1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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, MARCH 29, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4113 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Mr. Blencoe –– 4113

Tabling Documents –– 4113

Oral Questions

Funding of community groups. Mr. D'Arcy–– 4113

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Ms. Sanford –– 4113

Accommodation in Terraceview Lodge. Mr. Howard –– 4114

Public schools financing. Mr. Rose –– 4114

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 4115

Mr. Lauk

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M201). Second reading.

Mr. Howard –– 4118

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4120

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M202). Second reading.

Mr. Ree –– 4120

Mr. Lockstead –– 4120

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4121

Mr. Ree –– 4121

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

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4121

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Segarty

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. KEMPF: In your gallery is Mr. Gordon McFee, chairman of

the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, and I would like the House to

make him very welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like the House to welcome some

guests of mine. Two of my sisters are visiting Victoria today, Mrs.

Helen Getz from Kelowna and Mrs. Frances Walz from Medicine Hat, who

decided while in Victoria to check up on their little brother to see if

he was behaving himself. With them is Mrs. Walz's daughter, Mrs. Alvina

Morton from Nanaimo, and her daughter Ladean. With them also is a

friend, Frances Stewart from Nanaimo. I'd like the House to make them

very welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: I wish to welcome students from Templeton Secondary School in Vancouver East with their teachers, Mr. Tysoe and Miss Ferguson.

Presenting Petitions

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to present a petition today, a

6,600-page petition signed by 6,600 fine residents of Victoria. It was

conducted under the auspices of the Alliance to Defend Education. The

general gist of the petition asks the Premier, directly, to consider no

further cuts in secondary education and requests reinstatement of the

student grant program. It was done last Friday, when in three hours

they collected 6,600 signatures.

The petition reads as follows:

"Dear Premier Bennett:

"I would like to express my opposition to the

continued cuts in higher education. In particular the University of

Victoria provides a much-needed opportunity for education for British

Columbians as well as cultural, social and economic benefits to the

Victoria community.

"I would also like to oppose the removal of all

student grants. These grants are carefully managed to be disbursed to

only the most needy students. The removal of student grants will

therefore exclude students who are capable of higher education but too

poor to afford it."

I have signed one of the portions of the petition, and I have the rest behind me.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the British Columbia Cellulose Company annual report for 1983.

Oral Questions

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, my first question is a general one. Can the House Leader tell me who is the acting Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, although the question is out of order,

I can answer the member; it is public knowledge. The acting Minister of Finance

is the Hon. D. M. Phillips, whose name I can't say in this building, so

I'll have to say the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

FUNDING OF COMMUNITY GROUPS

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the government

House Leader for taking time to dig in his desk for public knowledge

and for relating that to the House.

To the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development in his

capacity as acting Minister of Finance: throughout British Columbia

hundreds if not thousands of community organizations seek local funds

for demonstrably worthy causes on a regional or a provincial basis, and

the government from time to time assists various organizations. We

support that policy. My question to the acting minister is: what

criteria do the minister and government use in determining which

charitable causes and organizations are worthy of receiving public

funds from government?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member

for asking that question. On behalf of the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis), I'll take it on notice.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, when he is relaying the question on

notice and discussing it with the official Minister of Finance, could

he also determine what criteria the minister uses to determine the

amount of treasury largess that will be disbursed to those causes

deemed worthy of public assistance?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll be happy to. Do you mean whether precedent or ongoing...? What criteria do you wish to have? There are several.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly there are two

questions to be answered here: first of all, how an organization or a

cause is selected, having been deemed worthy, and secondly, how much

they are to receive — whether it's $5 or $50,000 or anything in

between. So we need the criteria on both counts.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that

question. We'll certainly see that the answer is forthcoming from the

real Minister of Finance.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a sheet of paper that tells

me who is the alternate minister for the various ministries, but it

doesn't tell me who is the alternate in charge of bus transportation.

Since the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is not here,

I shall direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). I assume he will be able to redirect it if

in fact it shouldn't be directed to him.

With only two days remaining before Pacific Coach Lines transfers

its services to the private sector, bus travelers still have no idea

what type of service will be available to them on Vancouver Island

after April 1. The depot in Alberni is relocating because of the high

rent charged by BCBC, and the station in Courtenay may be forced to

move as well. This government is responsible for the operation of PCL

for another two days, and I'm wondering what immediate steps the

Minister of Transportation and Highways is prepared to adopt in order

to clarify the situation and prevent chaos in the bus system on April 1.

[ Page 4114 ]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, if that member had been in the Legislature.... I made a complete report about that subject yesterday or the day before.

MS. SANFORD: I was here and I heard the minister's report,

but it doesn't answer the question that I'm posing to him now. The

question relates to the avoiding of confusion and chaos. People out

there have no answers to the questions they have been asking about the

service on Vancouver Island. Would the minister please take steps to

clarify that situation?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not so sure that.... If you

have any specifics I'd appreciate having them, but the companies that

are taking over are responsible for looking after these things. I don't

anticipate any chaos at all like you're referring to.

MS. SANFORD: They don't know anything about schedules. The

only thing they know is that there's been a 9 percent increase in the

rates that the operation on Vancouver Island will be able to charge.

But in terms of the location of some of these depots, what kind of

service will be provided? They have no answers at this stage, and I

think the minister should clarify that, particularly in view of the

fact that the people who are operating the depots right now are put in

a very difficult position trying to answer questions from the public

about a service that this government is still responsible for, at least

for another two days.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether or not the government has

been paid in full for the sale of the buses that were formerly under

the jurisdiction of Pacific Coach Lines.

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the reason I answered the

original question regarding the replacement service is that I have

responsibility for the buses. But I'll take the member's question as to

whether the government has been paid or not as notice, as that is not

in my jurisdiction.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, since the sale of PCL was announced

by the government, but before the transfer of the company had actually

taken place, the buses have been repainted. Who paid for the repainting

and refitting of the buses?

HON. A. FRASER: I'll take that question in the same light as

the last one, if you are referring to who paid for what with Pacific

Coach Lines, because some of those buses have been sold. I don't know

who paid for the repairs.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate when ministers

aren't here for us to be able to pose these questions to them, because

we are not able to get any answers with respect to issues which are of

utmost importance to the people of Vancouver Island at this stage.

There are only two days left.

Would the minister, when he speaks to the minister responsible for

Pacific Coach Lines, undertake to find out from her whether or not she

is now prepared to table the contracts between PCL and the three buyers?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I will bring it to the minister's attention.

ACCOMMODATION IN TERRACEVIEW LODGE

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of

Health a question based on the fact that there are some 15 to 20 older

citizens, either in Terrace itself or in Skeenaview Lodge, which is in

Terrace, who cannot be accommodated in the intermediate-care facility

which is presently being constructed by the Terraceview Lodge Society.

There is great uncertainty and concern in the minds of those older

people as to what is going to happen to them. I wonder if the minister

will undertake to proceed very quickly to Terrace himself and meet with

the Terraceview Lodge Society and others to work out a solution which

will satisfy the concerns that those older people have.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the specifics have been

brought to my attention by staff. I believe one meeting has been held

in Terrace with staff some time ago and another is scheduled — I don't

know the precise date. I don't know whether I'll be able to accompany

staff on that meeting, but the matter is certainly not being ignored. I

believe there have been arrangements made for a specific meeting with

senior staff in that area to see if it can be resolved.

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as two of the senior staff to which the

minister has just referred have been to Terrace before and have

discussed this particular problem with the Terraceview Lodge Society,

have admitted that they are unable to make a decision and don't have

the authority to do it, will the minister undertake to go himself? He

appears to be the only one with the authority to make that decision

with respect to these 15 to 20 older citizens and the concerns that

they have. I'm asking the minister if he will go as quickly as is

possible and meet with the Terraceview Lodge Society in order that the

fears of those older people may be allayed and some comfort given to

them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, if after review the staff

feels that it would be necessary for me to attend such a meeting,

certainly I would give that consideration. I was hoping that the staff

would be able to resolve the problem with representatives of that

society. But should they advise me that it's impossible to do so, yes,

I would consider taking the trip.

MR. HOWARD: A further supplemental. Will the minister advise

if the members of his staff who are going to Terrace have the absolute

authority to make a decision? They haven't had that authority up until

now. They always come back and say: "We've got to go back to Victoria."

It gets a little wearisome. It's becoming crucial. Will the minister

give them the specific authority to make a decision on the spot?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Probably not.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS FINANCING

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Education. Last July the minister announced a three-year

financing package for the public school system. It involved

approximately a 2 percent reduction in school budgets, on average, per

year. I would like to know whether the minister has decided to

introduce an inflation factor in the formula to compensate for the

losses of purchasing power.

