1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3251 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Ocean Falls Corporation contracts. Mr. Lauk –– 3251

Mr. King –– 3251

Cablevision. Mr. Mitchell –– 3251

Oil company's compliance with Energy ministry's safety conditions. Mr. Passarell –– 3252

Amberley Building maintenance inquiry. Ms. Sanford –– 3252

Emission standards at Rayonier Port Alice mill. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 3253

Extended-care beds. Mr. Cocke –– 3253

Emergency facilities at Vancouver General Hospital. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3253

Open-heart surgery, Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3253

Extended-care beds. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3254

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. (Hon.

Mr. Fraser).

On vote 194: general administration-Highways –– 3254

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Mitchell

On vote 195: general administration-Transportation –– 3254

Mrs. Dailly

On vote 196: highway maintenance –– 3255

Ms. Brown

On vote 197: highway construction--capital –– 3255

Mr. D'Arcy

Ms. Brown

On vote 201: motor-vehicle branch –– 3256

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lockstead

On vote 204: transportation policy analysis branch –– 3257

Mr. Lockstead

On vote 207: British Columbia Ferries –– 3257

Mr. Lockstead

On vote 208: British Columbia Railway –– 3257

Mr. Lockstead

On vote 210: computer and consulting charges –– 3257

Mr. Lockstead

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

On vote 114: minister's office –– 3258

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Mr. Levi

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In the House today we have three visitors that I would like to ask the

House to welcome: a good friend, Bill Clancey, and Mr. Adolph Ingre and

Mr. Fred Stoochin who are in the Vancouver–Little Mountain

constituency. I ask the House to give them all a warm welcome.

MR. LEA:

I have two guests to introduce to the House today. Firstly I would like

to ask the House to join me in welcoming, from the Queen Charlotte

Islands, Joyce McNeice who is visiting in the gallery today. Our second

visitor is visiting us all the way from Ontario. Today we are going to

be watched professionally because with us today we have Richard

Johnston, who is a member of the Ontario House. I ask you to welcome

him.

MR. RITCHIE: In the precincts today we have Mr.

George Johnston, who along with a group met with the government caucus.

I'd ask the House to please extend a warm welcome to Mr. Johnston and

his group.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd ask the House to

welcome five guests who are visiting today: from Richmond, Mrs. Frances

Pearson and Mrs. Patricia Myerscough; and from Sussex, England, Mrs.

Nora Dewey, Mrs. Catherine Myerscough and Mr. Bill Hislop.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'd like to introduce a long-time friend and acquaintance from Surrey,

Mr. and Mrs. John and Phyllis Scholefield, and also Mr. and Mrs. Derek

Doubleday from Surrey. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION CONTRACTS

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. Can the minister advise what is the current status of the

negotiations between Ray Williston of B.C. Cellulose and the Los Angeles Times ?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm that the Los Angeles Times ,

through their solicitors, have given Mr. Williston two weeks to make a

reasonable offer of settlement before they take legal action?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll neither confirm nor deny that statement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has this question been asked? Can the minister confirm that the...? I'm sorry, I don't have it. Mr. King?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Clerk could extend

the time of question period to make up for what the opposition has lost

in their confusion.

MR. KING: On this side of the House we have togetherness and we fill in for each other admirably.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can-Cel has

announced a chip and flitch mill to replace the pulp mill at Ocean

Falls which was closed by the government. Can-Cel is currently

searching for a source of low-grade timber for the new facility. Can

the minister advise what assistance the Forest Service is going to give

to Can-Cel in its search for low-grade material to accommodate that

mill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge Can-Cel is not involved in Ocean Falls at all.

MR. KING:

I have a supplementary question. Do I understand then that the minister

has had no overtures from Can-Cel in terms of finding a source of

low-grade material to develop another kind of plant at Ocean Falls?

the minister aware of any supply of unutilized low-grade material that

would be available to a new industrial plant of the nature I outlined

in the Ocean Falls area? Is that kind of material available for Ocean

Falls, Can-Cel or any other entrepreneur that may be interested?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, this matter was covered rather extensively during my

estimates. B.C. Cellulose Corporation has been working very closely

with my ministry and with consultants in attempts to define areas which

had been classified as economically unusable but perhaps could be used

an experimental timber sale — and I believe they have been successful.

B.C. Cellulose and their consultants have given a report to my

ministry, and it appears that they will be making a request for an

experimental timber sale licence on the areas that they have defined in

their various consultations.

CABLEVISION

MR. MITCHELL:

I was getting a little worried, because my minister wasn't around, but

he's arrived. My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications, the late Mr. McGeer. In view of the fact that the

federal government has offered provincial jurisdiction over

cablevision, is the provincial government seeking regulatory control

over cablevision systems in the province?

HON MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MITCHELL:

Now that he has indicated that the province is looking for control, has

the minister decided to intervene against the proposed takeover of

Premier Cablevision by Canadian Cablesystems of Toronto?

HON. MR. MeGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. The CRTC is investigating whether or not

the proposed takeover

[ Page 3252 ]

Premier Cablevision is in the best interests of, first of all, the

system and the province. It's clear that the minister's own officials

working in Communications may not be of the view that it would benefit

this province. Can the minister confirm that?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MITCHELL:

I have a supplementary to the same question. Could the minister

indicate that, by not intervening, they support the takeover by the

Toronto conglomerate?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

OIL COMPANY'S COMPLIANCE WITH

ENERGY MINISTRY'S SAFETY CONDITIONS

MR. PASSARELL: I

have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. The Blueberry Indian band have announced their intention to

move back into the bush when the Calgary-based Kildonan Oil Company

resumes operation in a nearby oil field, following a toxic hydrogen

sulfite emission. Can the minister assure the House that the provincial

energy ministry is ensuring that safety conditions stipulated by them

are being met by the oil company?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to take that question as notice and bring an answer back to the Legislature.

AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

MR. LAUK: I have a question to

the Minister of Education. The minister recently repeated the call of

British Columbia on the federal government to pay what he says is a

fair share of the cost of educating new Canadians. The minister used

the phrase: "Since the federal government decided to bring new

Canadians to this country, Ottawa should fully fund the provinces for

the cost of all education and social services for the new arrivals for

a period of three years." Can the minister confirm that this means that

the provincial government has decided not to expand — and it may indeed

through his ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, the

member knows full well that the answer to that question would be no. He

misunderstands, I think, my comments, which he alludes to. What I said,

and what I said in Ottawa to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration,

was that because the policy organ of Immigration is the federal

government, and because their decisions really are what decides how

many new Canadians are going to come to British Columbia, it seemed to

us that rather than giving piecemeal grants of various kinds to defray

the cost of new Canadians taking full-time courses, taking citizenship

training and this sort of thing, there should be some comprehensive

payment made by the federal government to the province, to let the

province assume a whole array of social services for the first three

years prior to citizenship, following which time the province would

assume all responsibilities. There is absolutely no intention of the

province of British Columbia getting out of responsibilities to educate

new Canadians in the second language. From what I have seen in the

schools and the colleges, they are doing a very good job. I am just

trying to get the federal funding put on a comprehensive and rational

basis, which it isn't now.

MR. LAUK: Is the minister

saying that the traditional involvement of the provincial government

with the federal government on immigration matters has now been

abandoned or left dormant?

HON. MR. SMITH: The meaning of that question really quite escapes me. Perhaps its obscurity could be enlightened.

MR. LAUK:

It would be helpful if the professor of law at the University of

Victoria read the BNA Act. It sets clearly a provision for the

provincial government to be involved in immigration and it sets clearly

the provincial responsibility for educational matters. ESL programs in

Vancouver and elsewhere are hopelessly underfunded and ill-supported by

both the provincial and federal governments. Instead of buck-passing.

has the minister decided to accept responsibility for these continuing

programs?

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate the modest,

understated tone of the member's question in his

preamble. He should

know, too, as a student of law, that the prime responsibility in

immigration remains with the federal government. It is not

buck-passing. It is an attempt to get adequate bucks from both sources

into the services for new Canadians.

MR. LAUK: In the

school district of Vancouver I am informed that they need at least $5

million to provide ESL services to over 40 percent of the school

population. It is a critical problem which has been virtually ignored

by this government, both by this minister and by his predecessor. Has

the minister decided to take action to expand those programs to meet

this very serious need?

AMBERLEY BUILDING

MAINTENANCE INQUIRY

MS. SANFORD: I have a question

for the Minister of Labour. Now that eight employees of the Amberley

Building Maintenance Ltd. have filed complaints with the labour

standards branch over the failure of that company to pay overtime, can

the minister advise whether he has referred this case to the

Attorney-General with a view to prosecution?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

To the hon. member, I have not referred this case to the

Attorney-General's department. I refer to the question, Mr. Speaker,

which was asked, I believe, some time ago about whether or not an

investigation was being conducted. I so advised the member that an

investigation had been started immediately. I can advise the member

further that I have requested a detailed report, and I can further

advise that that report has as yet not been delivered to me.

MS. SANFORD:

I would like to address this question to the Provincial Secretary. I'm

wondering, in view of the apparent gross violation of labour standards

by a BCBC contractor, whether the minister can assure the House that

there are no more such contractors under contract to BCBC.

[ Page 3253 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE:

In response to the member's question, I am advised that one undertaking

any contractor has in doing a maintenance type contract with the

corporation is that they abide by all laws of the province.

EMISSION STANDARDS AT

RAYONIER PORT ALICE MILL

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Some time ago I was asked a question by the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) regarding acid rain in the Port Hardy area. It should

be emphasized that all rain, including so-called pure rain, is somewhat

acidic due to the natural mixing of rainwater with normal atmospheric

gases. To date all data collected indicates that there is no trend

towards increasing acidity in the rain in Port Hardy.

However,

my minister has initiated a joint project with the federal Atmospheric

Environment Service to investigate both the background values and the

values for individual storms in order to determine any directional

influence. This investigation was initiated in January of this year,

and field measurements will commence shortly.

As far as his

specific question concerning the level of acid rain created by the

excessive sulphur dioxide emissions from the Port Alice pulp mill, my

ministry has no information at this time which would support this

contention. I might point out that the pH values for acid rain in

Vancouver are 4.8, in Port Hardy 4.9, and 5.2 in Terrace. So it is

somewhat below the normal acid rain.

You did have a further question about the lakes in the area, and I'm getting back to you on that as well.

EXTENDED-CARE BEDS

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Health. In view of the fact that approximately 100 extended-care

patients are occupying precious acute-care beds at St. Paul's in

Vancouver, can the minister advise whether he would bring new beds for

long-term care on stream this year to transfer these patients in that

area?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I

had received that question already from the member for Burnaby — I

forget which one; the lovely lady next to my critic. If that is the

case, I have an answer which I will ask leave to bring to the House

after question period. If not, I will take the member's question as

notice and bring back the answer in due course.

MR. BARRETT: May I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to introduce two guests whom I missed during the opening?

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of introducing two very good friends

of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Stone from North Shore-Seymour. Mr. Stone and

I are former rugby colleagues. I ask the House to welcome them here

today.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to provide answers to questions given me in question period on July 8.

