in a large, progressive district like Victoria, then we are very likely looking at this particular situation as but a tip of the iceberg in respect to problems across the province.

That is a priority issue where dollars have to be spent. It's preventive health. It is an issue that deals with the bellies of people, with the health of people, and we should not be accepting anything less than an immediate addressing of that issue and a clear statement from the minister with further information to follow about how he is dealing with this and how he intends to ensure that this kind of standard — this deficient, defective standard — is something that his ministry will not tolerate, since his ministry is responsible for it being there in the first place.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's lots to respond to, and it's nice to be on my feet finally, after these estimates having been called some 40 minutes ago.

I'd like to respond first to the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey. It's been brought to the House's attention that, yes, we have had 23 hours and we only had seven hours last year. We probably have had only seven hours of relevant debate in the 23 in these estimates. For example, I'll point out that the member spent about two hours on the David Lane letter, arguing ministry process. If that isn't tedious and repetitious debate, I don't know what it is.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Secondly, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey asked me why I didn't respond to the coroner's report under discussion yesterday in estimates. I did. It's on page 36 of Hansard; I have it right here. We may have some memory lapses, Mr. Member. You should see a doctor. I did respond to the coroner's report, reading part of my response into the record, and I think I've responded in quite a full manner. As a matter of fact, it takes up a whole page of Hansard, so I think the concern that the member expressed that I have not responded in an adequate manner — or at all, I think, is what he said — is absolutely incorrect and is refuted when I....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it took me some time to get the letter, Mr. Member, but that's not the point. Earlier you said I had not responded. Now you're qualifying again, aren't you? Okay, I did respond, it's on page 36. I know you like to wiggle out of it when you stand corrected, but nevertheless the response is there.

With respect to the CRD report, first of all, I'd advise the committee that the CRD is a health unit operated by the Capital Regional District, not the Ministry of Health. It has its own inspectors. But I am aware of the concern that you've expressed, so I'll ask my staff to look at the CRD. But it's not an inspection service that is under the Ministry of Health. It doesn't work that way in Vancouver, either.

On March 7, 1991, the Capital Regional District nutrition study on adult care homes was released to the media. The media reports implied that there were severe nutrition problems. The indicators used in the study only suggest potential problems, but specific food intakes of individuals, were not measured. The nutrition status of individuals cannot be determined from this report. More investigation is required. Most residents have adequate nutrition care, as they are served by dieticians — and that was in the report.

I'd like to point out a concern raised by the member about the term "nutritionally at risk." It does not mean a resident is malnourished; it's a specifically defined term and implies only that special nutritional attention may be required. That is what the term means.

According to the study, 59 percent of menus are inadequate. Computer analysis of meals is a useful indicator, but it does not provide an assessment of individual nutrition status. Facilities served by a dietitian, representing approximately two-thirds of the residents in this study, had adequate menus. It said that food costs are below minimum. Dietitians are trained to efficiently manage food costs and can often provide nutritious meals for less than the Agriculture Canada standard, and the majority of residents in this study, as I said earlier, were served by a dietitian. There has been a marked increase recently in the

[ Page 12920 ]

number of small specialized residential care facilities, primarily as a result of deinstitutionalization, and current regulations do not require dietitians for facilities under 25 beds — but those residences are still required to meet the standards.

Finally, there are currently two ongoing internal studies in the Simon Fraser Health Unit under the direction of the Ministry of Health community nutrition — in which specific data is being collected on the issues of feeding problems for persons with disabilities and the adequacy of dietary nutrition for individuals in group home settings. Presumably from that study we will be able to identify any deficits in the system.

Let me conclude in response to the member for New Westminster that the report she is referring to was done by the CRD, which inspects these facilities in the Capital Regional District. They operate under Ministry of Health standards, but they are, in fact, CRD employees.

MS. A. HAGEN: I believe the minister has tried to duck the issues that I have raised by suggesting that we are looking at an overall study and that we can't know what is happening in terms of individuals. But the study does reveal, in fact, what is happening to individuals and some of the nutritional risk factors. For instance, 123 residents had weight gains of over 10 percent; 163 had weight loss of over 10 percent; 77 had inadequate fluid consumption; 182 had poor or changed appetite. These are individuals, and these are circumstances that are related — not entirely, of course — to the study. But they do give us some indicators of problems that exist.