[ Page 4115 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Not at this time.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I believe the

minister is aware that a 2 percent cut, which adds up to 6 percent in

three years.... Adding to that a 19 percent inflation factor at 6

percent per year means devastation to the school system. I would like

to know whether the minister is aware that school districts could lose

up to 25 percent of their budgets in real dollars over three years, and

if he's aware of the devastation this financial loss will cause to

local school boards.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The arguments which are being advanced now

by the member are the same as those advanced during my estimates. In

response to the question, I wish to advise that we are examining each

budget in each district, and I really can't say very much more than

that. But it's interesting to note that with the permission to allow

school districts to carry forward the surplus from 1983 to 1984 there

is a considerable sum of money found within the districts which was not

required in 1983 and will be used in 1984. It seems to me that

districts are managing prudently and will take full advantage of those

sums.

MR. ROSE: It sounds to me as if the minister is accusing the

districts of being loaded with money. Is the minister not aware that

they can't deficit-finance and therefore they can't come right up to

the final dollar of their budgets? Naturally there are going to be some

surpluses in some districts, but they're far from rolling in dough or

else they wouldn't be required to cut staff the way they have.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can refer to the school district in the

member's own riding, which carried forward a surplus of $1.1 million.

To be very candid, I think that that school district managed very well,

and they're to be congratulated, not condemned. I'm encouraging good

management. What has happened this time around is that many people have

been relying upon school board budgets being traditionally based on

historical claims and historical requests for more funding. It seems to

me we've just turned it around and asked them to justify the funding,

and it's been an exercise which many of them have had some difficulty

with. I would say that that applies to everybody on both sides of the

House, and for the most part they've done a very commendable job.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction and an announcement?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today

that I rise to acknowledge and pay tribute to the Deputy Clerk of this

Legislative Assembly, Mr. George MacMinn, who has served 25 years in

this capacity. He looks older than that, actually, but.... Twenty-five

years in this place, which has to entitle someone, I think, to some

kind of a merit medal in itself, but George MacMinn has done so with

unfailing courtesy, patience, common sense and energy. In addition to

his work in this House, he is an acknowledged Commonwealth expert on

parliamentary practice and has written a book on parliamentary practice

in British Columbia. I can remember his services when I chaired a

committee on a matter of privilege involving a wiretap, a very arduous,

interesting committee, and Mr. MacMinn gave us superb advice. He has

also served as a commissioner appointed under the provisions of the

Legislative Procedure Review Act, and he has been a member of the bar

since 1954. I am not reading his obituary; I am announcing in the House

today that I have this day advised the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council

to appoint Mr. MacMinn as a member of the Queen's Counsel and to confer

on him the Honour of Queen's Counsel.

MR. LAUK: I would like to say that George MacMinn is one of

the finest experts in parliamentary practice in the history of the

Commonwealth — but I can't. Second to myself, Mr. Speaker, Mr. MacMinn

is that kind of expert. I certainly appreciate that his elevation as

Queen's Counsel — greatly overdue — has finally come about to recognize

not only a fine servant of the House but an expert and highly regarded

member of the bar of Victoria and, indeed, British Columbia. The NDP

congratulates and supports the move of the government.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I call Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the advice was

given earlier by the government House Leader that this afternoon we

would be proceeding to public bills in the hands of private members as

the first item of business.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The advice we have is that it will happen shortly.

MR. HOWARD: It will come to pass.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY

AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 41: minister's office, $150,674.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon.

member representing that great constituency of Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

is not in the House. I do hope that some of his colleagues will pass

the message on to him about what I'm going to say, because before lunch

he made an ill-informed speech about high-technology industries and

assembly plants and a tax-free area. I was, to say the very least, very

disappointed in his attitude. On reflection during the break, I was

trying to determine where those thoughts emanating from the would-be

leader of the NDP came from. I thought about it and I thought about it,

and I remembered a conversation that I had some two years ago with a

labour union leader, who said that all of these high-technology

industries were sweat shops and ripoffs. I have to tell you that that

is not the case.

[2:30]

The reason the labour union leaders take that position is due to the

fact that there isn't much room in a high-technology, fast-moving

industry for labour unions that are set in their ways. The

high-technology industries move very

[ Page 4116 ]

s wiftly. In other

words, the electronics industry is moving so swiftly and with so many

innovations that they may change overnight. You haven't got time to sit

down and have a three week discussion as to how you're going to change

your assembly line, or to ask permission from a council of labour union

leaders in order to bring in a new machine or change the way it's being

done. That is the reason. I hate to see those same leaders take the

attitude that just because they're not going to be present, there are

no jobs for other people. I have visited some high-technology

industries and I want to tell you that the old idea of 1,000 persons

sitting down and soldering little wires together day in and day out is

gone. Those are the old high-technology industries. Today those

operations are done by highly sophisticated machinery.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, as a matter of fact, a lot of them

are done by robots. A lot of the sensitivity and testing is done by

computer. So the high-technology sweatshop industry that the member

opposite was referring to is not there any longer. The electronics

industry is moving so swiftly it has had to upstage.... Demand for the

products is growing by leaps and bounds every day. I do hope that the

members opposite will relay that information to the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea).

I had the opportunity some four weeks ago to visit a plant on the

Malaysian island of Pinang. National Semiconductor employ about 15,000

people in this plant, all in highly sophisticated jobs. That is

expanding. Some of the machinery used there is made there. Some of the

surrounding industries in Pinang are privately owned. You wouldn't call

them high technology industries but they're fabricating industries —

fabricating bits and pieces for the plants. They also assemble

computers which they use in their own industry. It may be difficult for

a layman like me to properly describe how the highly sophisticated

electronics industry operates and give you the full vision of what I

was able to perceive in a three hour tour of this plant — with

explanations, some of which I didn't really understand. But I do want

to tell you that the industry is moving swiftly and it is highly

sophisticated. Expensive machinery is being developed and used in the

plant. There's very little inventory because it's moving via air to the

markets of the world.

Japan is not looking for tax-free zones to move their so-called

sweatshop industries to. Not at all. As a matter of fact, of some

$9.653 billion of foreign investment in manufacturing in Singapore at

the end of 1982, $3.282 billion was from the United States of America,

$3.781 billion from the European community, only $1.584 billion from

Japan, and $1.006 billion from other countries. If we were to establish

these taxfree zones here in British Columbia we could bring some of

that European technology into British Columbia, and in joint ventures

with other Canadian companies it could be used as a stepping-stone into

that great and growing China market. As all members of this House know,

Canadian business and Canadian people are very well accepted in China.

That market is growing at a tremendous rate. The easiest way to explain

it to you is that it's like having a country with ten million people

come into your marketplace every year. While those ten million are

coming into the marketplace, another ten million are being born. So

it's a large and growing market.

We have the opportunity right here in Canada, and right here in

British Columbia, to link up with other technological companies

throughout the world in joint ventures with Canadians. Assembled goods

and services can then be exported to China. That's why it is so vitally

important that we get on with the job. British Columbia is the place.

British Columbia is logistically situated to serve this market. Over

and above that, we have a climate here which is good for investment. So

we're sitting on the verge of a tremendous opportunity. All we need, as

I said this morning, is a little cooperation from Ottawa, a little

common sense to emanate out of Ottawa — that is not too much to ask, I

hope — and we can carry the rest of Canada into those dynamic decades

ahead, just oozing opportunity. That's all we want.

One would think there were going to be nothing but high technology

industries established. Let me give you a small outline of some of the

opportunities in other industries. For instance, aerospace industry

opportunities are here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, maybe Trident. We try once in a

while. You started it; we had to finish it. Sorry. I tried to keep your

project together, and I was unsuccessful.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I didn't shut it down, my friend; it

was doomed from the day.... If you'd had any brains, you wouldn't have

got into it in the first place. But we tried to keep it going. I'm not

condemning the ex-minister of industry for that, my friends — not at

all. I never would have brought it up.

What about medical equipment? Has that anything to do with sweatshops and assembly lines? No.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: My friend, you will have your opportunity

in just a moment, but I can answer that question. Electronic products,

industrial electronics, electronic components, chemicals and

petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, industrial machinery, automotive

equipment and industrial robots, oil rig construction.... Believe it or

not, the financial community could come here and become established

without the controls that Ottawa imposes on them. We could have a truly

world financial centre in Vancouver, with just a little cooperation

from Ottawa.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, they laugh. But there is a world of opportunity waiting at our doorstep — automotive components, communications equipment.... All we need is some common sense and a little assistance from the Ottawa government.

He mentioned that there was no safety in the workplace in some of

these sweatshop assembly lines established in taxfree zones. The man is

entirely.... I don't know where he's been looking — if he's ever looked

at all. I don't know whom he's been listening to. I have been through

high technology industries. They want to do good by the country in the

area they establish. Those high-technology industries want the people

who work there to be satisfied. It's not a ripoff, as the NDP would

have you believe. Everybody's happy. Everybody's fine. People are well

paid.

[ Page 4117 ]

I want to tell you something else: wages are not the main criterion

today. At one time in the history of mankind it might have been, but

not today. Do you know what the main criterion is, Mr. Chairman?