Leave granted.

EMERGENCY FACILITIES AT

VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the first came from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who said:

The situation in the emergency department at the Vancouver General

Hospital remains critical. Yesterday the minister told the House that

he had asked for a report from his staff. Can the minister now tell the

House what action he has taken to ensure that Vancouver residents get

treatment in emergency situations?

The emergency department

at Vancouver General Hospital operates on a 24-hour basis, as do the

emergency departments in several other Vancouver hospitals.

Occasionally, due to the fact that all beds in the hospital are filled,

it is necessary for the hospitals to ask ambulance drivers to divert

patients to other hospitals for a period of time. This is only done

after other hospitals in the vicinity have been contacted and alerted

to ensure that they are able to provide the service.

fact, the Vancouver General Hospital has only found it necessary to

divert patients to other hospitals on one occasion, for a period of

four hours during the early morning. On that occasion it was not

because the emergency department was inadequate, but it was due to the

fact that all available beds were full. My staff recently met with the

administrators of hospitals with emergency departments in the Vancouver

area to emphasize the importance of keeping emergency departments open

and to ensure the orderly flow of patients.

The first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) then asked as a supplementary: "Can the

minister now tell the House when the new emergency facility will be

operational, so that further closures at VGH will not be foreseen?" The

new emergency facility at Vancouver General Hospital is scheduled to

open in May or June of 1981.

OPEN-HEART SURGERY

There

was another question from the member for New Westminster: "Open-heart

surgery at VGH has been cut back by nearly 50 percent, particularly for

some teams. One team that was operating 15 operations a week is now

performing eight or less. What action has the minister taken to ensure

that British Columbians who require open-heart surgery can get it

promptly?'' First of all, the statistics stated by the hon. member for

the Vancouver General Hospital are not correct. For some time now the

hospital has been handling an average of 10.5 cases per week. However,

staff of the ministry are presently working with the Vancouver General

Hospital to increase the number of cardiac surgery cases that can be

handled each week. This will provide an increase from the present level

of 10.5 cases per week to 15 cases per week. In addition, when the new

Children's Hospital opens in 1981, children's cardiac surgery will be

done there rather than at the Vancouver General Hospital, thus allowing

the number of adult cases done at VGH to increase further.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR:

It's a person who is half-hearted, Mr. Member, like many of the

questions I heard in question period today. I had a little note here

that Mr. Lauk would interject at this point.

[ Page 3254 ]

EXTENDED-CARE BEDS

Lastly,

from the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly): "At St. Paul's

Hospital there are a number of people who are awaiting admission for

serious surgery and cannot get in, particularly in the orthopedic ward,

where people are holding up beds simply because there are no other

extended-care and intermediate facilities available for them. Can the

minister tell us what he is doing to alleviate what I consider to be an

emergency situation for these very sick people?" I pause there to say

that I assume that is the same or a similar question as the one posed

to me today by the member for New Westminster. Staff of my ministry

from the divisions of hospital programs and care services are working

together in an attempt to move as many extended- and long-term care

patients as possible from VGH and St. Paul's to more appropriate

facilities. Haro Park, an intermediate-care facility with 212 beds,

near St. Paul's Hospital, is opening now. Negotiations are underway to

place patients from St. Paul's and VGH in this facility.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

Vote 193: minister's office, $212,089 — approved.

On vote 194: general administration — Highways, $6,423,536.

MS. BROWN:

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I raised a couple of questions under the

general vote of the department, which I guess the minister overlooked

and didn't respond to. I wonder if I could put them again.

First

of all, are there any plans for upgrading Highway 1? I'm referring

specifically to the municipality of Burnaby; I'm talking about

additional lanes, that kind of thing.

Secondly, are there

any plans to widen Lougheed? We keep hearing that there is a

possibility of an extra lane being put on the Lougheed Highway, and we

still haven't had a final word on that.

Thirdly, what is in store for Hastings and Barnet Highway? We haven't had a response to that yet.

When

I raised the question about what is in store for Kingsway, the minister

said nothing. I'm wondering whether he's really sure about that,

because surely there is some kind of upgrading, in terms of readjusting

the lights on Kingsway and this kind of thing, that he would like to

make a comment on.

MR. LORIMER: Last night I asked

the minister a couple of questions: what he intended to do regarding

the beautification of the area of Canada Way and Willingdon; and

secondly, what provisions he intended to supply to help municipalities

finance the work that they will have to do for probable automobile

clearances, widening of streets, and so on, as a result of the

provincial government's action in building the Annacis Island bridge.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I have a short detailed answer here to the question the member for

Burnaby–Willingdon brought up last evening. First of all, on the

highway maintenance facility at Canada Way and Willingdon, a few years

ago the ministry erected a cedar fence to screen the yard. We intend to

move from this location in the future. This is being pursued at the

present time, but no

schedule is available on that. I think I could add

to the senior staff notes that that it is probably involved with BCBC,

on a relocation.

The other question the member asked last

evening was that he wanted assurance that the Annacis Island bridge and

the highway system will not have expected impacts on the Burnaby street

system which will be a problem for Burnaby to solve. On April 21, 1980,

the Burnaby council endorsed a report from the Burnaby transportation

committee which dealt with the effect of the Annacis bridge on the

Burnaby street system. I quote from that report:

"The

crossing system proposed does not conflict with the adoptive

comprehensive transportation plan for Burnaby. There should be no

disruption to residential areas in Burnaby as a result of the

construction of the Annacis system. It is expected there will be

positive benefits in terms of the development of Burnaby's Big Bend and

Metrotown as a result of the implementation of the Annacis system."

"In

summary, the effects on Burnaby have been carefully

studied by the municipality and the ministry. and the planning takes into account

all foreseeable problems and provides for them. The province will assist in

solving any unexpected problems through the revenue-sharing and arterial highway

programs."

MR. MITCHELL:

One of the questions I'd like to bring up to the minister deals with

two particular areas in my riding. One is commonly called the Bilston

Creek area, and the second one is Marler Drive. They have two things in

common: they both flood. They both have subdivisions in the area that

have been approved over the years by the Ministry of Highways. On

Marler Drive there are seven houses. Because of the flooding of

Craigflower Creek every second year, the houses flood. Come spring they

clean up, and then the houses are sold to someone else. In many cases

the next year another group of people go through the same procedure.

Has the ministry any policy to clear the creek to stop the flooding

each year, build up and dike the area or change the houses and lift

them so they would not have the problem of flooding? This subdivision

was approved over the objection of certain people in that area as being

in a floodplain back in about 1970-71. Is there any policy within the

department of correcting the flood conditions that happen in those

areas or alleviating it by moving the houses, lifting them or diking

that particular area, especially the one on Marler Drive and, secondly,

the Bilston Creek area?

Vote 194 approved.

On vote 195: general administration — transportation, $1,118,973.

MRS. DAILLY:

I just wanted some advice. I wish to ask a very brief question

regarding truck safety. Would that come under that vote and could you

advise me?

[ Page 3255 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

It would be the opinion of the Chair that the Motor Carrier Commission

vote would be appropriate. Unless the minister wishes to....

HON. MR. FRASER: I think a more appropriate vote would be the motor-vehicle branch vote, vote 201.

Vote 195 approved.

On vote 196: highway maintenance, $179,351,848.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask my questions for the third time under

highway maintenance. Are there any plans for upgrading Highway 1?

This is the third time I'm putting that question to the minister. Are

there any plans for widening the Lougheed — additional lanes or

whatever? That's the third time I'm putting that question to the

minister. Also, for the third time, what is in store for Kingsway? Are

there any plans to deal with the problem of lighting and that kind of

thing?

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Burnaby–Edmonds, I was trying to get the answers for you and I think I have

them here now. The Trans-Canada Highway through Burnaby, Highway 1, is

intended to eventually upgrade to six lanes. However, the Mary Hill

bypass at the east end and the Cassiar corridor should be completed for

the six-laning of the freeway to be helpful. I would just like to add

further to that that I think the six-laning of Highway I is a fair way

away. There are a lot of problems and the engineers would like to do

the others that I mentioned first.

I'd like to make this

observation, though, dealing with the freeway. There probably won't be

extra property required. The right-of-way is already there. It's my

understanding from an engineering standpoint that there would be no

disruption from acquisition of further right-of-way. They could bring

the traffic closer naturally by adding two lanes, but it isn't a case,

as I understand it, of acquiring further width so this can happen. The

width exists. It is a great thing in this day and age when we don't

have to acquire housing as an example to make room for expansion, in

this case, of a freeway.

Regarding the Lougheed Highway

six-laning, we have agreed with Burnaby that this should be done in the

future. It is incorporated in the Burnaby transportation plan. No

design work has started. I think it's safe to say that if that's the

case it's quite a way away. There will be nothing in the way of

construction for a considerable length of time.

Regarding

the Barnet Highway, this is under design for four-laning through North

Burnaby. The design will be complete later this year and I'd like to

comment on this. My own comments are that I would like to see that done

as soon as possible. I feel differently about that connection than I do

about the others. We have some good roads both ways from the others,

but we have a missing link here. We have engineering problems with

settlement. That's what they are working on. I would hopefully think

that something should start in the way of construction on the Barnet in

You asked about Kingsway. We're working with Burnaby

to improve operations at traffic signals and other traffic management,

but we're not planning any construction.

Vote 196 approved.

On vote 197: highway construction — capital, $208,209,007.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy that the House Leader allowed

the member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to ask her questions regarding highway

upgrading in her riding. He's the member who had the Upper Levels Highway

four-laned by the previous government when he was in opposition. So I know he

would understand opposition members who want to see improvements to the highways

in their constituencies.

Anyway,

Mr. Chairman, I have three questions for the minister. First, I'm

wondering if he can give some indication as to when his staff would

have a first contract ready on what is commonly known as the West Trail

approach on Highway 22.

The second question, Mr. Chairman. I

would note that almost exactly a month ago I and the locations people

from the Nelson region met with Castlegar city council regarding

modifications to the Kinnaird interchange. Agreement was reached at

that meeting, and I'm wondering if the minister can give us some

indication as to when those modifications may proceed. The ministry

people indicated at the time that they could be done by ministry staff

and would not involve contracts.

The third question involves

the widening of Highway 3B between the Trail bridge and the Trail city

limits — the Trail bridge to Glenmerry project. There was considerable

location work done on this project by the regional staff in 1975 and

1976, but precious little since that time. I'm wondering if the

minister can give us some indication as to whether this project is

going to get off the back burner or out of the back alley and back into

some degree of activity. It seems absurd, Mr. Chairman, that we have a

four-lane highway outside the city limits which narrows down to a

two-lane highway once you get inside the city limits where the heaviest

traffic is.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, first of all, I

would like to answer the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) regarding flooding in parts of his riding — and I certainly

hear about that as well, Mr. Member. Flooding in certain areas has

progressively developed as many subdivisions have been approved. The

minister has solved a great number working with the Ministry of

Environment. In some cases easements have to be acquired through and

from other property owners' land. We'll look into Marler Drive as soon

as possible. But my observation is that in that area it seems to flare

up in different areas, and we'll just have to deal with them at the

time. I think your position is that we approved the subdivision,

therefore we have some responsibility. That's correct, we have, but so

has Environment. But that doesn't mean to say that we can just argue

among ourselves; I think we should get on and solve some of the

problems.