[11:00]

In terms of food costs, when we are looking at what the raw food costs are per day, I would agree that we would want care facilities to be efficient; we would want dietitians and staff to shop economically. But when you look at raw food costs ranging from a low of $1.67 to a high of $3.69, when the "Nutritious Food Basket" says that $3.50 for a woman and $4.50 for a man is what you might expect — and I think that food basket is a pretty basic one — then it's not very comforting to say that the inadequate number of dollars spent on food is simply because of efficiencies I'm left with questions about whether there are not, among these thousand people identified at risk, a significant number who aren't getting enough nutritious food to maintain health.

Mr. Chairman, we also need to know what this Minister of Health and his ministry, who fund the CRD, have to say about the standards the CRD should maintain in the facilities licensed under their legislation and regulations. You can't pass the buck when we're talking about the kind of monitoring and resources available in those facilities to meet standards that should be provincial standards and should be enforced by the provincial government. The government provides the legislation and the licensing rules, sets the regulations and provides a great number of the dollars that are part of the CRD's budget. I believe it is incumbent on the minister to deal with those issues as the minister responsible — and I mean responsible in the broadest sense of the word.

Let's not sweep this under the table, Mr. Chairman, because I don't believe this matter can be swept under the table as neatly as this minister has attempted to do.

While I'm on my feet, I want to turn to a much more concrete situation. For quite a long time I have been hearing about problems relating to meals in a facility very close to my own riding, the George Derby hospital. It is a hospital administered as an intermediate-care facility by this government. That facility is new and beautiful, and its residents like it very much. It's a homey place with lots of activity. But resident after resident has called me about the food in that place.

You're a veteran, Mr. Chairman, and know that a lot of the people living in George Derby have fought in the war. A lot of the men who live there have had tough times in their lives. This is home for them.

Let me just describe to you some of the food they are receiving. I know the Chairman knows something about this as well. The food comes partially cooked in bulk from somewhere — I'm not quite sure from where, and neither are the residents. It is then partially thawed, served on trays, put into freezing again, and 35 minutes before a meal comes out, it's put into heat to get warm for these residents.

I want you to imagine a roast beef dinner, which is pretty standard fare and one most people would thoroughly enjoy; we certainly do when we have a roast beef dinner in our dining-room here. Let me describe how the residents picture the roast beef for me, when I ask them to give it to me in words that would allow me to paint a picture. It is black and absolutely dry, and most of the time it's stuck to the plate. I asked them about fresh vegetables, and they said: "I don't think we ever have fresh vegetables." I asked them if they ever have boiled or baked potatoes, and they said they do sometimes, like on Father's Day when they have a special meal cooked there, in the wonderful kitchen that is there but never used. Then they had boiled potatoes that were tasty and fluffy; but most of the time they're mashed. Do they have fresh vegetables? Never. They're canned or frozen vegetables.

These are people for whom this is home. I asked them about casseroles and what they have for lunch. A typical casserole, macaroni and cheese: watery, tasteless, no nice crust, virtually no taste at all. Shepherd's pie — that hearty dish our mothers used to make with ground meat on the bottom and maybe some vegetables and potatoes on the top, nicely flavoured, with butter, salt, pepper and a bit of seasoning, and a nice light-brown, fluffy crust that just urges us to dip into it. How does it come out? Desiccated little nodules of ground meat, no vegetables and some kind of white stuff — colourless, tasteless and pasty. What do those men do with those meals? I'm told that these men, many of whom are veterans of World War II, toss those meals in the garbage.