Trainability and attitude. That's what is important. It's not wages any

longer but trainability. He talks about education. Where does the

greatest training come from in the electronic industry? On the job.

Listening to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), you would think we

didn't have any education facilities here in this province at all. BCIT

is turning out technicians in the high-technology industries every day.

Where are they going? They're working with our high-technology

industries. Hundreds of them have established in British Columbia in

the last eight years under this government, with this little ministry's

help through ASEP and other programs. It's happening out there. He

talks about education. Why, we just passed a bill in this little

Legislature: $16 million for an engineering centre out at the

University of Victoria. And he says we're not doing anything for

education. He has been on the campaign trail too long; he doesn't know

what's going on. What have we got out at the University of British

Columbia? Some of the greatest scientists in the atomic energy factory

out there that you'll find anywhere in the world. What have we done

with interferon? What did this little government do?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: "Nothing." That's your attitude, isn't it?

You don't know that's going on, do you? You just watch the papers in

the months ahead, and you will find out that this little government has

created a breakthrough in the medical history of mankind. It was put

together through BCDC and Discovery Parks and through this little

minister of science and technology. Stand by and be educated, my

friend; don't sit over there and be dumb. Stand by and you will learn.

What about that research and development centre up there on Burnaby

Mountain next to the University of Simon Fraser? I can remember when

B.C. Tel bought out that industry. The little member from Vancouver

Centre said it was a sham that they'd pull it up and move it out of the

province. There we have today, tomorrow, sometime this week or next

week B.C. Tel signing a contract in Japan to sell them electronic

components because Microtel up there in that little mountain put

together by this little government.... They tell us we haven't done

anything for education. I'll tell you something, my friends, you have

to have the industries go hand-in-hand with the education.

What we want is to establish the industries here, and that's why we want these trade-free zones.

MR. LAUK: Trade-free zones?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, tax-free zones. Well, yes, they should be trade-free, because you know what happened....

Do you understand how they work? They're free for trade. You know what

I mean. I just get so enthusiastic about this, because I can see the

opportunities, that I may mix my metaphors once in a while. I do

sometimes get frustrated because politics gets involved with common

sense, and I love to talk common sense, not politics.

I do hope you will take those little words of wisdom back to the

member for Prince Rupert, and I'm very disappointed he isn't here.

I think that I have covered all of the points that the member for

Prince Rupert brought up this morning, and now I'll sit down in

anticipation of more great, intelligent debate on the great economy of

this great province of British Columbia.

[2:45]

MR. LAUK: All over the world there are Third World countries

who are trying to attract industries into tax-free zones in areas where

there's a vast reservoir of inexpensive labour; where the economies are

struggling; where they do not yet have the resources, capital and the

education to develop the research and development to create the

indigenous type of industrial activity that Canada clearly can, is and

should be doing more of. It is an abject confession on the part of the

government of British Columbia to admit through this minister that

their spearhead — their flagship — of economic development is to

attract tax-free zones for so-called high tech.

Let's deal with high tech first of all. Everybody is describing

everything as high tech, from ballpoint pens to the pulley and the

wheel. What does high tech mean? It's a buzzword. It's a piece of

theatre. And that's what this minister is giving us here this

afternoon. The committee has heard nothing but the Music Man — a

trombone for all the brothers in the families of River City. He's

talking about pie in the sky. High tech is really ten feet off the

ground. That's what he's talking about. He doesn't even know what's

going to go there. The closest we came to a description of what he has

in mind for a tax-free zone is a whatchamacallit. We're going to have

15,000 British Columbians building whatchamacallits out here at Roberts

Bank or wherever.

He's talking about medical equipment but he won't give us any

examples of medical equipment. What's he talking about? Gauze? He's

talking about aerospace. What's that? Rubber bands? He's giving us no

example, no name of a company, no prospects; just pie in the sky. In

other words, his refuge is hot air, Mr. Chairman. The refuge of this

government is to talk pie in the sky. This government, through its

economic and taxation policies, has brought the economy of British

Columbia to its knees. There is more unemployment in British Columbia

than in Alabama, Mississippi or Newfoundland. This government's

policies have brought the economy of resource-rich British Columbia to

its knees. Young people are unemployed and walking the streets. The

soup kitchens have never been so crowded since the Depression. and this

minister stands up with his fancy $200 silk tie and tells us he is

going to build whatchamacallits in a tax-free zone. He has the nerve to

talk about ASEP bringing all kinds of high-tech development to the

province of British Columbia, but if you look at the budget, ASEP has

zero funds this year. What's he talking about, Mr. Chairman? If he's so

proud of the program, why has he cancelled it? That's the kind of thing

we’re going to get from this government — Third World policies.

I would be interested in hearing the Minister of Industry and Small

Business — and lack of development — tell us why, in the throne speech,

another economic spearhead is tourism. Tourism: another Third World

country spearhead for economic development. All our kids are going to

be down there with straw hats and bare feet beside their 1965

Plymouths, waiting to take American tourists on tours for a few pesos

here and there. That's the kind of Third World backward mentality this

government has. They've taken one

[ Page 4118 ]

of the richest, most industrialized areas of the world and brought it to its knees.

The minister talks about universities. You're closing the

universities. Our best brains are packed and ready to leave because the

head-hunters from other universities are coming here and stealing the

talent. We've spent 35 to 50 years building our universities' strength,

our intellectual and scientific strength for research and development

in British Columbia, and in one term this government has brought it to

its knees. Some of our best scientists, would-be Nobel laureates, are

packed and ready at the airport to move to universities and

jurisdictions that are paying the price of research and development,

and the short-sighted policies of this government are to blame. They

can no longer throw up their hands, as they did last year, and say it's

the world economy; the rest of the North American economy is slowly but

surely recovering, as we are still going down, down, down. Unemployment

is the only statistic in this province that is going up.

This minister should be shy indeed to stand in this committee and defend the administration of his department.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, now I know why that member

is no longer the critic for the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development. He was for a few years but he was demoted and given

Education. You will notice that most of his speech was with regard to

Education. I'd like to chastise that member for calling the U.S.A.,

which has established some tax-free zones, a Third World country. I

would like to know why that member, representing one of the greatest

cities on the west coast of North America, would have the audacity to

call the United Kingdom, which is establishing trade-free zones, a

Third World country. That member is so far out of date that he is still

wearing narrow ties. I have to smile and chuckle, because a few years

ago when that member was a critic for industrial development he stood

on the floor of this Legislature and chastised me for not bringing in

manufacturing plants. Now he calls them sweatshops. There is no hope

for that group over there, because they haven't changed.

This morning I pleaded with the opposition members — you were

not in the House, Mr. Member — to come forward with some constructive

suggestions as to how we can improve the economy of this province. What

do we get? We get more of the same old harping criticism. They have

been against every project that has provided jobs for thousands and

thousands of people. Negative, harping criticism! That's why they're in

opposition and why they will stay in opposition. When we were building

the ALRT and providing high-technology jobs, and new technology that

can be sold in the rest of the world, they were against it. When we

started employing people in northeast coal, they were against it. When

we wanted to build the Annacis Island bridge so we could service

industry and all the manufacturing plants in the lower mainland, they

were against it. They've been against everything this little government

has done. All we get is the same old harping, carping criticism from

the same old people opposite.

Vote 41 approved.

On vote 42: ministry operations, $43,881,339.

MR. HOWARD: I would like to ask the minister if he really did pay $200 for that tie.

Vote 42 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I call public bills in the hands of private members — Bill M201, in the hands of the member for Skeena.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the bill

now before the House is a job creation bill. It's a job creation bill

in the private sector, a job creation bill in the processing and

manufacturing of aluminium. It's specifically oriented to the

northwestern part of the province, because in that part of the province

there exists an aluminium smelter. It has been there for some 25 years

now. That aluminium smelter, owned and operated by Alcan, came into

existence as a result of a bill passed by this Legislature in 1949 or

1950 called the Industrial Development Act. The Industrial Development

Act said that its purpose was to establish or expand an aluminium

industry in the province of British Columbia.

The bill before us seeks to amend that Industrial Development Act to

include therein — to make more certain — that the purposes of the act

shall be meant to be interpreted not exclusively as smelting but as the

process and manufacturing of aluminium products beyond the primary

stage of smelting and in the northwest region of the province, where

the smelter exists at the moment.

To assist in getting to the end of creating additional jobs in the

aluminium industry — in the further processing stage of it — this bill

seeks to see established a local or regional aluminium products

development council, upon which representatives of various groups and

interests from the area would be appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI, leaving it as broad as possible to make

that selection. The function of that council would be to examine the

area, the ideas, the proposals that may come along or may exist and the

literature, and to have access to information and statistics and

studies within the ministry and the government or any Crown corporation

that would lead them in the direction of advancing the cause of the

further processing of aluminium products in that area of the province.