MS. BROWN: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman,

and first of all, I'd like to again add my voice to that of the member

for Burnaby–Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) in opposition to the Annacis

crossing, and to say that, despite the report which the minister read,

the eastern area of the municipality of Burnaby is definitely going to

be damaged as a result of this crossing going through, and

neighbourhoods are going to be destroyed. So I'm totally opposed to

that.

However, is there a

schedule for the development of the

[ Page 3256 ]

Newcombe-McBride-Stormont

connector? Could the minister give me some dates in terms of years, in

terms of developing the connector? Also, is the minister looking at

alternatives? In speaking earlier on the general vote, I suggested a

ring road as a possible alternative, and I didn't get a response from

the minister about that. But are we looking at alternatives to the

connector in the hope that maybe we won't need that connector after all?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Burnaby–Edmonds,

there isn't a schedule, and the chief engineer is going to tell me

whether we're looking at an alternative. There isn't a schedule, so

there is nothing imminent, I take from that. I'm advised that the

Burnaby transportation plan doesn't show any alternative, and if there

were an alternative, it would probably be in New Westminster.

the member for Rossland–Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), Smelter Hill, as the member

knows, involves a new roadway for route 3A from west of the smelter

down to Rossland Avenue and downtown Trail. It includes a grade

separation structure for the CPR and a structure to carry the plant

utilities over the highway.

Right-of-way negotiations for

property near Rossland Avenue are well advanced. Joint design work for

a culvert under Rossland Avenue is advancing with the city and the

Ministry of Environment reviewing the whole culvert problem. The

railway underpass and culvert should start this year. The overall

design work is being finalized for the West Trail approach, Smelter

Hill. We expect to go forward with some of that work this year. As the

member knows, Mr. Chairman, we've had to acquire a lot of property

there. I think that is fairly well cleaned up — that's my information —

so we can move on to the construction stage. We are waiting on a

Canadian Transport Commission order for the railroad overpass. I hope

we don't have to wait too long on that. Work is expected to start later

this year. We want to do some creek culvert work this year.

Regarding

the Creston bypass, I have this note. I don't know whether this answers

your question, Mr. Member. You asked about Castlegar. Design is in hand

to provide a loop in the southeast corner to accommodate the east-bound

and north-bound movement and reduce the hazard of runaway vehicles in

this movement. The work involves some widening of the structure over

Columbia Avenue. When the design is complete we will put it into the

program.

I gather from that engineering note that work is

not going to start imminently. They are still designing. I would say it

will probably start within 12 months. It may be sooner; I don't know.

Vote 197 approved.

Vote 198: Hydro development — Highways, $10 — approved.

Vote 199: engineering branch, $997,476 approved.

Vote 200: weigh scale branch, $3,556,393 approved.

On vote 201: motor-vehicle branch, $15,898,017.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, very quickly to the minister, I know he and his staff are

well aware of that recent report from the branch regarding the fact

that 67 percent of the tractor-trailers caught in roadside inspections

had major safety defects, many of them serious enough to be a hazard. I

know this was of great concern to most people who have to travel on our

highways and, I am sure, to the minister. I was pleased to see that the

minister and his officials announced that they are drafting new

regulations on truck safety to reduce evasions of the law. I want to

congratulate the minister for moving quickly on it. I wonder if he

could give us some idea of what these regulations would be in general.

have one final question. The number of moped deaths is beginning to

soar in B.C. I think the minister must be aware of this. They estimate

28 moped operators will be killed annually in traffic accidents in B.C.

We know there are many young people.... I think we are all aware of

the recent tragedy of a very close personal colleague of many of ours

who suffered a death from this. I wonder if the ministry is considering

drafting any regulations with reference to licensing or stiffer laws

regarding these mopeds.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Following on

the same topic, I would hope that when the minister is considering the

regulations he will remember that there are a number of very small

independent trucking operations and, when they are drafting the

regulations, will give these people enough lead-time so that the

excessive costs of upgrading their vehicles, which they should do, won't

cause them to go broke in the process.

Very briefly, Mr.

Chairman, in view of the fact that the Premier of this province nine or

ten months ago at a convention made a commitment regarding deregulation

of highway transport, nothing appears to have been done and the

situation is getting worse by the day, as related by one of the

spokesmen for the association. Perhaps the minister could comment on

that particular aspect as well.

HON. MR. FRASER: In

reply to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), the stricter

enforcement of commercial vehicles is a pet project of mine. We have

checked it out a lot and, as you mentioned, 67 percent of the

commercial vehicles that we checked didn't pass. As a matter of fact,

around 200 vehicles were taken off the road immediately they were

checked. Our plan there is to increase the inspections through the

addition of mechanical inspectors. They're a class by themselves. We

have to have good mechanical people and we're just in the process now

of enlarging that staff, which will get them out further to do more

checking throughout the province.

Regarding security of load

regulations, there'll probably be changes in that, because there is a

grey area in the existing regulations. They do exist, but I think they

need tightening up, and that will be forthcoming soon. We have far too

much carelessness going on with the security of load factor. They're

hauling merchandise without putting binders on, hauling bulldozers

without anything at all tying them down. Of course, this causes

problems for all the motorists in the province, and that is certainly

being enforced a lot more now than it ever was through our weighscale

operation.

Regarding mopeds, the note I have on that is that

they're treated the same as motorcycles. Apparently our motorcycle

regulations are the best in Canada.

The last item from the

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was deregulation of the commercial

vehicle, whether it be passenger or commercial. We are not

contemplating any immediate action on that, although we are look-

[ Page 3257 ]

ing

at it because we're getting a lot of complaints about the whole system.

We're going to look at the system, but I don't want to alarm the public

by saying that we're going to deregulate immediately. I personally have

asked that we first of all look at the passenger side. We have two

sides to look at really, passenger and commercial.

The

appeals are increasing all the time from the Motor Carrier Commission

decisions, and they have an extremely heavy workload. It is popular to

talk about deregulating. The committee will know that the United States

has deregulated the air industry, and they've just recently deregulated

the trucking industry. But I think they did that with a lot of

provisos. People seem to be concerned and we're taking a look at it.

Where it will end up I don't know. I would like to make this

observation: I don't think you'll see government doing anything on that

subject other than studying for about 12 months.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Once again, very quickly, on the motor-vehicle branch, I have reams of

material but obviously we're not going to get into it at this time. I'm

sure the minister understands that on this particular branch we do have

instances of double jeopardy — fines, points by ICBC and increased

insurance rates, and then we have the motor vehicle branch coming back

with further fines and suspensions. In other words, it's double

jeopardy in some cases, in my view. I want to take this opportunity

with the director of that branch.... When I've taken constituents'

problems to them personally, they have been very thoroughly reviewed

and occasionally the problem has been resolved. I thought I'd bring

that to the minister's attention. I don't require a reply. Hopefully

the minister, in his meeting with the senior people in his department,

will review that double jeopardy situation.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'll make one observation here, please. I think we've got the best and

most efficient motor vehicle branch in the country. I want to put it on

the record here that, under the supervision of Mr. Whitlock, I think

they do a marvellous job.

Vote 201 approved.

Vote 202: motor carrier branch, $1,150,751 — approved.

Vote 203: motor carrier commission, $329,756 — approved.

On vote 204: transportation policy analysis branch, $1,323,211.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have just one short note on this particular branch. As it happens,

probably because of the nature of my riding and my interests within the

province, the fact is that I deal a great deal with this particular

group of people and have found their work to be generally excellent,

the brief they present thorough and well researched. I couldn't think

of a better opportunity to let the minister know of this very fine

branch within his ministry.

Vote 204 approved.

Vote 205: air services branch, $3,108,828 — approved.

Vote 206: Local Airport Assistance Program, $739,568 approved.

On vote 207: British Columbia Ferries, $57,929,127.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We've covered this topic extensively, and I don't intend to discuss any

aspect of this that we've discussed at length, really, over the last

two weeks; but I just wanted to remind the minister, and I want it on

the record. It's quite obvious, as a result of the B.C. Crown

corporations committee hearings into the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and

the answers that have been given to us in this House, and other

factors, that there are serious problems within the operations of the

B.C. ferry system, whether they be the superficial items that we all

see, like food and schedules, or more serious problems within

management. Frankly, I think that the minister would do well, since

this whole matter of water transportation on the coast of British

Columbia has been the cause of major — and rightfully so —

embarrassment to the government, to review the whole policy. I'm not

putting it all on management; there are serious internal problems

within the union as well, as we are all aware of. But the fact is I'm

telling the minister now — and I don't require an answer at this point

— that there are very, very serious problems within the system. I think

at the appropriate time the minister must make decisions and take steps

to correct the water transportation system on the coast of British

Columbia and the problems within the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Vote 207 approved.

On vote 208: British Columbia Railway, $14,000,000.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Once again, this is a new item, as far as I

am aware, within the ministry. Perhaps the minister would care to take

15 seconds to reply to this expenditure of $14 million.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, it'll take me a minute or two, not very long, to explain

this $14 million vote in this ministry for the British Columbia Railway.

Following

the royal commission report — I believe that was in 1978 — they

recommended the suspension of rail service from Fort St. John to Fort

Nelson. The government did not accept that, but when they didn't accept

it we had to upgrade the line. I'm happy to say that we have spent $28

million on upgrading the line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson,

roughly $14 million per year. This is the last $14 million and then

we'll have a decent line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. This is an

upgrading of the existing line; nothing to do with maintenance.

Vote 208 approved.

Vote 209: building occupancy charges, $15,356,000 approved.

On vote 210: computer and consulting charges, $4,080,900.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

This vote, as is quite obvious, has increased by over $1.5 million in

one fiscal year, and perhaps the minister would just take five seconds

to explain that to us.

As this is the last vote under this estimates, I would like to

[ Page 3258 ]

make

two very brief comments. Firstly, this minister, in my view, as opposed

to most of the other ministers on the treasury benches, has taken the

time to answer questions at length, and in many cases in some detail.

That has been appreciated by myself as our party caucus critic.

Last

but not least, for the record, while there are many hundreds of people

out in the province of British Columbia to whom I promised to raise

certain issues in the legislative session if certain actions were not

taken, I think in the main my colleagues and I have raised most of

those issues that were mentioned. Particularly dealing, once again,

with the B.C. Ferry Corporation, if those issues were not raised in

this Legislature, they were generally raised during the Crown

corporations committee meetings. Once again, I would like to thank the

minister for taking the time to answer all of the questions.

HON. MR. FRASER:

The member asked why vote 210 is up. I understand the B.C. Systems

Corporation couldn't carry out all the work that we need, and this vote

will look after that so they can carry out the necessary work.

just want to thank all the members of the House for their cooperation

in the estimates that we have been dealing with for six days and a

little part of the seventh.