This facility has a wonderful kitchen. It is equipped to provide good meals cooked on the premises, and occasionally these men have a meal that reminds them

[ Page 12921 ]

of what eating is all about. But they have a special system here; it's called the Aladdin tray system. From what I'm able to find out, it's not used anywhere else. It's been an absolute failure, but there's a five-year contract, and these men are left in the purgatory of the third year of this contract with the knowledge that they've been told that they have two years to go with black roast beef sticking to the plate; watery, tasteless macaroni and cheese; no fresh vegetables, just a little bit of salad — maybe a salad meal once every couple of weeks — and not even shepherd's pie, that fundamental shepherd's pie in a palatable state.

If you were a veteran in that kind of a facility, what would you have to say? That the people who are responsible for a failed system that provides awful, unpalatable meals have got to do something about it? And if we want to talk about the nutrient intakes of those people, let me tell you what they are. They are zilch because these meals are not edible.

This is not a matter that hasn't been raised. I've eaten there, and I know that when you come to eat there you get a nice meal. But I have heard this over and over again from these men. I've heard it from Legion members who go in and volunteer. I've heard it from the volunteers. This story is a story that has become, if you like, a legend in that particular facility about government's unwillingness to do the right thing and get rid of this awful system and give those men decent meals so they can enjoy the beautiful facility they live in with that aspect of their lives in place.

Is the minister prepared to undertake to make sure — right away — that those men are going to have decent meals, fresh vegetables, salad, protein that they can eat, something that's palatable and no nonsense about it? They've waited three years, and their sentence is two years more. That's something they're not prepared to tolerate; the Legion isn't prepared to tolerate it; the many volunteers that go into that community are not prepared to tolerate it. This minister has to do something about it. What commitment will you make on behalf of those people?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member from White Rock was getting homesick as you described the cooking.

Back to the CRD nutrition report, I'm advised that the medical health officer of the CRD will be meeting with the Adult Care Facilities Licensing Board in July to discuss the nutrition report in greater detail. There has been additional funding for the CRD licensing program to address in part the issue of nutrition. So the minister has responded to that report, Madam Member.

The George Derby Centre. This is a brand-new veterans' facility. The food is cooked at Shaughnessy and transported to George Derby. University Hospital is aware of the complaints and has spent some considerable time trying to improve the meals there. One of my staff who is with me says he has eaten there, and he says it's not bad. There's little else I can offer in support of those veterans, but I can assure the member that University Hospital, which manages the George Derby facility, is doing its best to correct the situation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I gave notice to the House last night that I would be calling the question on these estimates, I intend to do so. I would just like a very brief preamble before I put my question. We don't take this move lightly; in fact, I did a fair amount of research on it. The figures aren't available for every year, but the figures that I was able to gather say: in 1986 we spent nine hours and 54 minutes debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health; in 1989 we spent 16 hours and 56 minutes; last year we spent seven hours and 14 minutes; and this year....

MR. ROSE: My reading of rule 46 is that it's not debatable. Debate is denied the opposition, and here we have the minister debating the reason for his motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion hasn't been put yet, I'll just remind the opposition House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the motion is not debatable. I am speaking now to the estimates of the Minister of Health — as any member in this chamber has a right to stand and speak on the estimates. I was merely pointing out....

MR. ROSE: If the minister has a right to speak on the estimates of the Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, so do I. I would like to start right now, and there's a whole list of people on our side who have a great number of things to say about the Minister of Health. We don't want to be muzzled. This hasn't happened in five years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In order to bring this whole question back into some semblance of understanding and order, may I suggest that the House Leader make the appropriate motion, and then I think we can go from there.

MR. ROSE: There's been no motion made, and I don't think it's really appropriate for the Chair to suggest he make it. He certainly gave notice of it the other day, but he also said if the arguments here this morning were cogent, convincing, new, and not tedious and repetitious, that he had no objection to expanding the time for this debate.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I am debating the estimates of the Minister of Health. I have....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the government House Leader has the floor, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we've got someone on their feet already. Please proceed.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'd just like to read a letter to the Minister of Health concerning conditions at Eagle Ridge Hospital.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, on a point of order. The government House Leader has the floor, hon. member.

[ Page 12922 ]

MR. ROSE: The government House Leader has the floor? How did he get the floor?