The principle behind the council is that people in an area to be

affected by industrial development, manufacturing or processing should

have some say in the initial stages of it as to what can take place

that will and should affect them. The council, after looking at all of

this, wouldn't have the authority to make any decisions itself, but

could make recommendations to the provincial government on to what

might be possible as to what steps may take place.

Surplus electricity is being produced now in that area, electricity

that could be available without waiting for any additional dams to be

built or the diversion of additional waters and generating capacity to

come onstream. It could be made available for a processing plant or

plants. It conceives of what I suppose the economists call the

value-added concept; in other words, if you take a resource or primary

stage

[ Page 4119 ]

of a product and add capital and work to it, you

add to its value. You increase its wealth. You employ more people in

the process of adding the value to that particular commodity.

[3:00]

I've used the example on other occasions, and I suppose I could use

it here as well in an analogous sense: British Columbia is great for

exporting raw materials to other countries in order that people in

those other countries may be employed in the processing of those raw

materials. We export raw logs employing sawmill workers in other

countries by that process. Earlier when we were producing copper in

large volumes, we exported the copper in concentrate form to other

countries, permitting the employment of workers in other countries to

smelt, refine and produce it into usable objects: copper pipe, wire,

cable, sheets and others. The concept here is to move in another

direction and employ people in this province in further processing of

aluminium.

Two studies were done by the government on the northwest region of

the province — one I believe in 1977 and an update of it in 1982,

released by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

while he was in Victoria, and the Minister of Labour while he was in

Terrace. It was a joint release a couple of years ago. Both of those

studies emphasized that minerals are the thing we should be looking at

in the northwest region and made reference to aluminium being produced

in the area already. I maintain that that's the one resource or the one

commodity or one product that we can gainfully employ ourselves in

pursuing insofar as the creation of additional jobs is concerned.

One of the arguments that is put forward from time to time is that

you need to process your raw materials into manufactured or finished

products close to the market, rather than far distant from the market.

All of that philosophy or economic concept, when followed to its

extreme, militates against or makes remote the possibility of having

manufacturing facilities close to the resource if that resource is not

close to markets. But we have found that it doesn't always follow that

you need to do that.

The Toyota plant in Delta is a case in point. Toyota had discussions

with the provincial government two or three years ago — something of

that sort. As I understand it, they said to the provincial government:

"We're not going to produce these wheels. There's something in the

neighbourhood of $15 or $20 per wheel difference in cost if we are to

do them in Canada vis-à-vis doing them in Japan. Can you work out

something to cover that difference?" A variety of plans were looked at,

and a variety of proposals were made about how the financing of that

plant might be developed and put in place to narrow that gap of

whatever that amount of money was. As I understand it, the

federal-provincial agreement under what was the industrial development

subsidiary agreement came into force and worked out a scheme whereby

there is a contribution of something in the neighbourhood of $1 million

to $2 million to assist Toyota in establishing the plant there. It's a

subsidy. That was one scheme that was worked out so that the general

public, including people who live in Terrace, Kitimat and all parts of

this province, made a contribution through that agreement as far as the

provincial funding was concerned. The federal and provincial

governments and Toyota determined that it was possible to establish a

manufacturing plant that was far distant from the market. I'm told — if

the newspaper articles substantiating this are correct — that roughly

75 percent of the production of that wheel plant will be exported to

Japan, which is some distance from the plant. Wheels of that type will

be put on vehicles in Japan and then shipped back to North America.

There was an arrangement made to build an operation.... I understand the plant is not big enough for the markets, and they're looking at the prospects of enlarging it.

I maintain that if we can process aluminium into another stage beyond its primary smelted ingot stage....

If we can do it in Delta, then we can do it in Terrace. If we can do it

one part of the province when it's a far distance from markets, then we

can do it in another part of the province. The electricity is there;

the people are there; the primary aluminium is there. All I want to do

under this bill is to involve the people in the area in a participatory

way, examining the prospects, seeking out the advantages, working with

government in discussing these things, seeing what the most likely

location is for such a plant or plants and making recommendations about

that to government. Not to do it itself but to be involved with the

private industry in further processing of aluminium. That's the purpose

and the interest of the bill. The minister said earlier during his

estimates: "Give me some ideas of what you're trying to do." This is

the third or fourth year in a row that I've introduced this bill. It

met a sorry fate one year by being ruled out of order before it even

got debated. That was a time when there were some tense feelings

existing in the chamber. At least we're now proceeding along to be able

to put the case and put the argument.

The bill does not seek to expend any money. I recognize what the

rules are. The appointment of a council by the Lieutenant-Governor does

not necessarily involve the expenditure of any money. People can be

asked to participate in a voluntary way. We've got this province filled

with people who do things voluntarily, who assist others, who volunteer

their time and their activity in doing all manner of things. A lot of

people in the chambers of commerce volunteer their time, thinking about

ways in which they can advance the economy. A lot of people in the

trade union movement volunteer their time, seeking ways in which they

can advance the interests of the economy. A lot of people outside of

those, groups and a lot of people in the professions volunteer their

time. The bill conceives that that is a possibility and leaves it to

government to make that kind of conclusion. But in order to get by the

proscription in the standing orders about the expenditure of public

money, it does not conceive that public money will be spent.

If the concept is agreeable and the government says, "Yes, we'll go

in that direction; we believe in the idea that people in a community

should be involved in participating in those things which might affect

them," and wants to accept the bill and then wants to follow with the

question of public funds, that's a decision that government would make,

and under the rules they would introduce the appropriate legislation to

deal with that. But I don't perceive that that is necessary in the

particular bill. I just perceive that it's a job creation bill to

provide long-term benefits, job stability and employment stability

beyond that which now exists in the the northwestern region of the

province and take advantage of (1) the surplus electricity that is now

in existence and now being generated, (2) the fact that the aluminium

is already there and being produced every day of the week and being

shipped out of the area, and (3) the fact that we've got an extremely

high level of unemployment in the area. A recognition on the part of

the government is needed that aluminium is the one product in that area

around which we can build additional jobs and additional productive

capacity.

[ Page 4120 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the bill which the member put

forward and which he was speaking on is not a job-creating bill; it's a

political bill. If it doesn't have an impost on the Crown in asking for

some expenditure of funds to help support this council, then there is

no law in British Columbia that would not allow that member to go out

and to organize these people and to do the very same thing. This

ministry would certainly meet with them and provide them with ideas. We

don't need the bill. So it's a political bill. I would hope that the

member would put the same effort into supporting that Alcan project in

his area and get these same people organized to support that great

development that's going to take place up there, when the opportunity

arises.

The member alluded to a few things on which I would like to

straighten out the House. Number one, he alluded to the fact that we

export raw logs. He knows very well that the only logs that are

exported from the province of British Columbia are a few that become

surplus from time to time, and they have to go through a joint council

and the exports have to be okayed by the International Woodworkers of

America. They have to be okayed by the federal government and they have

to be okayed by the industry. It's not a case of exporting logs. Heaven

knows we've got enough pressure on us from a number of countries to

export raw logs, but it is the policy of this government and will

remain the policy of this government not to export raw logs, except

those which become surplus. And he talks about exporting raw materials.

I want to tell you that he keeps on building that myth that we

continually export raw materials, when the very industry he is talking

about is importing a raw material from another country and processing

it here.

MR. HOWARD: That's right.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, you talk out of both sides of your

mouth at once. Here we're bringing in a raw material from another

country and in his theory we're stealing jobs from that other country

because we're bringing in that raw alumina and processing it here. I

want to tell you, they haven't changed at all, Mr. Speaker. If he were

as interested in what he's talking about, standing up here and making a

political speech....

MR. HOWARD: Negative, negative.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not negative at all. I'm trying to

help the member out, but he just wants to use politics to improve his

own image in his own riding because it's at a pretty low ebb.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to adjourn debate on this

particular motion until sometime in the future — possibly the next

sitting.

Motion approved on the following division:

[3:15]

YEAS — 26

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Heinrich

McClelland

Rogers

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Reid

NAYS — 12

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Mitchell

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill M202.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to stand here and move

second reading of this bill. In the last session of this Legislature I

had the honour to present a bill to amend the Estate Administration

Act, which increased the sum that could be exempt from administration

from $5,000 to $10,000. That amendment to the act was passed by this

Legislature, as I said, last session. The purpose of the present bill

is to make

section 17 of the Motor Vehicle Act compatible with the

amendment I had passed through this Legislature in the last session —

that is, to increase from $5,000 to $10,000 the value of an estate that

contains a motor vehicle, which would allow the transfer of the motor

vehicle without probate. By adopting this bill we will relieve small

estates — estates under $10,000 — of incurring certain legal fees which

would be an inordinately high percentage of the value of the estate.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

During the past year, since the amendment to the Estate

Administration Act, I had a constituent who was the son of a deceased

come to me. They had an estate which was under $10,000, and were able

to take advantage of the amendment to that act last year.