Vote 210 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 114: minister's office, $165,162.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I realize that I must be brief because the opposition has only set

aside six months for these estimates and I wouldn't want to, in any

way, cut into their time.

MR. BARRETT: Seven, because of your speech.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I would like, if I may, to just briefly summarize a few of my thoughts.

I suppose the first thing that impresses anybody who takes on the

Ministry of Health — I'm sure my predecessors have all felt the same

way — is the sheer size and the terrific zeal and dedication of the

large staff of public servants that make it up. I don't think that

there is any question that we all agree that the Ministry of Health

ministers to the needs of almost everybody in our community and

probably is, in that sense, the last line of defence of all the

citizens of this province against the ravages of disease and poverty

and all those things that unfortunately still beset us. I know that the

people of British Columbia expect great things of the health care

system. I don't think there is any doubt that this side of the House

considers that to be their right. Whatever form these demands take,

whether they are high-profile or from those who can't, for one reason

or another, articulate their problems themselves, all the public of

British Columbia have come to expect first-class health service and

this ministry and government intend to continue it.

MR. BARRETT: Is there a doctor in the House?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, we may need one before the next seven months are out, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

I think, nevertheless, it would be remiss of me not to dwell for a moment at

this time upon the escalation in health costs and in providing the care that

the people of British Columbia have rightly demanded. Under our system of universal

medical and hospital care, and I suppose under any other system one cares to

think of, the money only comes from one source, and that is the public purse.

Whether we get that by taxation on resource revenue or from taxation of individuals

or indirectly from taxation the federal government imposes — whatever way we

get it, it comes one way or another out of the public purse. I don't think

there is any question that we are going to have to, in the months and years

to come, address ourselves to the problems raised by the expectations that all

of us have raised.

When

I say all of us I pay tribute to all governments that I can remember as

a lifetime British Columbian, which goes back a year or two now,

because I think that in the context of the times each government has

tried to do its very best to bring good health care to all the people

of British Columbia. We have high expectations and we have now reached

a budget of $1.55 billion, and even in inflationary terms that is a sum

of money which I think staggers most of us. I think that if we're ever

going to control the inflation problem in health care it is going to

have to be a team effort. I think that we can, through a team effort,

control these expenses, not so that we can cut back on health services

but so that we can make each inflated dollar go further and do more for

the public of this province.

I think that probably the

principal attitude I have tried to bring to the ministry as Health

minister is in the field of preventive medicine. I have said many times

over, as many of my predecessors have, that due to the wonders of

medical science we have eliminated most of the communicable diseases,

except perhaps the social diseases, and we are now down to the point in

our progress where the vast majority of people who find themselves

going into the acute care hospital system are going in there not

through no fault of their own but perhaps through fault of their own or

through the fact that proper preventive medicine procedures have not

been followed. I don't think there is any question that when we are

talking in terms of preventive medicine we have to talk in terms of

alcohol abuse, use of tobacco — there is no such thing as tobacco

abuse; it is all abuse — and, I suppose, overeating, which some of us

have been guilty of from time to time in the past.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Along

the same line — I am sure I will hear a great deal about this from the

other side of the House — I think that one area of preventive medicine

is the unwanted pregnancy. I have been misunderstood, I think, from

time to time to be saying that I am going to try to find ways to cut

down abortions. What I have said over and over again is what I would

like to do is try to find ways whereby we can cut down unwanted

pregnancies. I think this is another area of preventive medicine that

is very much in the public mind today, and is very important.

think I can say that in the short time I have been in the ministry I

have seen a very interesting approach from the various interested

groups in health care — the hospital people, doctors, nurses and so on.

There is less and less of an aura of confrontation and more of a desire

to cooperate. I hear the Leader of the Opposition chortling a little

bit. I might say that when we examine the public accounts for the year

1980-81 I hope you will look at a bill that was rendered for my

entertaining three members of the medical profession last

[ Page 3259 ]

week.

I think the results of that entertainment, which was a very mild one, I

might say, will prove very fruitful and beneficial because peace has

been declared.

MR. LAUK: Can you detail what the entertainment entailed?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Yes, I can, as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, in view of what went on

in the House here last night, I am a little reluctant to for fear that

we'd find ourselves out of order.

In any event, I think that

generally that gives a bit of a rundown on my view of the ministry. I

noted in running through these notes that this is the fourth ministry

I've taken through in estimates, which I suppose shows I can't hold a

job. In any event, each one is larger, and in each case my remarks have

become shorter. I suppose that only goes to show that it's easier to

preface War and Peace than one of Somerset Maugham's short stories.

MR. HALL: You know less and less about more and more.

HON. MR. MAIR:

That's probably true too, Mr. Member. Of course, we all know that this

is show biz — sometimes good, sometimes mediocre, mostly terrible.

would like to deal with one thing before I introduce the members of my

staff who are on the floor and get down to the questions that will be

posed to me from the other side.

I'd like to talk about the

Emergency Health Services Commission because it's been very much in the

news lately. I'm not going to deal with it on a basis of trying to make

apologies or promises. I'm going to try and state the facts as they

are. I don't think there's any question that we are experiencing some

problems with this particular branch of my ministry and I'd like to

place it, if I may, in proper perspective.

In 1974 the

ambulance services, as many members of this chamber will know, were

operated by private operators, funeral parlour operators,

municipalities and even fire departments. Not all of these operated on

a 24-hour basis, and there were no standards of training or equipment.

The provincial ambulance service developed as a result of

representations to the government from private operators,

municipalities, BCMA, B.C. Federation of Labour and general pressure

resulting from the federal government report on ambulance services

dated 1968.

I might pause to say that I remember an

appalling case, when I was in municipal politics, which certainly

proved beyond any doubt that the establishment of this service was

necessary. A jurisdictional dispute occurred in what is now my

constituency near the area of Clearwater. As a result of a dispute as

to who would take the patient, the patient became permanently impaired

for life. This is the kind of thing that did go on to far too great a

degree in those days.

In January 1978 a four-year plan was developed for the commission. The plan

was approved in principle and the intentions were to update it in 1980. I've

already indicated in the House that I've already requested an update of

that plan. As the same time as the approved plan called for a major input of

funds, this province and government embarked upon several other high priority

items such as long-term care. There were major demands for increased services

in other health areas, and there were major negotiated salary increases, which

I think we all know about. The fact is — this is a candid statement and I hope

it's taken as such — we have not been able to keep pace with the projected

four-year plan. Let there be no mistake about that. However, I'd like to

indicate now the tremendous increase in funding that we have provided in this

very essential service so that the chamber knows. The budget for the commission

in 1975 was $13 million; in 1979-80 it was $26 million. In our current estimates

we've included $34 million. So that while we have problems, it's not

that we're not trying to address them, because we are. In other words,

to put it in normal mathematics that we can all understand, it's about triple

now that it was five years ago.

one looks at the personnel since December 1975, the Emergency Health

Services Commission has hired over 200 ambulance crew and dispatchers,

and 61 ambulance attendants have graduated as paramedics with a further

20 paramedics under training. While we are currently experiencing some

problems — and I certainly don't in any way try to underestimate them —

in the provision of these services, I'm sure that all members will

agree in fairness that we've made considerable progress. I repeat that

I have asked for a review of this service, and I'll give the report due

consideration as soon as it is received.

Before I take my

place and prepare to answer questions, I'd like to advise the chamber

and you, sir, that on the floor of the House are: Dr. Chapin Key, my

deputy; Mr. Jack Bainbridge, who's my ADM, support services; Dr. Gerry

Bonham, I'm sure known to you all as senior ADM, community health

services, and Mr. Bob McDermit, senior ADM, professional and

institutional services.

With no further ado I'll take my place and await questions from the hon. members opposite.

MR. COCKE:

I'm delighted to see a new minister in this portfolio. As a matter of

fact I'm very tempted to congratulate the minister even though he

didn't want the ministry. However, we know that he wants the Premier's

job. But I do congratulate the people in the province for at least this

one token gesture, that we do have a new Minister of Health.

think the ministry is almost a cinch winner when you think in terms of

all you have to do is contracts. I've had a little experience in that

respect and so I would say to this minister that it was almost a cinch

winner. However, what has happened since we've had the new minister?

Mr.

Chairman, we've heard dental care announced on and off and on and off,

shaking up the people in the province, having them wonder whether or

not they're going to get a dental care plan. I know the minister is

having problems, but at the same time the announcement has been "it

will be," then "it might be," then "it may be" and then again "it

will be." You'll note that there's one thing: we're not seeing the

announcement before the estimates, because possibly there would be some

criticism of the plan if it occurred at a convenient time during or

before the estimates.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What

else did the minister do to place himself in a very difficult position?

He said to us earlier that he just healed all the wounds that were

created with the Medical Association by having dinner a few nights ago

with three doctors. He insulted the Medical Association and thereby

insulted every individual doctor in this province. Never have I seen a

[ Page 3260 ]

situation

where a Minister of Health, having been invited to one of the most

important constituencies that that minister is involved with, turned

down that invitation for any reason, whatever government that minister

represented and no matter how badly negotiations were going at the

time. I remember such outstanding names as Loffmark. I remember other

names, such as Martin. They were not people that always had a very

first-class dialogue or working relationship with the Medical

Association.

I believe that that inference has affected the

confidence of that extremely important constituency, the medical

profession of this province. So does the minister. He has written a

two-and-a-half-page letter to every doctor in this province. I'll be

quoting from it later on, no doubt. The letter tells them that

everything's lovely in the garden and that he's over his temper

tantrum. He ignores other constituents. He ignored the Lung Association

recently, and that's a situation that the minister needn't have

created. If he didn't want to go, he should have let them know earlier.

Also,

he's been the bearer of bad news to all the people in this province. He

has told them that he's increasing their direct cost of involvement in

medical care and hospital care in this province. He's increased the

price of medicare — not on his own, but it's happened. They've

increased the cost of long-term care. They've increased the cost to the

consumer — the sick — of acute care. They have increased the cost of

day-care charges for day surgery.

Mr. Chairman, that minister stood in this House a moment ago and

said: "I know where the money comes from; it comes from the public

purse." I know where the money comes from under this government; it

comes from the individual's purse — the person who is sick. Taxing the

sick has always been a Socred policy, and we see it again in this

province under this minister.

note of parochialism in this resume of the minister's major bad moves

was his move to close a first-class hospital in New Westminster — St.

Mary's. That was an absolute scandal. It was a scandal from this

standpoint: it is a hospital that does not lend itself to what he is

now contemplating — extended care. We'll go into that in much more

detail later, but I think that that's a major mistake by this

government and by this minister. Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister

panicked. We've

seen a note of his panic; we've seen letters to doctors; we've seen a

dinner with a group of doctors that's going to solve all his problems.

see that the dental plan is coming — or so it's announced. However, I

have heard more announcements of that dental plan from Allen Garr than

I have from the minister. I wonder when the minister is going to level

with us and tell us what he's really doing about a dental program for

people in this province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I will say this: it won't be until after the estimates, Mr. Member. Mr.