[11:15]

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, the government House Leader indicated a moment ago on the record that he was speaking to the Health estimates. He clearly has changed his mind about his earlier decision to wield the mace and censor the House. Yet he has interrupted the member for New Westminster, who was developing a logical argument and had.... By all the normal rules of courtesy of the House, the member for New Westminster had the floor and was engaging in a discussion — a question-and-answer discussion — with the Minister of Health. I have been in this House only two years, but I have never seen anything like it for rudeness.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the government House Leader did not interrupt the member for New Westminster; the Chair recognized the government House Leader.

MR. SIHOTA: A point of order. The hon. government House Leader has indicated during the course of his comments — and I quote him — that "any member has the right to speak on these matters as they relate to the Health estimates." He has that right, which he is seeking to develop at this point. I also have that right, as a member. I have not yet had the opportunity to speak on Ministry of Health estimates, albeit there are a number of issues I wish to raise around those estimates. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would expect that in respect to the right the member declares for himself, he would be prepared to grant it to all others on this side of the House, so we may have that right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not a point of order, I'm sorry.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I had assumed that, because of the nature of this motion, I could fill in a little background for the citizens of British Columbia. But it seems that is not to be, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think you have already de facto ruled the minister out of order for anything except putting forward his motion. If he wants to bring up matters before the House, in terms of the Health estimates, that would be in order. But to present at this time a preamble to the closure motion is clearly out of order. I think you have already ruled that, and I would urge you to bring the member to order.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, a few seconds ago the government House Leader indicated that he wished to make some comments with respect to a motion. The issue before the House is the estimates. There is no motion before the House that is consistent with what the member is speaking to. It seems to me that if that member is to be in order, he ought to be speaking to the Health estimates and not to a motion he intends to raise. In consequence, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you declare the hon. House Leader to be out of order, because he's speaking to something that's not before the House at this point.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the question be now put on vote 38.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no point of order. The motion has been made. The motion is not debatable; it's not amendable.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I have to have a clarification. This motion, according to rule 46, is not debatable necessarily. But you as the Chair have not given us any indication whether or not you accept the motion. That is your responsibility....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The problem there, hon. member, is that I haven't had the opportunity; everyone else has been on their feet. But I understand quite clearly the gravity of what's before the House at this moment. I also understand.... I've read the standing order very carefully and the other instructions that have been appended to it by Mr. MacMinn. I'm prepared, in the interests of complete fairness, to listen to points of order on this particular subject. Is that what we're looking for?

MR. MILLER: In perusing standing order 46, my attention was drawn to section (4). To quote the section: "This motion" — which we are discussing, which the government House Leader has put — "can be made on an amendment or on the stages of a bill, or on amendments to bills in Committee of the Whole when the Deputy Speaker is in the chair." I can find no reference at all to estimates in Standing Orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll hear all the points of order.

MR. PERRY: I was on my feet before the member put the motion. I wanted to point out that the government House Leader had put the opposition in a double bind. For example, the Minister of Health accused me earlier this morning of wasting debate on administrative issues, and yet he said yesterday, at page 38, that we were here "to discuss the administrative actions of the ministry." I find it very offensive the way we're being muzzled.

My point was similar to that of the member for Prince Rupert — that the member's handbook clearly indicates that this motion is not in order whatsoever and that it's a frank and vicious attempt to muzzle the public right, which has been established under the British parliamentary system for centuries.

Mr. Chair, you're a veteran. My late father was also a veteran who fought for those rights. Other members of this House are veterans. We don't take those freedoms lightly. We object to being muzzled in the midst of an important debate on the most significant budget item in this province by a government that has no legitimacy whatsoever left to it. It's shredding apart

[ Page 12923 ]

on its own. It's not even standing on its feet anymore. It's trying to bring democracy to its knees. We will not stand for that.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, you invited points of order, and very generously you agreed hear them all. This is a matter of extreme importance. I know that feelings are running high because of the rarity of this practice — the rarity of the guillotine used. But there is standing order 61(3). I'd like a decision from you on this one. It says:

"The Chairman shall preserve order and decorum in the Committee of the Whole and shall decide questions of order and practice. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Chairman shall state his reasons for the decision and shall cite any standing order or other applicable authority. Mr. Chairman may invite submissions from members but no debate shall be permitted on any decision."