Unfortunately, within the estate there were two motor vehicles, and the

total estate value, although under $10,000, did exceed the $5,000 as

set out in

section 17 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is my pleasure to

hope that by submitting this bill I may be able to assist a situation

like that, and possibly relieve people of inordinately large legal

bills for estates of small value. Accordingly I move second reading of

Bill M202.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you and

this House that the opposition will be supporting this private member's

bill. It makes eminently good sense, for the reasons outlined by the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

[ Page 4121 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the government also supports the bill.

MR. REE: I appreciate the support from the government and Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I might add, if I may, that the last time

this

section was amended.... The act came into force in 1960. At that

time $500 was exempt. In 1963 it was increased to $1,000, in 1968 it

was increased to $5,000, and it has been at that sum ever since. Again,

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill M202, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Veitch in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments prior to

detailed discussion of the estimates for the Ministry of Health. It's

become commonplace to have the Minister of Health preface his remarks

each year by saying that the spending for health has once again reached

a record level surpassing that of the previous year. The same

observation can be made this year. Expenditures for the Ministry of

Health are estimated to be $2.54 billion for the fiscal year 1984-85.

Members of the committee would know that the Ministry of Health is

the only ministry which has received an increase in its allocation for

1984-85 — approximately 2 percent, which translates into an increase of

approximately $51 million. The preparation of the budget for the

Ministry of Health involves many people. It involves a considerable

number of people within the ministry and of those in the field

delivering health care. We recognize that a $51 million increase

amounts to only 2 percent, but an increase in the largest ministry

expenditure in the government represents a considerable commitment on

behalf of the taxpayers; $51 million would represent the total budget

for several ministries within the government.

If it were not for action taken by the government in recent times to

allow additional revenue to flow to government, I believe we would

probably be debating estimates at some amount less than the $2.54

billion. The Ministry of Health requested an amount of money. That

amount was in excess of the capability of the public purse to sponsor

it, and other action was necessary. We're familiar with that

legislation. I'd like to express my appreciation to my colleagues, who

themselves had to review their ministries. In almost all instances they

were required to adjust their estimates and reduce their expenditures,

while at the same time supporting the Ministry of Health and an

increase of $51 million.

[3:30]

The ministry has undertaken a massive task over the past number of

years to try to rationalize and develop efficiencies in health care

delivery for the province of British Columbia. The growth in health

care expenditures is immense. It's not simply a matter of recognizing

the inflationary effects on all budgets, including that of Health. The

increase in Health expenditure has grown at a rate considerably higher

than the inflation rate and other indices which economists or others

may choose to compare it to. We have grown in excess of all other

increases for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the

expansion of certain programs, additional facilities and introduction

of new programs, as well as the public's desire for health care and the

capability of health professionals to deliver it.

The greatest number in our budget is with respect to grants to our

hospital system. Approximately $1.7 billion will be expended in our

hospital system this next year. The second major expenditure is with

respect to the medical services plan, which pays for the services

offered by professionals, be they medical doctors or other

practitioners. I think it's fair to say that in the past number of

years we have received considerable cooperation and understanding from

the community of hospitals in the province. Many have introduced

management programs and other programs which have, in our belief,

assisted in improving the efficiency of the expenditures. It's obvious

that that concept and program has not been complete. There is still

more to be done, and I believe the hospitals would not disagree. There

can be improvements, ways of saving additional money or of better using

the funds which are granted. It has been a very difficult period of

time, attempting to coordinate the hospitals and assist the hospitals

in reaching that plateau, but the vast majority of hospitals in the

province have offered what I consider responsible leadership, and have

produced a more efficient product. We're very proud — I'm sure all

British Columbians are — of our health care system. We're very proud of

our hospital programs. Despite individual difficulties and individual

instances, I believe our hospital program offers the people of our

province an excellent health care resource.

The medical services cost is somewhat more difficult. While we can,

with some certainty, estimate the cost of operating a hospital for a

year, it is very difficult to estimate with precision the costs

associated with services for which a fee is paid. Over the past year we

have had, I believe, excellent communication with the British Columbia

Medical Association and other professional associations whose members

have the capacity to bill the Medical Services Plan. We have not been

able to reach an absolute accord with the British Columbia Medical

Association, but we have made considerable progress. The talks are

continuing, and I presume they will continue for some time. We have

offered ideas and concepts, and the professionals have offered ideas

and concepts. We have not reached a consensus or agreement, but that is

not because of confrontation. It is simply because there are different

points of view and each has been offered to the other for

consideration. I think we can expect some success. We have had

considerable cooperation from the professionals with respect to trying

to contain costs, lower costs where possible or perhaps utilize the

funds somewhat differently.

It's a matter of history that we in British Columbia do have what I

consider to be an overabundance of medical practitioners, and I believe

— I can't offer the words of the BCMA — the British Columbia Medical

Association agrees that in total numbers in the province we do have an

overabundance of medical practitioners. Quite correctly it should be

pointed out that in certain areas of the province we have a shortage,

either in raw numbers or in certain specialties. We concur in that as

well.

[ Page 4122 ]

We in British Columbia do have the highest per capita ratio of

medical practitioners, considerably higher than the national average,

and much higher than some of our sister provinces. We are not

necessarily concluding that there is an absolute ratio that should

stand everywhere and that anything above or below that suggests a

deficiency. We do believe, however, that in British Columbia and

particularly in greater Victoria, greater Vancouver and the Okanagan

there are a number of practitioners in excess of what is actually

required. It's a very difficult problem because if you're dealing with

total numbers within that total, there may indeed be a deficiency in a

certain specialty, and we recognize that as well. The BCMA is

cooperating with the ministry in attempting to assist us in resolving

what we consider to be a costly problem. It's estimated that a medical

practitioner in full-time practice costs approximately $500,000 a year

to the public purse; not in personal fees, of course, but including the

practitioner's fees plus that which is associated with the practice of

medicine such as hospital space and other facilities. I don't think

there is too much disagreement about the $500,000 figure. Therefore it

follows that the higher the number of doctors you have in your area,

the higher the cost is going to be.

We recognize the contribution the medical profession and other

professions have made to our health care system, of course. We have had

good communications with the organizations over the last couple of

years. I am very pleased to advise the members of the assembly that

whereas three or four years ago there was a strong confrontative

attitude, today there is one of considerable and very genuine

cooperation. That in itself does not mean that we will achieve what we

are seeking to achieve through cooperation, but it does mean the

opportunity is there. I acknowledge that and I thank those people on

the other side, if you like — the BCMA side at least — for being as

cooperative as they have been.

There is still a tremendous philosophical difference of opinion in

this field. Government, the Ministry of Health, while it can indulge in

philosophy, at some time must deal with reality, and we must make

certain decisions, be they at the hospital level, medical service level

or otherwise.

Within the ministry itself we have introduced a considerable amount

of what I consider to be excellent management, and have over the past

few years been able to reduce our costs — the costs of the ministry

itself. There are still efficiencies which will be introduced, which

can be introduced and which are being developed. The Ministry of Health

deals with a tremendous number of people. It comes in contact with more

individuals than any other aspect of the provincial government.

Approximately 200,000 people a day could receive care in one form or

another through the health care system. The decisions made by the

ministry, the management of the ministry and the capability and

expertise of those delivering our health care affect almost every

individual in the province.

A final comment with respect to our health situation. I would just

like to make a few brief comments with respect to the difficulties we

believe are very real in the country vis-à-vis the Canada Health Act.

It's my hope at this moment that next week I will have the opportunity

of joining the other ministers of health in Canada to speak before the

Senate committee on the Canada Health Act.

Politics aside, the provincial ministers of health in all provinces

have repeatedly sought to have meetings and consultations with the

federal Minister of Health to discuss the implications of the Canada

Health Act. The telex industry in Canada has probably reaped mass

profits by the number of telexes which have gone from the various

ministers to the federal minister over the past few months. The theme

is the same from province to province and the territories. We believe

the act is an error. We believe that the impact the act will have on

the Canada health system is far greater than the federal Minister of

Health acknowledges. The language used in many of the telexes sent to

the federal Minister of Health or other officials contained such words

as "devastation," "unnecessary," "serious implications" and other

expressions of very serious concern on the part of the ministers.

Unfortunately the federal minister has advised the chairman of the

ministers of health that she sees no need for such meetings. She says:

"I see little to be gained by a meeting." Unfortunately the meeting

will not take place, but we have been advised by the federal Minister

of Health that a meeting can be arranged on April 27 for officials to

discuss the Canada Health Act. I think it is regrettable that the

federal minister was not available, or could not make herself

available, for these meetings prior to the introduction of the act,

since the introduction of the act and even now at this very late stage

of the process. We had no meaningful meetings at any time. There were

meetings, yes. There were meetings, not to discuss the Canada Health

Act in principle, or the philosophy; there were meetings simply to hear

our analysis of the act, and from that some very minor modifications in

language were made.