Chairman, I suggest that that's the kind of situation we need not have,

if the minister really wants to create an aura of success with that

portfolio.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Chairman, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) says that

his denticare plan is toothless. Well, I'll tell you this: there'll be

a lot of toothless people in this province waiting for this dental

program that was announced and reannounced over and over for the last

couple of years.

MR. LAUK: Denture care.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, he again panicked and he said to the Lung Association:

"Well, I was sick, but a miracle occurred at 7 o'clock and I recovered.

" He obviously saw Oral Roberts; he certainly didn't see anybody from

the Medical Association, because that happened after his confrontation

with the doctors.

I say to the people — and he says: "Better

luck next time over the rate increases." You know what the solution is

for his own future? Indexing. He isn't going to have to ever again

announce a rate increase; he's going to index on behalf of the

government that took indexing away from people's pensions; he's going

to do the reverse with respect to what people pay for their health-care

benefits in this province. Mr. Chairman, I predict that they will take

the highest calculation that they can possibly find in terms of

indexing for indexing medicare premiums, for indexing hospital per diem

costs and for indexing all those ambulance fees that have gone up,

etc., etc. What a government, Mr. Chairman!

One day I

listened to a backbencher on the government side. He no longer sits in

this House — thankfully. He represented Vancouver South. He owns a

little business called Color Your World. He coloured my world the day

he said that people don't appreciate something they don't pay for. I'm

suggesting that taxing the sick doesn't make them appreciate what

they're getting.

Mr. Chairman, the cabinet ministers, the

government backbenchers are as interested in the Ministry of Health

estimates as they were interested in Highways — four of them are here!

That's exactly the priority that the Social Credit government has

always given health care — low on the list; at the bottom of the list,

if you can possibly make it. Let me tell you something about the bottom

of the list. The minister said, when he opened his debate, that the

health care system is the last line of defence. That's where he put it

— the last line of defence, not the first line of defence, where it

should be, but the last line of defence. He reflects their feelings,

and they reflect the feelings of this government in terms of their care

about health care and the health-care delivery system in this province.

They say: "Better luck next time." It's better luck next time for the

Minister of Health, because he never has to announce another increase,

and those increases will come as sure as day follows night, with an

indexing system for increasing medicare, hospital care, ambulance care

and all those other costs to people.

That other little area

where I said that the minister was dead wrong was St. Mary's Hospital.

What did the minister answer in question period the other day in terms

of St. Mary's Hospital? He said: "Well, socialists don't believe in

closing acute-care hospitals." What kind of an answer to a question was

that? What utter, ridiculous nonsense! A hospital that was rebuilt in

the late fifties, 21 years ago, a major renovation, and 13 years ago

another renovation.... That hospital is a first-class acute care

facility in this province and will not, cannot, lend itself to extended

care. Will the minister tell me where he is going to have activity

places in a six-story hospital? I hope, over the next six or seven

months, as the minister predicts these estimates will go, he is going to

[ Page 3261 ]

explain to us how he is going to create an extended-care facility out of that.

admit that they did not plan for their long-term care. They were most

fortunate that the previous government set up home care in a

coordinated way through Human Resources and Health. They also were the

beneficiaries of a major building program in extended care; to give you

a few examples, the University of British Columbia extended-care

facility, Queens Park extended-care facility in New Westminster and a

number of others. We purchased five or six long-term care hospitals in

this Capital Regional District and built one in Delta and many others,

many of which this government now took credit for. In any event, that

mistake at St. Mary's Hospital is one they will live with for a long

time if they perpetrate that particular situation.

Let me

just enunciate a few of the minister's problems, some created by his

predecessor, some created by himself and some the creation of a

long-time low priority for this particular area. We have an acute-care

hospital system falling apart at the seams. There are waiting lists for

elective surgery in this province in virtually every health district.

There is as long as a year to wait for elective surgery. Some of these

procedures are needed desperately because of the pain that the person

in that situation happens to be undergoing at this time, yet there is

no planning. The answer is: "A shortage of nurses. So be it. Nothing we

can do about it; close down a few more beds." We will be going into

many aspects of this and some of the things that they've done in other

jurisdictions to cure the shortage of nurses.

We'll even do

it now. I want to talk about his problems. We will help him out as much

as we can over the next while. Hopefully the minister will take some

advice from this opposition because the one thing that this opposition

stands for is top priority for health care in this province. We always

have and we always will.

The minister apologized for his

emergency health care service. We will be dealing with that in some

detail, but I can tell you this: it is understaffed and underhoused,

being in power for four years and a few months, this government has

done as little for that service as one could imagine. Then the minister

comes up and says that in 1978 they had a four-year plan and now he is

going to readjust it to a five-year plan. The same shortage of manpower

exists today as has existed for the last two or three years. The same

disastrous housing for his staff exists today as has existed for the

last number of years. Four-year plans, five-year plans, ten-year plans

are of no significance unless they produce results.

That

minister had the gall to make a statement that for some reason or

another the NDP, who created for this province out of nothing an

emergency health care service program without peer in the

country.... We only had it for a little over a year and the

minister now says that it's our fault that they're in the shape they're

in now. Mr. Chairman, he can't be blamed entirely for the problem that

they have in emergency health services, but I'll suggest this: there

could have been some response in recent months to the dire need for an

increased staff. He could have gone to his colleague in BCBC and said:

"Look, we are operating out of rat-infested holes — this first-class

service." And I have been in many, if not most, of those places that I

described the way I did, It's an absolute shocker and I'm going to be

bringing pictures into this House of a significant number of our

headquarters for our emergency services program. It is an absolute

disgrace and an absolute shame that they have to work out of those

conditions When morale drowns — sinks — in an important life-saving

service like that, then health care is jeopardized and it should not

occur.

What other problems does the minister have? He has a

Cadillac program created by his predecessor and that Cadillac of

Cadillacs in this government — that high-priority program, the Heroin

Treatment Program that is like a blotter in the way it soaks up money —

somehow has to be dealt with now by this new minister. There are three

services in most major communities in this province. There's the

ordinary drug and alcohol service; those services rendered by

societies, which are partly and sometimes wholly funded by government,

and then look down the street at the biggest competitor for people and

you find the Heroin Treatment Program. Well, they can't find very many

heroin addicts, so they're out proselytizing alcoholics, barbiturate

addicts or any other person with any kind of a drug dependency they can

find. Why? Because they're getting most of the money and staff. It's an

absolute horror story in this province. That minister is going to have

to deal with that significant mistake perpetrated by his predecessor on

the advice of a number of well-known British Colombians.

suggest that the minister should deal significantly with this program

during these estimates. I believe that the minister should put her on

the line. We know that there's a case in terms of civil rights that has

gone to the Supreme Court of Canada. Let's not talk about that aspect

of it at all. Let's talk about the efficacy of the program, whether or

not it's ever worked in any jurisdiction, what we're going to do with

it here, and whether it is going to be the program that mires down the

whole treatment situation for people who are very, very ill in our

society and who are not getting treatment because there's money being

diverted for this useless program.

What other problems does

he have? I suggest that there's a breakdown in long-term care. That

breakdown creates the following problems, because of a lack of

long-term care facilities. I lay that squarely at the feet of this

government. They talk about all their creation of facilities and all of

their hospital buildings. I used to listen to the past minister tell us

that $500 million is going into the creation of care facilities. We

like to see physical evidence and the physical evidence is not with us.

Oh, yes, we've seen some major expenditures. We've seen the expenditure

of millions of dollars out at UBC to create a monument to the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). That,

Mr. Chairman, was one of the last construction jobs that this

government did quickly. On everything else they slow down. They

deliberately stopped the best system — fast-track construction — where

you are able to get a construction job done and beat inflation, as we

did with the Royal Columbian Hospital; as they did with Queens Park

Hospital, as they did with the renovations at Burnaby General Hospital.

Those were our jobs, and many others. They did that for the

extended-care facility at UBC as well.

But, Mr. Chairman,

that's the end of it. For instance, the new emergency facility that I

approved in 1975 on the King Edward grounds, adjacent to the Vancouver

General Hospital, was to be the major emergency centre in this

province. The minister said today it isn't going to be ready until

1981. Now if that isn't the most shocking situation I've ever seen!

Meanwhile they've built a hospital as a monument on the UBC campus, and

it's going to have an operating cost that's going to absolutely strike

people dead. I said $600 per day, and I've heard more recently that the

actual operating costs of that hospital are going to be $680 per

patient-day, for a

[ Page 3262 ]

minister's

ego. When the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

walked across the floor in this House and joined the Social Credit

Party, it cost the people in this province a bundle. And now he wants a

$4 billion tunnel from Vancouver Island to the mainland.

Every

day when I come to work, Mr. Chairman, I walk right by his ears.

Remember, we were talking something about his ears a few years ago. I

see his ears out on the lawn: those strange saucer receivers that will

put people in touch with the United States of America.

I'm off the estimates; excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have three minutes, as well, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: And I'm sure I'll have other times in this debate.

Just

to very quickly summarize, there is a breakdown in long-term care

because of a lack of facilities. Medicare negotiations have been

hampered and handicapped by the minister's attitude and by the tantrum

that he had. He does not have a government behind him, and that's the

major handicap. He's got single-issue people....

MR. BARRETT: He doesn't want the job.

MR. COCKE:

He told us that in the first place. He indicated by his every move that

he didn't want the job. Now he's got it. He wanted to be where the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is today,

back in Ottawa arguing the big fight.

Mr. Chairman, he's

also got single-issue people fighting for control of his hospital

boards. He's also got a federal government to contend with, which

obviously is going to have to take another look at cost-sharing in

light of the way this government has dealt with cost-sharing and the

way this government has been loading people down with the costs and

diverting into other areas $269 million this year that could have been

in health care. No wonder they have a billion dollar surplus, because

three or four years of that and it doesn't take long.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I know, as I go down my notes, that I'll miss one or two of the points

that the member for New Westminster raised, and I know with equal

certainty that he will raise them with me until he's satisfied, so

there will be nothing lost.

I wasn't going to rise to the

bait of the unwanted job aspect, but I think I ought to set the record

straight. The press blew it; they came to a bunch of stupid conclusions

and thought that I didn't want the job. The fact of the matter is that

I want it very much and am delighted to have it. If the members

opposite don't believe that, there's nothing I can do about it. I don't

really care, except I do think that since it's been put on the record

that I didn't want the job, according to the member for New

Westminster, I ought to make it perfectly clear that not only did I

want the job, but that within the limits that I had, I asked for it and

was delighted to get it. Some things happened the following day, such

as a personal loss in the family, that prevented me from going to

Government House and were misconstrued by the press as being some sort

of indication that I didn't want the job and was disgruntled. I think

that that explanation ought to satisfy my friends opposite.

was interested in the comments about the announcement of the dental

plan. Yes, there have been some false starts, and I think a plan of

that magnitude, regardless of the size on which it starts, is going to

be a major medical program in British Columbia for all time, I presume.