I'd like to know how you can reconcile standing order 46, which says no debate, and standing order 61, which says that the Chairman may invite opinions and submissions from members. This is a pivotal question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The opposition House Leader has not read the whole standing order to the committee: "The Chairman may invite submissions" — so it's permitted — "from members but no debate shall be permitted." This standing order is consistent with standing order 46.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, speaking directly to this issue, a number of years ago the opposition House Leader, the present Minister of Health and you chaired a committee — I was on that committee as well — which brought in practice recommendation 3, which speaks directly to standing order 46. If you look at subsection (2), it says: "The government House Leader may announce to the House that the government will proceed under standing order 46 if the motion in question has not passed the House or committee by a certain day and hour." In fact, the government House Leader did say that standing order 46 would be brought in at a certain time — 11 a.m. — if a certain situation did not happen. I would say that the minister's motion is completely in order. This practice recommendation was agreed to unanimously by this House.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficult position the Chair has been put in, in that you have complete discretion to allow or disallow this motion, I want to urge you to disallow it. We have been in this parliament for five years. This is the fifth session, and we have never seen a motion like this before.

We have debated estimates in this House at length, there has not been a filibuster in this session in the Education estimates, which have been approved, or in the Health estimates, which are proceeding nicely. We have a few more speakers who wish to be heard on this issue, which, in my mind, is the most important issue facing my constituents. Over the five years that I have been an MLA, there has not been a more important issue in terms of correspondence, phone calls and contact with my constituents than the health care issue, which is going to be closed by this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm being as generous as I can be, in the interests of being absolutely fair. I would suggest that your point of order is getting a little beyond being a point of order and is actually turning into debate. Perhaps you could wind it up. I certainly got loud and clear what you said at the outset, which was a good point of order.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, there are no hard and fast rules that govern your decision to allow or disallow this motion. I am arguing and trying to persuade you to disallow this particular motion for very good reasons, and I'm outlining those reasons at this point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I still suggest it's getting into a debate, hon. member.

MR. JONES: One of the questions that I think you should take into consideration in deciding whether to allow or disallow this motion is relevancy of debate. For a number of hours my colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey has been making some excellent points on behalf of the citizens of this province. On a number of occasions the Minister of Health indicated that he has been receiving helpful suggestions from that member. We have a few more members who wish to assist the Minister of Health in receiving more of those suggestions, so that he can better perform his duties. I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, to disallow this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: just before we proceed with the first member for Nanaimo, I'd like to make a comment relating to the point made by the opposition House Leader with respect to standing order 61 vis-à-vis standing order 46. I can't find any inconsistency here between the two, and if there was one, as the opposition House Leader knows full well, having sat on that committee, it's certainly not an inconsistency that couldn't be resolved here.

MR. LOVICK: On this point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to very briefly present the case that the invocation of standing order 46 is debatable. I'm arguing by the rules of this House, and I would ask....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order, hon. member, states in plain English, which I know you're an expert in, that the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

[11:30]

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I assure you I have spent considerable time examining 46. I know it well. But I want to argue that 45 effectively says that 46 is debatable, and I would ask you to indulge me for just a moment. I will explain the ruling according to the rules of the Legislature and ask then for your formal ruling on that. If I may, — I will be very brief.

[ Page 12924 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Briefly.

MR. LOVICK: The intention of standing order 46 is very clear. There is no doubt about that. It is to bring to an end matters that are adjudged to be debatable in this chamber. One of those debatable issues, of course, is very clearly motions in Committee of Supply. We all know that; nobody denies that.

However, if we can quote standing order 45, we know that a motion of supply is normally debatable. But in 45 there is also something else very clear. It's very clear that we have a slight wrinkle in standing order 45(j).