I do not wish to be critical of the federal Minister of Health as an

individual, because I have no doubt that Monique Bégin is sincere in

what she has been saying about the Canada Health Act and the reasons

for it. I do not question her integrity at all. But I do believe that

the federal minister and the officials within the federal ministry are

either not aware or are ignoring the implications of this legislation.

The ministers of the provinces and territories intend to be in

Ottawa next week to try to persuade whoever may be listening to take a

certain course. The prognosis is not good. We are very concerned about

the effects that act could have. We believe we have an excellent health

care program in the province, and we see a possibility of erosion

taking place because of the implications of the Canada Health Act.

Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to respond to members' specific questions and look forward to the debate.

[3:45]

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I rise in this great spirit of

cooperativeness. I note that the minister talks about how the medical

profession and the hospitals are cooperative. We have a government

which is so cooperative that they wait until our Health critic leaves

town to go to her brother's wedding until they call the estimates of

the Ministry of Health. We asked that it be delayed, but no — progress,

progress, progress. In any event, we'll carry on, but it is not the

spirit of cooperativeness that we understand. We've been betrayed three

times in the last two weeks in terms of miscalling things that are to

be coming up in the Legislature — bills and estimates in different

order, and so on. So it is no great surprise. The Whips do not even

know what the House Leaders are thinking, and vice versa. That has

broken down, and I suspect that it will continue to stay broken as long

as this government has the arrogant attitude that they can just do what

they like any time they want. So there it is.

Mr. Chairman, on this estimate it is marvellous to hear from the minister that they only have a $51 million increase

[ Page 4123 ]

— only 2 percent, he says. He talks about the

Health expenditures growing beyond the inflation rate. The minister has

been running in the same direction that we have been running lo, these

many years. There have not been provisions made to cut costs in the way

they should have. We see around us such things going down the drain as

community health centres, which can be cost-effective as can be with

respect to reducing costs. We see areas such as prevention being

affected far more than any other.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let me give you a couple of interesting little areas in terms of

these estimates. What would you think of a government that cuts areas

such as prevention in these particular subtitles? They've cut program

management by 11 percent. Who can comment? They've increased medical

health officers and staff by 3 percent; public health nurses, 1

percent; public health inspection is up 4 percent — remember how bereft

we were of public health inspectors, but it's up 4 percent; health

education is down; speech and hearing is down 7.4 percent; nutrition is

down 3.6 percent; the dental program is down 31.8 percent; epidemiology

is down 3.9 percent. This is one very small example of an area where I

feel that moneys could be saved in the long run. I know you're not

going to make large cuts in hospital care until you get to a point

where you keep people out of hospitals.

How do we keep people out of hospitals? One good way is with home

care, but that's another area that's been cut rather dramatically. And

don't forget that they've been cutting home care ever since April 1981.

The cut in homemaker services this year is 2 percent, but there were

dramatic and drastic cuts in the first place. That's $1.1 million that

we saved there, and waste elsewhere, when for $25 or $30 a day we could

keep people in their homes. We send them to an acute-care hospital bed,

to begin with, that will cost us anything from $250 to $300 a day. It

doesn't seem to me to require a mathematical genius to know that we're

on the wrong course.

Adult day care is cut, and cut out in many instances. Overall

there's been a decrease in those adult day cares of 15 percent. Again,

it's an area of keeping people out of institutions, because that's

where the minister has to admit that we're spending our money

dramatically.

Emergency health care. We'll get into more details as we go along.

They've cut emergency health care — that's the ambulance service — by

$1.8 million, a 4 percent cut. Program management is cut by 0.6

percent. The estimate in 1983-4 was $38.1 million. However, in the

books for 1983-84 it was $41.2 million. The total for the 1984-85

estimate is $39.5 million. Incidentally, I didn't even see a special

warrant to account for the difference. In any event, that's what

happened. Air ambulance has a slight decrease of 4 percent. Support

services have a very slight increase, and training has had a slight

increase of 0.4 percent.

All in all, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that we should be looking as

quickly as possible in this day and age for ways to cut out those

requirements for statutory service. If you go to a doctor, your bill

gets paid — that's statutory. If you go to a hospital, the government's

share of your bill gets paid — that's statutory. Those are the large

payments the minister admits to. How do you keep them down? "Cut down

on the numbers of doctors," he says. He doesn't say anything about how

those doctor services should be rendered. Houston, for example, has

gone on fee-for-service. Isn't that marvellous? In Houston what was at

one time a community health centre with salaried physicians is all

changed. That has now gone to a fee-for-service operation, and so did

the doctors. Where the nurses used to be first contact — and I mean

trained, skilled nurses — now it's the doctor who must be the first

contact. That first contact is costly.

All in all I see us on the wrong path in terms of making the kinds

of savings that the minister wants to make. It takes time, and it takes

a lot of thought. When you're living from day to day or hour to hour

and putting out fires, many of which are ignited from within, you don't

have time to study the problems. You don't have time to study the

consequences of the direction that one has chosen. I just feel that

this is entirely wrong.

I wanted to bring another area to your attention. What do we find

from our estimate of medical services? This year we see an increase of

$8,272,000. That's only 1.6 percent over 1983-84, but that doesn't mean

that that's what it's going to be, because when those bills come in,

they must be paid. So that might be an estimate that's somewhat low. I

believe that the minister. In his discussion with Monique Begin about

the whole question of user fees, this fee, that fee and so on, and the

fact that he doesn't like the Canada Health Act, might bear taking a

look at the share that is now being put up by first the premium payers

in our province — $336,889,900. Deducting that from the $849,631,000,

we'd have a net expenditure here of $512 million. But no, you see,

Monique pays her share of the $849 million over and above that. And

it's not 50 percent now; it's somewhat lower, because the provincial

Government didn't do a very good job of negotiating. Let's say it's 40

percent. I think it's closer to 45 percent, even at this late date, but

let's say it's at 40 percent. Then you are looking at another $320

million to $340 million. So you add that to the $336 million and you've

got almost $700 million. You deduct that from the $849 million. So our

net expenditure here in this province from government sources — and I'm

not talking about the premiums paid, because that's outside — isn't all

that horrendous. The horrendous costs are in hospitals, and have been

for some length of time. I consider that they will continue to be until

such time as we get together as a planning group and say: "Okay, what

can we do to cut these costs in a dramatic way?" We can only do it if

we go after those costs by keeping people out, not paying the bills

once they get in. Maybe there will have to be additional talks with

doctors. It's not the patients who admit themselves to hospitals; it's

the doctors who admit them.

I'm just looking through here and will have to find where I've got

it down. When one has ten minutes to prepare for a minister~s

estimates, it doesn't give one all the chance in the world to put

everything together. However, alcohol and drug has been cut

significantly. Why that? Why not an increase in alcohol and drug? Can

the minister comment on one or two of these questions?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, some of the comments made by the member for New Westminster....

I appreciate the difference between government expenditures and

non-government expenditures, but it all comes out of the same pocket.

Whether it's through premiums, user fees, taxes or anything else, it

comes out of the taxpayer's pocket one way or the other. They pay for

the whole system. It can be broken down and shown on actuarial tables

and the rest of it

[ Page 4124 ]

how it may be correlated and collected, but it still comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.

The federal government collects money in British Columbia, and it

returns some to the province. Good for them. That's what our whole

concept of confederation in Canada is about. They're not doing us a

favour. They're returning some of the money that they've taken from

British Columbia to begin with; and it's nice to see them do so. The

federal government tells us their figures are about 43 percent; we

think they're slightly lower, but we can agree to almost 43 percent.

[4:00]

The alcohol and drug question. The decrease is due to implementation

of the ministry's staffing plan and to a decrease in medical sessions

because of reduced demand. The decrease at the detox centres, which

make up part of that — 1.7 percent — is due again to the ministry's

staffing plan. There has been a slight decrease in contributions to

four funded agencies, for various reasons. I've heard the proposals put

forward by the member and other people as well. We've listened to the

nurses' proposition and proposal, and we've discussed it with them. And

we've heard from others. I think it's fair to say that in all of the

professional groups there are as many opinions as one would wish to

hear. Among the doctors, as an example, there is a very strong

difference of opinion on how efficiencies can be achieved. Within the

hospital community there are differences of opinion. Yes, we do consult

and listen and work with them, but it is something that is continuing;

it's not the opportunity of planning for a point in time in the future

and building towards that. You have to operate the thing while you're

going along. It's like changing a wheel on a truck while you're driving

it. We continue to do that. We recognize that it's a very complex

system. It involves a tremendous amount of different

interpretations

and opinions, information, expertise and so on. All in all, however,

we're doing a good job. All in all, we're producing a very good health

care program in the province. It's not the ultimate, of course, and not

one that's going to meet everyone's desires, wishes or expectations,

but it's a very good program, an excellent program. We're learning.

We're growing. Hopefully we're producing a better product as we go

along.