I don't think it's too surprising that it takes a while to be put

together and that there might be a few false starts. But there haven't

been anywhere near the false starts that the members opposite would

seem to think. Since I've been in government I think there have been

two, perhaps three, postponements. The last has not really been a

postponement; we're just getting ready to make the announcement. It

will be made on July 23. I've no way of knowing how long these

estimates will go. It may be that the estimates are still going on at

that time, in which case I can be questioned at that time.

think it's rather easy for my friend Allen Garr, who has no

responsibility in the matter, to announce these things over and over

again as it suits him. However, I've got to announce them when I'm

ready to have the program to announce, and when I'm able, quite

frankly, to make that information available to the media throughout the

province — the smaller centres, the weekly newspapers, and so on. That

takes a little more time than I, as an impatient man, thought was the

case.

Dealing with the question of the B.C. Medical

Association, I'm sure that the member for New Westminster did not take

my light-hearted remarks to the Leader of the Opposition to indicate

that I had solved for evermore all the problems between the government

of British Columbia and the BCMA with one dinner. I was

light-heartedly, I hoped, trying to get across to them that while I'd

had a bit of a brouhaha with the upper echelon of the BCMA in weeks

gone by, I had had a very friendly get-together with the president, the

incoming president and the executive director. While neither they nor I

would indicate that at that meeting everything was solved, I think

everybody agreed that a good basis had been laid for future

negotiations and that a good feeling of harmony existed.

don't know that I really want to get into too many more details on the

question of why I did not attend the dinner, although that was raised.

I've made that public on a number of different occasions. Unless the

members really want to press that matter — and I will be delighted to go

into it if they do — I will just leave it at this: I felt there are

some diplomatic niceties left in this world, and when you invite

somebody to dinner you don't grossly insult him and the people he

represents just prior to that dinner, unless you expect him to come and

either have a fight with you or, by not dealing with the question,

perhaps be taken to agree with it. I felt as a responsible Health

minister that the time for any confrontation, if it were to come — and

I don't think it will — was not sometime in April at a BCMA convention

but perhaps a year hence. However, as I say, that is always a matter of

judgment which people have to make, and my decision was not made on my

own; it was made in consultation not only with staff but with my

colleagues. As I say, we may have been wrong, but that is always a

judgment you have to make.

On the question of the raising of

user costs hospital charges and medical charges and so on, I don't know

really how the members opposite would cope with inflation were they —

god forbid — the government. We have to deal with it; whether we like

it or not, it is our problem. The only way we can think of dealing with

it is to recognize it is there and to take steps where we can, with the

federal government, to

[ Page 3263 ]

fight

it and prevent it from happening. To index these charges seemed to us

to be a very reasonable thing to do rather than to let the charges

subside into really meaningless figures and then bounce them back to

double or triple what they were. When you take the figure of $4 as a

charge for daily hospital care in 1976 and translate that into 1980

dollars, you come up with the figure of $5.50. Really all we have done

is to say that here is a 1980 equivalent of what at least some of us

felt was reasonable in 1976.

We tend to think sometimes that

the original dollar a day was a very nominal amount. I happened to have

been just out of high school and working my way through college at that

time in the early 1950s. I'll tell you that a dollar was an awful lot

of money. I can remember going on strike, I think it was in 1949 or

1950, and having a contract of $1.17 or $1.20 an hour being the result

of that strike, so it was a pretty substantial amount of money in those

days.

I think we should go into the question of St. Mary's

Hospital a little more carefully. It was not an easy decision to take,

and it didn't involve, as I'm sure the member for New Westminster

knows, just the question of that hospital alone. The Greater Vancouver

Regional Hospital District, in dealing with the entire health care

situation in that broad community of Coquitlam, New Westminster, Surrey

and all of that general area, had to deal with a number of very

difficult situations and some pretty tacky, if I may say, political

situations in the small "p" political sense. I am not talking about

party politics at all. There were expectations that had been raised in

various communities and there were demands made upon the government

which made it a very difficult decision indeed. I think the members

opposite from Coquitlam, recognizing the situation at Eagle Ridge and

recognizing that it had a very distinct tie-in with the Royal Columbian

Hospital situation, with the St. Mary's Hospital and with the Surrey

Memorial, know that the decision, whether they agree with it or not,

was not an easy one and whoever made any decision at all was bound to

be considered wrong by some. I think that we ought to know this, that

we haven't made a decision that St. Mary's Hospital must become

extended care at this time although that is the hope that we have in

the future. That is a decision that wasn't a decision of the Ministry

of Health and certainly not in isolation but was one that the Vancouver

Regional Health District, in looking at the overall delivery of health

care in that broad community, felt was the best — not the perfect way

to go.

are hoping that in the years to come — we are

talking a couple of years down the road — this will really be a pilot

project in the extended-care field. We are looking at many different

areas for extended care and many different aspects of it — activation

programs, pediatric, adolescent, adult, day-care, all of these various

things. There is no question about it that this is a very essential

program in this area. It is not an easy thing to bring in. I will be

the first one to admit it. St. Mary's Hospital has a very long and

distinguished record — I think it is 97 years — and they are a very

proud hospital and they have been a great credit to their community. I

am sure that no matter what their role in the future is, they will

continue to be a great credit to their community. It is certainly not a

decision that we have made in trying to avoid them. I had them all in

my office some months ago and I will be the first one to admit there

were some very disappointed people when we talked about the future, as

we saw it, in that community for their hospital. I don't think they

ought to have that disappointment and I hope you'll bear with me when I

tell you why.

In days gone by — I don't profess to be the

expert that my friend for New Westminster does — acute care was really

the only thing that one thought of when one thought of health care

because we still had the major communicable diseases. We had polio,

diphtheria and all of those things. That is how we thought about health

care — going to that kind of hospital as a sick person with a disease

and being cared for in that context. Now, because we've eliminated so

many of these diseases or brought them so much under control, there is

no question it is the care of the elderly that has become the major

thrust of any health-care program. I am sure the member for New

Westminster will agree with that. Instead of just being able to assess

our requirements on the basis of acute-care hospitals, we have to look

at a broad,100 percent spectrum care for people. That means that when

we make decisions involving areas such as Coquitlam, New Westminster

and Surrey we are bound to make some decisions which are going to make

some people very unhappy indeed. I feel badly that that is so but just

because a decision is a difficult one or one that one would prefer not

to make doesn't take away the responsibility for making it. That

doesn't take away the responsibility for living with it either and I am

prepared to do that.

The alcohol and drug program was

touched upon by the member for New Westminster and I'm sure he'll touch

upon it later on. I understand that others want to talk about it at

some length. I think I should just lay the basis by making two broad

statements. First of all, I am expecting a report by the end of July

from Dr. Bonham on this whole question. I too will leave aside the

issue of the Supreme Court of Canada appeal because that is something

none of us know how will turn out and I would expect that we are

probably looking two or three years down the road before we find out

what that is all about anyway, so we can jostle and joust on that if we

wish, but I don't think we are going to get very far because none of us

knows what is going to happen. I want a full report from Dr. Bonham — I

am going to have it, I understand, on

schedule by the end of July —

concerning our entire program towards people who have a chemical

dependency.

I am going to admit a personal prejudice and

bias I have. I don't know whether I will be able to implement this bias

or whether it will be warranted under the circumstances, but you might

as well know it now so we can talk about it if you wish. I think that

we are dealing with a multi-use problem and I think that is something

which is fairly recent in coming about. It has come about — not

entirely but to a large degree — because of the excellent police work

that's been done all over North America, indeed all over the world, in

dealing with hard drugs, particularly opium derivatives. And it means

quite frankly that because the user of hard drugs can't get the dose

or strength of dose that he wishes, he tends to turn to other chemicals

in order to at least in part make up that dependency. We find, as I

presume the member for New Westminster found when he was the minister,

that in some of our detox centres you have the same people coming in

under the influence of different chemicals on different days, and it's a

different situation. So I'm asking and have asked Dr. Bonham to look at

the problem from that point of view. I expect a report, and it's going

to be a matter of government policy, but I can only, at this point,

give you my own point of view.

Dealing with the long-term

care program, we knew, Mr. Chairman, from the very outset that it was

going to be a difficult three years at least ahead of us when we

brought that program in. We knew that the problems that we're now

[ Page 3264 ]

experiencing

were going to come to pass. We are doing what we can as quickly as we

can. I've told this House before, and I say again, we're working on the

basis of about 1,000 beds a year. We're putting great emphasis — as

did, of course, the previous government — on home care. We're into day

care and various things of this nature which, we think, are going to

help alleviate the problems that have developed which, as I say, we

knew were going to develop.

The alternative, I suppose, was

really to do nothing, because I don't think it's a rational alternative

to say that you could implement in a day or a month or even a year a

long-term care program that would be totally satisfactory without any

impact on the other things that the member opposite has raised, such as

elective surgery and so on.

The last note that I think I

have is on the UBC Hospital — oh, no, I have two more notes, I'm sorry.

Regarding the UBC Hospital, I really think and I sincerely hope that

the member opposite, having raised this alarming figure of $660 per

day, will give us some indication of what evidence he has as to this,

and what occupancy and what budget he's based it on, because my staff

instruct me that they feel — and they're only in something of a

guessing game, because we haven't got to the point of striking the

budget — that their best estimate is around $180 per day. So I think

the member opposite may be very alarmed at what he perceives to be the

situation, but he certainly, by repeating that in the chamber today,

has alarmed other people. I hope that he will give me the basis of the

information upon which he based that judgment.

The other

thing I wanted to talk about just very briefly before I take my seat in

a moment, Mr. Chairman, is again on the emergency health services. I

just point out, in answer to the remarks of the member for New

Westminster — and I know that he has got pictures; I'm told that he's

quite a Karsh with a camera around the various centres — the fact still

is that the budget was $13 million in 1975 in that particular area, and

it's $34 million this year. That's almost triple. Sure, there has been

inflation — no question about that — but the budget that they struck

under the circumstances of perhaps 2.2 or 2.3 million people was $13

million, and what we have struck this year, for perhaps 300,000 or

400,000 more people, is $34 million. So I think that that indicates

that we at least take the matter as seriously as they did at that time,

and I think there is fair evidence to indicate they were taking it much

more seriously, and perhaps it's because times are a little better.

terms of personnel — at the risk of being repetitive — we have hired over

200 ambulance crew members and dispatchers since 1975, and as I

indicated in my opening remarks, 61 ambulance attendants have graduated

as paramedics and a further 20 paramedics are in training. So at this

point, Mr. Chairman, I think I've dealt with most of the matters raised

at this early stage.

Oh, one other point I wanted to make,

the member for New Westminster in talking about indexing the user costs

took a rather gloomy view that we were going to be indexing these costs

to the highest available index. That's not so; it's going to be to the

Vancouver price index, and that's, I think, consistently been one of

the lowest, if not the lowest, in Canada over the last four or five

years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster.

MR. LAUK: How do you justify user pays? You can't justify it.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't recognize the member over there, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All hon. members will come to order, please. The Chair has recognized the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE:

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I was very interested to listen to the

minister answering some of the questions that I put to him. I would

suggest when the minister began his remarks he said something about how

he had been grossly insulted by the Medical Association. Well, I saw

that gross insult, and, Mr. Chairman, this minister with a relatively

short fuse has tended to insult many others around him a great deal

more than the Medical Association.