Follow this argument if you will, Mr. Chairman. Standing order 46 says that we will suspend standing order 45. It says, in other words, that issues we normally debate in this chamber will no longer be debatable. Standing order 45(j), however, says that it is always debatable to discuss the suspension of any standing order. If section 46, then, has the effect of suspending standing order 45(g), it is therefore in violation of standing order 45(j). This motion is therefore debatable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I heard very clearly what you said, but just let me point this out to you. Standing order 45 is a general application. You were down to (j), a subparagraph to the main statement, whereas standing order 46 is a specific standing order and deals with a specific situation. It's a specific motion; the motion in itself is very specific.

One thing I should point out: it is not I who make a decision on the motion that's put forward. As is usual in the House, it's you people in the House that make that decision when the vote is taken. I accept it.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I would point out that the basic clause in 45 is: "The following motions are debatable:..." Paragraph (j) merely completes that sentence. The principle of 45, then, is surely equivalent to 46. It isn't as if it is a subcategory; it's rather merely completing the statement which is what section 45 is about.

MR. SIHOTA: I wish to make a point in furtherance of the argument put forward by my colleague the first member for Nanaimo, and it's a very important point,

Let me just step back for a second. The purpose of section 46 is well known to all of us in this House. It is a motion that, of course, should seldom be raised in this House. It has some very grave consequences if we were able to arrive at a conclusion that closure could be invoked and debate terminated on any estimates on a rather willy-nilly basis.

Given the gravity and importance of section 46 and the implications of invoking closure, which in my mind are very serious because it goes to the very root of what we're trying to do here.... We have an open and democratic society. We ought to be free to extensively debate any of the estimates governing any ministry. To invoke closure runs contrary to the very basic principles that guide us as a parliament and, if I may say so, particularly in an area such as health care, when there's a health care crisis in British Columbia.

Let me submit this to the Chair. When my colleague the first member for Nanaimo makes his point, the Chair must be cognizant, first of all, of the implications of the Chair agreeing to invoke closure — which I'm sure you are; and, secondly, of the gravity of making that kind of decision. If there is any doubt whatsoever in the mind of the Chair, given the significance of closure, that doubt has to fall in favour of the submission made by the first member for Nanaimo.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, in terms of guiding you in dealing with these matters, the point that my colleague from Nanaimo makes is an important one. It goes well beyond the whole issue of whether or not we as individual members in this House — and I don't intend to debate the issue — ought to be able to raise issues; it goes to whether or not our constituents should have the right to be heard on this floor.

Mr. Chairman, I have to bring to your attention that should this motion be approved by yourself, in deciding whether or not you should approve it you must not put your mind exclusively to what I say in terms of the denial of my right as a member to speak in this House, but to the implication that has on my constituents. In that regard, may I just give you some very quick examples, and I'll be very quick on this point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has got your message. We don't want to get into a debate.

I would like to point out to you and to the first member for Nanaimo — and I've looked at 45 again — that if standing order 45 stated that a closure motion was debatable, then you'd have a point. But I don't see that in there. It's not in there at all.

Also, if you look at 45(2), it states: "All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment."

HON. MR. VEITCH: This sort of debate that is not supposed to be debated has occurred at another time in this House. During the time that the all-party committee of this House met, it was agreed to bring in a practice recommendation to deal specifically with this sort of occurrence happening here today. During that time it was agreed that practice recommendation 3 would be brought in. I may be mistaken, but I believe it was suggested by members of the opposition.

These are companion sections of the standing orders. Practice recommendation 3 clearly states: "The government House Leader may announce to the House that the government will proceed under standing order 46 if the motion in question has not passed the House or committee by a certain day and hour." The hon. government House Leader made that announcement this morning. That time has been fulfilled. He has now suggested that we proceed directly to standing order 46. That ought to be the end of the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Rossland-Trail — and this will be the last point of order that I will entertain.

[ Page 12925 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, this discussion has been going on for 40 minutes. The Health ministry staff are here. I would suggest that the discussion on the closure motion put forth by the government House Leader is not helping the Health estimates or any other estimates in this House. The reason for the impasse in the chamber is the feeling on both sides that there is a certain arbitrariness in each other's atmosphere. On this side of the House we feel that the government House Leader is moving to end debate; and on the government side of the House there is a feeling that this side wishes to talk indefinitely on the Health estimates.