There was reference to the emergency component. I am advised by

staff that the decrease, as mentioned by the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke), more accurately reflects the estimated expenditure for

1984-85. We will not know our precise expenditures for 1983-84 until

the end of this month, but we believe that the forecast indicates that

the expenditure will be less than had been anticipated; therefore we

believe that this year's estimate more accurately reflects what we

believe the costs will be.

The discussion surrounding health costs, whether in British

Columbia, other parts of the country or other countries is something

that will continue forever. Yes, indeed, some jurisdictions have had a

program and then reversed their concept of the program to embrace

another concept, and perhaps at some point in time they go back to the

original. I would say that's human nature. It seems to occur in many

areas of interest. However, nobody has a lock on the absolute answers

to health care. There are many complicating factors. The member for New

Westminster mentioned the compulsory aspect of payments for doctors and

other things. I'm not suggesting that it's negative, but it's a

complication. The concept of our medicare system in Canada is a

complication.

The concept of our hospitalization program is a complication. Other

jurisdictions that do not have the same programs have different methods

of approaching a cost containment. They have different tools, and they

approach it somewhat differently. We know what we have in Canada, and

we know what we have in the province. We're attempting to address the

problems in the best way we possibly can, with the maximum of

assistance from those who can be utilized for that purpose. Sure, there

are going to be better ideas put forward at some time. There may be

better ideas accepted and developed at some time, but for the moment we

are dealing with what we know while at the same time paying attention

to those who suggest that there are alternate or better ways of doing

it. We spend a tremendous amount of time in consultation with such

people.

The member for New Westminster mentioned home care. I guess if one

wished to utilize semantics one could say that there has been a

decrease since a certain time. I'm not quite sure what the decrease

would be. Are we speaking dollars? Are we speaking numbers of persons

receiving care, hours or whatever it might have been? We went through a

debate in this House some time ago about homemakers when there had

been, I think, a $15-million increase in a budget, and we were

constantly being asked to explain why there was a cutback. There are

always going to be changes. There are always going to be changes to an

individual, and there may be changes in whole numbers, just as there

are for people visiting doctors and people going into hospital. We have

a good program there as well, and it's a very difficult program to

monitor and very costly.

Adult day-care centres. Yes, we agree that they're a good program.

Some have simply been put on hold for a period of time; some haven't

been completed within the facility, but we expect that in the future

they will be.

There is almost no limit to the amount of money we could spend on

health care if we embraced everyone's concepts and ideas of what should

be offered in that field. There is no question that some programs would

counterbalance others and would assist in reducing costs somewhere

else. But it's not automatic. Many of the programs which assist become

an add-on to the overall system. There is no automatic displacement, as

in one homemaker attending a person and that meaning one less person in

an acute-care bed. That individual may no longer be in an acute-care

bed, but somebody else will be. One does not empty the other. So it

becomes an add-on. And it's a good service; we recognize that. There

are no simple solutions, no single stroke that's going to resolve the

problem. We're fighting a tough problem. Health is a major expenditure.

It's a valuable service. It involves a tremendous amount of effort on

the part of those who produce the programs. We're working with them,

and we'll listen to almost anyone.

MR. COCKE: The minister is right in terms of his own

philosophy, which is, I gather, to put out the fire called increasing

prices, inflation, or whatever you like. But I think that's where he

and I depart, because I believe that the increases are going to

continue as long as we overlook alternate forms of services. It's the

easiest thing in the world for a ministry or a minister to say: "Where

do I cut first?" Having provided oneself with that question, then one

says: "Well, I guess we have to cut the non-statutory services." In

doing that, I think we do damage to the system.

[ Page 4125 ]

The alcohol and drug cuts, as I indicated, where the cuts are a mere 6 percent....

We have seen in this budget money well spent in this area. Heaven alone

knows that the government makes enough money selling booze. I'm not

suggesting that we should say that we're going to designate a portion

of what we make selling liquor for health care, because then you get

yourself into a lot of trouble. I don't think that designated revenue

has ever been a particularly good idea. But that same government that

makes millions and multimillions.... I haven't got the figure before

me, but the last time I saw it it was in excess of $100 million, and

I'm sure that it is well up there. In any event, that revenue is part

of our taxing process, if you will. Then we say to alcohol and drug

people that we're going to cut it back. What we're confronted with is

that because we're cutting back alcohol and drug education we're

cutting back on the very people who are going to provide us with a

reduction in this self-abuse situation. If we continue to cut them

back, then we continue to say to ourselves that we will have an

ever-increasing number of drunk drivers, or the result of drunk

drivers' activities, in the hospitals. I recall that the stay in our

hospitals for motorcycle or car accident victims is quite lengthy, and

at $300 a day or more, a lengthy term is a very expensive proposition.

No wonder hospital care is costing us an arm and a leg. We believe that

thoughtful programs can be run that can actually take some of the heat

off our whole medical and health system.

When I see funded agencies cut.... Even if they're only cut

$328,000, they were cut. If you can remember, Mr. Chairman, it was only

a couple of years ago that many of the government programs were

somewhat reduced in order that funded programs could continue. Now we

have them cut. We certainly have out-patient clinics cut. As the

minister suggested, the detoxification centre is cut. Those are not all

great, significant cuts, but it is this sort of activity that, in my

opinion, places us in a position where we're just loading up the

hospitals. And we will continue to load up the hospitals as long as we

don't keep people out as best we can. I can certainly remember many

successful programs, one of which was in the minister's own riding. I

don't know the status of that one right now, but it was directed at

young people, and they had a lot of success stories to tell. Every time

we keep someone either off the road in that condition, or from getting

intoxicated by drugs or alcohol, then we are doing ourselves and the

taxpayers of this province a great service. I don't think we're doing

the taxpayers a great service by making these cuts in areas so terribly

sensitive, and in areas that can create a positive situation for the

future.

[4:15]

I've been in many discussions over the years about what to do about

this whole prevention thing. I've heard some very highly regarded

people saying that prevention is just a fantasy, a dream. I for one

don't believe it is. I've heard some experts on both sides, but I for

one believe that if we really put our money where our mouth is in this

whole area of prevention — and there are so many areas of prevention —

we could reduce the impact on our hospitals. I don't think anybody

wants to get sick; if they do they are a rare member of our species. I

think most people, if given an opportunity, would choose the healthy

way rather than the unhealthy way. I have often said in this House that

in the old days when one was jogging or out doing one's constitutional

— walking quickly or whatever — one was regarded as a kook. Today one

is regarded as a person who is taking care of himself — or herself.

These feminists get one, don't they? You know perfectly well you can't

make that mistake without taking a great deal of lip.

I say that we can help to alter people's lifestyles. I think

Participaction did — and is doing — a first-class job. I think Action

B.C., that the minister decided to tie the can to, did a first-class

job. Yet these are the areas that are gone or reduced in terms of

budget, the very areas that should not be. Again one of the programs

that Action B.C. did very early was a pilot project in Prince George,

and what did they find out? They took two schools — the rest of the

schools were control — in which they insisted on an hour of physical

education each day. Now you may say that that would reduce the time for

academic activities in those two schools. What was the outcome of that

year-long program? The kids in the two schools that were supervised in

this particular area were not only much more physically fit than their

contemporaries in the other schools, but they did better academically.

Maybe the oxygen that got into their brains helped. They did not do

worse, they did better academically, despite the fact that they had a

reduced number of hours in academic activities. What have we seen as a

result of that? Well, I can say not a hell of a lot, because I don't

see schools adopting that program. We should be pushing it. The

Minister of Health should be after the Minister of Education to see to

it that those kinds of activities are pursued. Maybe, with that

generation anyway, we'll have a reduced number of people vulnerable to

ill health.

In terms of the older generation, the minister said: "Well, we've

learned to disagree on home care." He haltingly agreed that adult day

care was important, but still it's all reduced. Adult day care is

extremely important, because this is one of the areas that keep people

out of institutional care. I'm worried about homemaker services. We are

doing our thing on homemaker services in terms of cutbacks, and yet

ironically it strikes me that what we're asking — if I read the

minister's mind correctly — is to privatize more of those services. At

one time those services were provided by nonprofit agencies, but today

more and more are going to profit taking enterprises. So we're going to

begetting less for more. We're going to be getting a lot less for more,

in my opinion. Non-profit agencies spend about 80 cents of each dollar

on salaries, benefits, training and travelling expenses. The other 20

cents goes to administration and fixed overhead costs. There's no

profit there; cuts have to come from reducing either staff or services.

What's going to happen when the private firms move in? They can pay

their staff less. I see some of that kind of activity going on right

now in the construction business. I hope that someday people will take

pictures of buildings that are being provided by some of these people

who decide there's a cheap way to go, and that is to hire unskilled

labour. In any event, I believe that in the long run the private firms

are going to be more costly. Here we are, caught right in the claws of

a beast that will kill us in this area, because if those costs rise and

the minister continues to hold the lid on the overall amount of

expenditure for home care, then naturally there will continue to be

reduced service.