Mr. Chairman, what's happening? Are you having a nervous reaction to something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm finding that phrase verging on being unparliamentary.

MR. COCKE: Which?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The phrase referring to the Minister of Health, who is a member of this House — that "he was grossly insulting."

MR. COCKE:

I'm using his words, Mr. Chairman. I quoted the Minister of Health, who

said he was grossly insulted. I'm surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the

president of the Medical Association said something about a weak

government, and that they really weren't doing their job and so let's

get them this year. Well, I think that's just good politics on his part.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very perceptive.

MR. COCKE:

Yes. This government has shown no signs of strength in terms of their

reaction to health care. I would say they are very weak in health care.

Therefore I don't think the minister was grossly insulted. However, I

don't think he should have overreacted. He was invited to speak, not to

confront. Look at what he says in his first line to the doctors in this

province: "I am writing this personal letter to you because I would

like you to know my attitudes toward several important issues

confronting you as a physician, your profession as a whole, and the

government of British Columbia." Interesting choice of words, isn't

it? He uses "confronting" in the second line of his first letter to his

new constituents. The word he could have used was "facing." But no, he

used the word "confronting."

Ah, that minister has been

confronted, insulted, and all sorts of things. But I'll tell you, Mr.

Chairman, he'd better get a thicker skin if he's going to deal with the

health care people in this province. You know, Mr. Chairman, they take

their jobs seriously. They take the lives of people in this province

seriously. Therefore that minister better take them seriously.

Let me deal just for a moment or two with St. Mary's Hospital. The minister told us all about this long record, and

[ Page 3265 ]

is a long record — since the 1890s. We don't have the same hospital

there, but it is the same society, and it's been there since the 1890s.

It's been rebuilt, however, and it was rebuilt for acute care. Now I

would ask the minister to do me one small favour. I ask the minister,

before he goes on with his silly decision, to go and visit a few

extended-care hospitals. The minister made a speech about how important

it is we build our system now for the treatment of older people. The

first thing you find, Mr. Chairman, in an extended-care hospital is a

very large activity centre. That large activity centre on each floor

affords people an opportunity to visit despite the fact that they're

non-ambulatory. that they can't get around except in wheelchairs, etc.

It gives them an opportunity to collectively watch plays, do arts and

hobbies, if nothing else watch television, or listen to some children

sing: one of the few desirable things about that very alienating

experience for these people who have probably served this province and

this country well for many, many years.

Now, if we take a

facility that does not lend itself to that kind of activity — a

facility like St. Mary's, which has up-to-date operating rooms, small

functional rooms for acute care, where people are only going to be

there for three, four, five or six days — and we try to convert that

into an extended-care facility, we're crazy. The minister as much as

admitted that it was a political decision. Okay, it's not the big "p";

we'll call it the small "p". Nonetheless, it's politics. The technical

report of the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District

said: "Don't do it." The minister's own task force report

said: "Don't do it." St. Mary's Hospital board said: "Don't do it."

Why are we doing it? Politics! Now if that isn't the most stupid way to

handle a situation like this, I want to know what is. Mr. Chairman,

that hospital does not lend itself to that kind of program.

don't know what you would have to spend. Can I describe it to you for a

second? It is a cement structure, reinforced concrete, six storeys

high, good large corridors down which we can move people on their way

to and from operating rooms.

It's an acute hospital in every

sense of the word. It is a hospital where people in New Westminster and

its environs enjoy being there as best as one can enjoy being sick. It

is a hospital that has a first-class record in acute care and performs

one of the most important activities right now, and that is elective

surgery. They are not short of nurses; they have not closed down

floors; they are doing elective surgery; and they are doing it on a

daily basis. Believe me, if you go and talk to the doctors in New

Westminster and the surrounding area you'll find that St. Mary's is a

very important hospital in this province, and we're going to see it

phased out because the minister has a problem somewhere else.

Well,

I suggest to the minister that he restudy his bed matrix or whatever

else has created this situation or this problem for him and come up

with a better idea than phasing out that very important acute-care

hospital in this province.

The

minister has informed this

House that the university acute-care hospital is going to have a

$180-a-day per patient operating budget. He wonders where I got the

information. I'm not going to name people, but I'll tell you something,

Mr. Chairman. Some of the top people in health care in this

province.... I have it from university people, top-notch hospital

administrators and a number of very important people in this province

in terms of health care. If somehow or another you can operate a

hospital that lends itself to inefficiency in the first place....

No pot is big enough in terms of each speciality. It never should have

been there; it should have been in the hospital corridor. That's number

one. It has the highest technology of any hospital in this province in

terms of what they're getting. I predict that they'll have a CAT

scanner there before you can shake a stick. They will be beautifully

equipped. If they're going to charge three-quarters of the charge or

whatever to education and if education is going to pick up the tab,

that doesn't change the figures. This $180 a day is the most

preposterous suggestion that I have ever heard in my life and I would

hope that the minister will review that baby. It is so far off that

it's not even funny. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that it's the talk of

the town, the medical community and the health care community — the

costs of operating that hospital, which is commonly known as the "Pat

McGeer Memorial."

I can't understand from the minister's remarks in terms of his reply to indexing or the user pay situation that he has adopted.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member says he's against it when he pays, but he's for it when he collects. There's a lot of good sense in that one.

What

we see here is a situation where those who are ill.... That's the

reason you have such things as hospital insurance, Hospital Programs,

medicare, extended care and long-term care. You have those programs so

that people who are afflicted by illness or disease are assisted by the

rest of us. Let me put this on the record. I'm opposed to premiums for

medicare in any event. The sooner we can get rid of them and on to the

income tax sharing system, the better off we'll all be. You see, the

way all these costs hit us, it's the impoverished and the aged that

really pay. The older people on fixed incomes, whose incomes don't go

up with indexing or at the end of a negotiation and whose incomes creep

up are the ones most likely to find themselves in an acute-care

hospital, extended-care hospital or in an ambulance in this province.

Did you ever see the like of this?

What did he do to the

ambulance costs? Five years ago the ambulance cost was $5, under the

NDP. The Minister of Health said people were abusing it. I asked him

for one example of abuse. Not only did he not give me an example of

abuse, he never made the remark again as far as I know. However, he

raised the rates to $15. The present rates, the minister announces in

his press release, are $15 for the first 40 kilometres plus 15 cents

per kilometre thereafter, to a limit of $100. It's all changed now.

This will be changed to $19 for the first 40 kilometres plus 20 cents

per kilometre thereafter to a maximum of $125. Of course, on an air

ambulance that costs the government $1,500, they are only going to

charge the patient $125. They, don't seem to understand who they are

hitting, who they are affecting. We are not arguing for people such as

the minister or such as myself who can very easily afford these costs.

Tack it on our income tax, but don't hit us with a taxing-the-sick

program. That's what we're saying,

This indexing.... We

don't have to bother anymore and we'll index it to the lowest common

denominator; we will index to the Vancouver consumer price index. I

don't care what you attach it to. It is wrong. What this government

should be working toward is a program that is going to make it easier

for people to get treatment for illness.

The minister talks about preventive care. One of the best preventive care programs he's got is his ambulance service.

[ Page 3266 ]

Why

do I say that? For this reason: the quicker you attend people who are

ill, the less severe the illness will be in most cases. That's why you

have a paramedic program. You reduce the days of stay in the hospital,

you reduce the significance of the illness. It is a good preventive

program. The minister makes it less available to people who are very

concerned about that old-age pension cheque buying enough food for the

next month. They think twice before they call the ambulance. They might

think three times and they might think four times too often.

Priority

for health care is what we ask of this government, not priority for

coal pits, for tunnels from Vancouver Island to the mainland, for a

bridge over the Fraser — or the River Kwai — or for a junket that cost

the people of this province $70,000 for the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to go to Japan but

priorities where people live, where they should live, and to help them

live a fuller and better life. You are not going to show us that this

government has any priorities in that regard as long as these kinds of

moves are made by this government.

I am really shocked,

particularly with the fact that the minister can impose these charges

after the negotiations that went on in Ottawa for many, many years. I

remember those negotiations well, because I attended the first few

meetings. I attended the first meeting where the then Minister of

Health for Canada, Marc Lalonde, said to the provinces: "The federal

government would now like to tie its contributions to the increase in

the gross national product." Of course, everybody's hair stood on

end. Every health and finance minister across the country said no — and

rightfully so. We said no because they would no longer be a partner,

they would have a decreasing responsibility.

The

negotiations went on, and I was still minister when the federal

government said: "We agree with Ontario" — incidentally, Ontario was a

major tax base — "and other jurisdictions. We will go along with a

transferral of tax points." I was very proud to be with the then Premier

and Finance minister of this province, now the Leader of the

Opposition, who attended that meeting with me. He argued, as this

province argued really hard, and as a number of other jurisdictions

argued at that time: "What you will do with that is give rich

provinces an opportunity to salt and poor provinces a worse deal. Those

provinces with a poor tax base are going to suffer; those provinces

like this province here can salt." What happened? We went for it, in

1976-77. In 1977-78 total health care spending in this province was:

hospitals, $594 million, and medicare, $207 million. The federal

contribution, in terms of the old figures and comparing, was $318.7

million out of $594 million, which is 53.6 percent. Medicare was the

same: $111 million, 53.6 percent. What happened in 1978-79? There was

$631 million spent on hospitals, and $401 million came from the federal

government through these tax points, which is 63.5 percent for good old

B.C. with our rich tax base. For medicare: $140 million out of $221

million, 63.3 percent. It goes on. Anybody who wants to look at these

figures will tell you that we were in a position where we were enriched

by these tax moneys that came our way. They created major surpluses in

this province, but they've been diverted from health care into

surpluses and into Annacis Island bridges and whatever else you want.

Incidentally, that is where some of this money was spent by this

Legislature this session.

In the facet of that, this

minister comes out with an announcement of a major increase in charges

to patients and in charges to people for medicare. I think he has

something to answer for, and I think that government has something to

answer for to all the people in this province, with respect to what

they have done to health care as a result of this irresponsibility.

HON. MR. MAIR:

First of all, I would like to deal with one aspect of the member for

New Westminster's remarks, and I hope we can achieve some understanding

on this. We may have a different choice of words, Mr. Member, and I

don't for one minute say that my choice is any better than yours. You

may use the word "face" where I use the word "confront." You may not

like the use of the word "politics," other than in the sense of

politics as you see it in this chamber. I have a rather more global

definition of politics in my own lexicon, and I suppose that doesn't

make me right or you wrong but I think we ought to understand that we

may have a bit of a language difficulty because of that. I want you to

know that when I used the word "confront" to the doctors I did not

mean it in the sense of a confrontation of a disagreeable sort but just

exactly as you say, as a synonym for the word "face." If you wish to

substitute the word "face" for that, it certainly wouldn't take away

from the meaning of the sentence. On the other hand, I don't think that

"confronting" takes away from the meaning of it either.

was very careful to explain that I meant the word "politics" in a

strictly non-partisan way, certainly not in the political sense that we

use it in this chamber or when we are seeking our jobs, but in the

sense of the desires and expectations of people that had been raised

and were continuing to be raised and, as a matter of fact, ebbed and

flowed depending on the circumstances. I was rather interested to note

that during the time I had to make this very difficult decision — the

member for New Westminster knew I was doing it, of course, as did the

two members for Coquitlam (Messrs. Leggatt and Levi) — there were no

questions in question period. That is because, of course, the interests

of the various constituencies were different. I don't say that

critically. I understand the difficulty the members opposite found

themselves in. Quite obviously, what might be specifically good for the

constituency of New Westminster might not be specifically good for the

constituency of Coquitlam–Moody and, once again, might not be

specifically good for the constituency of Surrey or the other

Coquitlam. That is as it is. I had to deal with all those

constituencies put together and try to find out what was for the

greatest good for the entire area, not just the component parts. I can

understand how the member for New Westminster would he reluctant to

question me in question period at the time I had to make the decision,

because his position would be different from those of his colleagues.