Would it not be useful to get out of this short-term adversarial situation, which, I would suggest, is not serving the public of British Columbia at all, by having a brief recess of the committee, whereby the two hon. and competent House Leaders could perhaps work out a short schedule with which to extend the Health estimates, so that those hon. members on both sides who have matters to discuss affecting their constituencies will have that opportunity? The House can then get on with examining a great many matters of very urgent public importance affecting the Health ministry and a good many other aspects of administration of the B.C. provincial government.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to respond to what I think is that member's very well-thought-out suggestion. On several occasions I have endeavoured to ascertain from the opposition House Leader when we could bring these estimates to a close, because they seemed to be dragging on — and we didn't seem to be able to arrive at a conclusion. I would be more than happy to sit down at any time with my counterpart and work out a schedule amenable to both sides, where everyone could feel that they've had adequate say.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just give me a moment. Where we can agree on some sort of timetable, as my colleague pointed out in practice recommendation 3....

In this House we probably have a flawed system in that we do not have a set time for debates on estimates as they do in other jurisdictions. We have also made the offer....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Every other jurisdiction has a set time for debates on estimates, and estimates are deemed to have been passed at that time. We don't have the luxury of that system here. As it says in practice recommendation 3, we can sit down and work out a schedule. I’d be very happy to do that provided it included a schedule for the next set of estimates and some of the legislation — not just one estimate. Let us sit down and work out some sort of a logical schedule that will carry us through the next period of time in this House. I would be more than happy to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to allow the first member for Nanaimo to finish, because he didn't finish the last time he was on his feet.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I will proceed very carefully, because I want the point to be understood clearly by all members of this assembly and also because of the gravity of the situation. This is a serious matter. If the members opposite value the rules of this assembly, listen for a change.

Standing order 45 says very clearly that every motion for the suspension of any standing order is debatable. The particular language of that statement is such that, written in classic legalese, we have subjects, predicates and complements all mixed up. However, the reality is that the intention of the standing order is clear. Further, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are not talking about the suspension of the standing order. We are talking about a motion which is before the House, which I've been asked to deal with. Two more minutes.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, with all due deference and with the greatest respect, you cannot say that we are not dealing with the suspension of a standing order. Section 46 necessarily suspends section 45(j). It's just that simple.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But we're applying this standing order, hon. member, not suspending one.

MR. LOVICK: Again, and I certainly don't mean to debate the issue and be obstructionist....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, I have listened very carefully to what you have said. I have to rule. That's all the submissions I will hear.

[11:45]

Hon. members, I've listened to what you have to say. You all know that I always try to be as fair as possible, but under the circumstances, I accept the motion. I'm going to call the motion.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. the question before the House is that the question now be put.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Now we have a question before the House, and it must be called. I've called the question.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've spent the last 45 minutes listening to submissions. I'm calling the question.

[ Page 12926 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 15

Vote 38 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 14

On vote 39: ministry operations, $3,674,226,790.

MR. PERRY: Since the opposition was muzzled on vote 38, we'll continue the debate on vote 39. I'd like to make clear....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to traditions in this House, and in answer to a specific question by the opposition House Leader earlier in this session, it was agreed that all debate would take place on the first vote in every ministry and that there would be no debate on subsequent votes. I assured him that would be the case.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, the government has just thrown tradition out the door by stomping on the opposition and invoking closure. I'd just like to make it clear to the public that the opposition had no intention of filibustering these estimates. The member for New Westminster was in the midst of raising important arguments concerning nutrition for veterans in nursing homes. The member for Rossland-Trail has several very brief points he wishes to make on constituency issues, and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has brief points on mental health issues. We're only asking for the indulgence of the House to make those cases. There was never any intention to filibuster — and that's what has led to the unusual step of obliging the opposition to vote against the minister's salary.

We will naturally vote in favour of vote 39. We will not delay the time of the House with divisions on it. We would simply like the opportunity to make those brief arguments, which the government House Leader formally denied us.

Vote 39 approved.

Vote 40: Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare, $1,725,684,165 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.