Now, of course, it is somewhat easier — the decision having been made

and being, I presume, virtually irreversible — to question the decision

and how it was reached.

MR. COCKE: The mayor of New Westminster told me it wasn't going to happen — that was my authority.

HON. MR. MAIR: I suppose we will hear from them in due course, Mr. Member.

MR. COCKE: From you, indirectly.

HON. MR. MAIR: You can raise it. I am sorry that I misunderstood your question.

[ Page 3267 ]

the question of elective surgery at St. Mary's, the member makes a good

point, but the fact of the matter is that elective surgery is going to

continue for at least another three or four years until the Eagle Ridge

Hospital is built, by which time the long-term care program impact upon

the elective care situation will have considerably abated if not

entirely disappeared.

I have a note here somewhere on UBC.

I'm piling up so many papers here that a brush fire would be a distinct

advantage. No, I don't have it here. In any event, the figure of $180

million that I gave to the hon. member was the figure agreed upon

between UBC and the ministry in June 1978. It is agreed upon in the

sense that at that time — 1978 — the recommended budget per patient day

was $125.62. If you make those into 1980 dollars, it comes to roughly

$180. VGH, by comparison, is $253. That's quite apart from the question

of the education share of that budget. That hasn't been considered.

That would be over and above that.

The member talked about

the question of premiums and user charges. I noted that the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said across the floor, ''How can

you justify them?" and so on. I guess that times come very often in

this House where we have a very basic difference in philosophy. I

suppose we can stand here for as long as we wish and holler at each

other, "You're wrong and I'm right," and so on and so forth. You're

not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.

I'm

going to tell you that in my view, where you have a system such as we

have, where those people who cannot afford the premiums have those

premiums paid for them in whole or in part, where those people who

cannot afford the hospital charges have them borne for them, that is a

better system than having it all come out of general revenue, where

those who can very well afford what is really less than it costs to

feed them will get in essence not a free ride but a substantially

reduced ride. It means that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

and I, under his system, when we go to hospital and pay absolutely

nothing except through our tax revenue, are getting a better deal by

far than that to which we are entitled. The people who are getting it

for nothing and who can't afford it are getting no better deal, because

it wasn't going to cost them anything out of their pockets in any event

under the system that we're now under.

In any event, this is

a basic difference in philosophy between the two sides of this House. I

have had this difference with my friend the member for

Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) — the former Minister of Human

Resources in the NDP government — and others. We simply had to finally

say: "Look, we don't agree. That's all there is to it. You think this

way, I think that way, and there we are." However, it is for you to

say how long we have the philosophical debate. I will, of course, be

required and happy to be here as long as it continues.

I'd

like to talk for a second about the decision on St. Mary's though,

because I don't think the member for New Westminster meant to mislead;

perhaps it was my mishearing of what he said. While it is true that the

hospital subcommittee of the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital

District questioned the decision to go into an extended-care hospital,

the board itself approved the recommendation. There is a distinction.

MR. COCKE: We know that.

HON. MR. MAIR: Be that as it may, we know why the board and the regional district were set up.

MR. COCKE: Why was it an in-camera meeting?

HON. MR. MAIR:

In camera, out of camera; there are all sorts of meetings. Your caucus

meetings are in camera. That doesn't make them any less valid. This is

the decision that was made. I'm not going to pretend that others

wouldn't have made different decisions. It was a hard decision to make,

but I am prepared to stand by it.

I might say, Mr. Chairman

— through you to the members opposite — that health-care planners who

are advising the ministry have looked at the plans that we have

ultimately, hopefully, for St. Mary's. I am assured that with extensive

renovations this facility can accommodate the extended care that I have

been suggesting. I stated to the members of the board, when they were

in to see me a couple of months ago, that we are not suggesting a

traditional extended-care program, but rather a pilot project, a new

project, something they can be pioneers in.

We know that

there are needs such as an activities lounge, as the member opposite

indicates — no question about it. Lounge space, activities centres and

all of these sorts of things are going to have to be provided. We know

that, but we think that in view of the fact that the hospital already

has occupational therapy and physiotherapy, we can provide a rather

unique service with a little bit of imagination, ingenuity and, of

course, motivation in order to convert that to a pioneer extended-care

program.

I've got to say this too. While I know that it may

appear to be a fait accompli, there are three or four years to go.

Nobody is insisting that any hospital do anything. We are just

suggesting that this is the course of action to take. I'm hoping that

when the board sees the Eagle Ridge Hospital going into the area where

the acute-care demands are going to be the greatest and when the whole

matter sort of falls into place, they will feel that the suggestions

that have been made to them are valid ones.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate since it started

this afternoon. There is one thing that is coming through loud and

clear to me and that is that it has a very unpleasant, familiar ring to

it. For those of us who were first elected to this Legislature in the

sixties and were here prior to the defeat of the Social Credit

government in 1972, it takes us right back to the very same debates

that took place before this Social Credit government was defeated on

the people issues.

Here again we have this new so-called

Social Credit coalition government painting themselves right into the

same corner again by choice, because apparently when it comes to

priorities this new coalition government is no different than the old

pre- 1972 government. when it comes to their responsibility to health

services in this province. Pre-1972, the two big issues in this

province that the old government faced were education and health. Both

those areas had deteriorated to such an extent that the people of the

province said: "We've had enough." Mr. Chairman, I believe that the

attitude of the government in those vital areas had much to do with

their defeat in 1972. Now, once again, we find that this government is

becoming quite arrogant. They are — I won't say being deceptive,

because that would be unparliamentary —

[ Page

3268 ]

not levelling with the people of the province when it comes to the financing of health care in this province.

our health critic has pointed out earlier today, what was predicted in

1977, when there was a change in the whole matter of federal aid to

health costs, has come true. Provinces like British Columbia have taken

advantage of the new cost-sharing and are not putting in their share. I

have yet to hear the Minister of Health repudiate that statement, which

has been made by our health critic. The federal government shares

50-50, but is the province sharing on the 50 percent? All the figures

that we have in front of us show once again that the Social Credit

government has taken advantage of this change and they've taken

advantage of the people of British Columbia when it comes to their

health care.

know that the health budget is exceptionally

large and I know if you read the figures, most people would say: —

"What a tremendous amount of money is being spent on health." But

then we always have to look at priorities. If we look at what this

government has committed themselves to in other areas — millions of

dollars for stadiums, convention centres, monuments to ministers' and

members' egos, bridges and hospitals that are not serving.... The

hospital that we're referring to — McGeer's Hospital, as we call it —

is not really benefiting the majority of the people of this province

who desperately need more health facilities.

I think it's up

to the Minister of Health to level with us here in the House today and

let us know if he is really ensuring, as Minister of Health, that his

ministry is maintaining the agreement which they made with the federal

government regarding 50 percent sharing. I don't think the minister has

commented on that aspect whatsoever. If he's not going to comment on

it, it simply means that out there the people of this province will say

once again that this Social Credit government does not put health care

first. You know, even from that point of view — and we'll listen with

considerable interest to the minister's explanation of that....

That minister said this afternoon in this House that we could

philosophically debate the whole matter of user pay and premiums for

hours. As we have said many times, the NDP is opposed to premiums. The

minister says the Social Credit government believes in them.

The

main reason we're opposed to premiums is that when this whole medicare

scheme first came in it was based on universality. It was to be

universal. Unfortunately, the Social Credit government has chipped away

at this basic principle, because as the years go by and they continue

to increase the premiums, they are making it increasingly difficult for

many people of this province to face up to health costs. The point is

that it is not equitable that people who have the money, such as the

Minister of Health and the members of this Legislature, as the former

speaker said, who are able to contribute and pay the premiums, are not

going to suffer. When the minister says, "Ah, but we can take care

of them," it's a very, very patronizing attitude. That was the reason

that medicare was fought for so hard by so many people, because we

wanted to get away from the old days of charity, where people who could

not pay for their health costs were known to be put in charity wards

and were known to be taken care of by the state. We had that wiped out.

We were known in Canada as being in the forefront in this whole area of

health care. It is indeed a tragedy to see governments, such as the

Social Credit government of British Columbia, bringing our whole scheme

to discredit. It is something that many of us had been very proud to

talk about when we visited other countries, and I resent very much that

this government is eroding the principle of medicare. When the minister

says, "Well, you know, they can be taken care of," you can't help

thinking of particularly the ambulance area, where the cost of

ambulances has been increased dramatically since the Social Credit came

in. Are we going to go back to the bad old days, where before some old

person is put in an ambulance they are going to be asked: "Have you got

the money?" I remember being told this before the NDP became

government, and it was one of the most gratifying things when my

colleague, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), became Minister

of Health and was able to make the ambulance fees at a level where no

one was going to be afraid to call an ambulance because of the cost.

remember people coming into my constituency office pre-1972 and saying

that as they were being wheeled to the hospital in the ambulance they

were being asked whether they had the money, even before they were

allowed to go to the hospital. I don't know how the Minister of Health,

who, I think, on the whole — despite the fact that we have our

philosophical differences — is not a mean person.... I'm quite sure

that he wouldn't want to be responsible for that sort of thing

happening to some of the citizens of this province. I don't know if the

Minister of Health really believes in this; is it that he has problems

with the Treasury Board and the Premier? Really, it doesn't seem to

completely fit in with some of the former statements of compassion that

that minister has made to do with other subjects.

Medical

premiums in the province of British Columbia have risen 65 percent

since the Social Credit took office in 1975. That's really some record,

isn't it? There has been an increase of 65 percent in the last five

years, and yet who in the last five years — what working person in this

province — can say that they have had a steady 13 percent increase in

his or her salary, which is what it works out would be necessary if

you're going to match the increase which this government has put on

people in this province for medicare? It doesn't wash for the minister

to say: "We have to do this, and we feel okay about it because

everyone's wages have gone up." They have not gone up, comparatively

speaking, in the same ratio as the health costs which have been imposed

on them by the Social Credit government.

We consider these

hospital taxes regressive, and the NDP has never believed in endorsing

regressive taxes. As our member, the former Minister of Health, said

just a few moments ago, we would rather see it taken from income tax,

which may have a lot of problems but at least it's far mor