I guess one of the areas that I hear most about in my constituency

in terms of concern over government policy is this whole question of

home care. We all get our share of compensation problems, we all get

our share of ICBC problems, and we all get our share of welfare

problems. But particularly in an area like mine, where some 25 percent

plus

[ Page 4126 ]

are seniors, those most vulnerable to illness and those most likely to need these kinds of services....

So I guess I get my share of those problems by virtue of the fact that

I come from an area that is growing a little older, but it goes across

the province. Anyway, I see the cuts in home care, and at the same time

I see this other irony of closing down Tranquille, under the auspices

of the Ministry of Human Resources, which is going to create a

tremendous load for home care, surely of one type or another. I mean

homemakers and other support assistance have to be made available to

the people who come out of institutional care. I don't think we're

going in the right direction. I said so two or three years ago, and I'm

saying so again.

Bed closures. That's one of the minister's ways of keeping people

out of hospital. It's kind of an artificial thing that I'm not very

fond of, but the acute-care bed closures reduces patients' stays, and

reducing patients' stays should mean that there is more home care

available. Otherwise you are likely to have the patient back to see you

later on.

It's very difficult for anybody — and I agree with the minister in

this regard — to stand here and say, "I can save you 1 percent, 5

percent, 10 percent, 15 percent or any other percentage." But I think

it's common sense to know that there is a percentage out there; I just

don't know what it is. And I don't think anybody could tally that up.

But it's just common sense to know that if we can keep people out of

hospitals....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Unfortunately, Madam Member, the minister can't

provide me with the figures. The direction of our program is not to

look at those figures; it is to go in the other direction — that is,

cut these areas that I feel are so important.

So, Mr. Chairman, again I just say we've got to do something to keep

people out of hospitals. One of the good areas is alcohol and drug

counselling. One of the great areas is home care, and unless we can

provide that home care, the demand will continue to increase for the

utilization of our services.

I have seen situations where people have gone to doctors, and they

needn't have gone to doctors if they had had their proper home care.

The doctor throws up his hands in disbelief, and they wind up going to

a hospital, where our costs really spiral. That's that for that

particular aspect, Mr. Chairman. I hope the minister can give me some

significant reasons why we're not at least paying more attention to

what we on this side of the House consider to be a most important area.

MR. SEGARTY: I just have a few items under the Ministry of

Health estimates. First, I'd like to thank the minister for providing

us with a lot of new support services in the Kootenays over the past

number of years: the renovations to the Tom Uphill Memorial Home

intermediate-care facility in Fernie, along with the new 60-unit

intermediate-care facility in Cranbrook, and the $3.5 million expansion

to the Cranbrook and District Hospital. I want to thank the minister

sincerely for helping us in those particular areas. Without question

they have upgraded health care for the people in the Kootenay riding.

Along with that, there has been great improvement in the Columbia River

riding. So on behalf of myself and the member for Columbia River (Hon.

Mr. Chabot), I want to thank the minister for all of that assistance.

One area of concern is the need to expand current facilities. Over

the past few years we have been working to get the three facilities in

the Elk valley cooperating more with each other. Three units — the

Elkford and District Diagnostic and Treatment Centre board, the

Sparwood General Hospital board and the Fernie District Hospital board,

along with the Tom Uphill Memorial Home Society, have been cooperating

a great deal over the past number of years. I have put a considerable

amount of time into trying to get the boards to form one board in the

Elk valley to improve the level of service and basically provide more

and better services to the people of the Elk valley, with the same

amount of funding, by continuing to share not only laundry, dietary,

pharmacy and other specialty areas but also administration.

[4:30]

At the present time there is a need to build a new super diagnostic

and treatment centre in Elkford. The minister is aware of it, and we've

had some good discussion on it. I wonder if the minister could give me

some idea where that sits at the present time. I understand that the

board of the diagnostic and treatment centre in Elkford have sent down

an application to the ministry to release the funding for the planning

of that facility. I wonder if the minister could give me some idea of

where that is, along with the need in Cranbrook to develop a regional

psychiatric ward for people east of the Selkirk Mountains. A lot of

people have to be transferred to the Trail hospital or down to the

coast to receive that service. While I recognize these are tough times

in our economy, I wonder if the minister could give me some idea

whether that will commence late next year, early the following spring

or maybe late this year. Maybe the minister could give me some idea of

what is happening with it.

There is another item of great concern to a lot of senior citizens

in the East Kootenays. At the present time there are about 600 people

on a waiting list for audiology services in the East Kootenays. You

could look at the East Kootenays as being Creston, Golden, Fernie,

Sparwood, Elkford, Kimberley and Invermere. The audiologist moved out

of the East Kootenays over a year and a half ago. The position has been

advertised for some time, but we've had no success in attracting an

audiologist to the area. This affects profoundly deaf children as well

as senior citizens. It's my understanding that the ministry has gone

the advertising route in Canada, but no suitable audiologists are

available. It's my understanding that UBC graduates audiologists each

year; apparently they lack the clinical experience and so on in terms

of qualification. I wonder if the minister could give me some idea how

we can get the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Universities,

Science and Communications together to increase the standards of UBC

graduates to meet Ministry of Health requirements, or how else we can

resolve that very serious problem. I make that plea to the minister on

behalf of the MLA for Columbia River and myself. Perhaps the minister

could give me some idea as to where we stand with it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I could not respond to the

member for Kootenay with respect to precise dates or schedules for any

of the projects, except in the most general way. I'd rather be specific.

The audiology question is one which we've been wrestling with for a while. There is no easy solution. There is a

[ Page 4127 ]

general shortage of audiologists; there's

tremendous competition for them. UBC does graduate some audiologists

who, I believe, are quite qualified for positions, should they wish

those positions. I think they are graduating six presently — I'm not

quite sure of the numbers. I believe all have been interviewed by the

Ministry of Health. I think there are a couple who may be interested.

Others have already committed themselves to positions somewhere in the

country or elsewhere. We have been recruiting. I believe we have been

interviewing audiologists in eastern Canada and elsewhere to see if

they can relocate in B.C.

There is a serious problem in locating specialists of any kind in

certain areas of the province. One of the reasons is that if they are

in a relatively competitive market and there is the opportunity to go

elsewhere, certain areas of the province may appeal to those

individuals, and they move. The really serious problem we have is

trying to recruit a person who is likely to stay in the community,

rather than filling the position, only to have the person leave shortly

thereafter, and again having to try to recruit.

So we're working on the audiologist problem. Indeed we have been

speaking with the university and with the minister responsible about

possibly expanding the class, if we feel that there is a legitimate

need to produce. Just as an aside, Mr. Chairman, an argument we get

from eastern Canada and other parts of the country — but mainly eastern

Canada — is that we in British Columbia are producing too many medical

people. Now they're usually speaking of medical doctors, and they

question why we even have a faculty of medicine — why we even produce

doctors at all. It has been suggested by two unnamed large provinces

that they could produce all the doctors we need. We suggest to them

that we feel we have a duty and a responsibility and a right to allow

some of our citizens the opportunity of going through medical school in

their own province.

The member for New Westminster had some most interesting comments. I

agree with some of the comments, in a philosophical sense, with respect

to prevention. Certainly the old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth

a pound of cure" is pretty obvious. I agree that there can be some

success in persuading people to modify their lifestyle or to adopt a

healthy lifestyle at an early age. I agree that government has a role

to play in that, but it is distressing that a private organization

should be required to get a school to consider physical activity as a

way to perhaps improve the students' performance. I would think that

that idea and concept could come from the school itself, the school

board itself or others.

MR. COCKE: It should have, of course.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Sure. That's why I say it's distressing that a lot of this does not occur through the application of common sense.

We had a discussion some time ago in the House with respect to

alcohol and drugs and others, over a different matter. It was a most

interesting discussion. The member for New Westminster and others who

have put forward the position that prevention can indeed have this

massive impact later on down the road, I think, are quite accurate. It

can be projected that way. But we do have a serious problem in our

society with respect to the abuses which many people are involved in. I

suppose one of the areas that is of great concern is that area

involving younger people who, if they abuse themselves to the point of

ill health, are going to be a charge on society for many years, simply

because of their age. We agree that more must be done, and in all areas

of our society — health, education and any other area that has an

influence on people — to do something about it.

There are alternative forms of services. Yes, there can be many

considered, and they are being considered. One of the aspects with

respect to shorter periods of time in acute-care facilities.... There

has been a reduction in the average length of stay; there are many,

many factors associated with that. Costs, however, do not reflect in a

precise way the shorter lengths of stay. In fact, the reverse can be

true in many instances, because it is the first days of treatment of a

patient which are usually the most costly. Some hospitals used to feel

they'd like to keep the patient in a few extra days, because the cost

of servicing the patient was diminishing. But they were still getting a

per them based on the length of stay. So at times one could be led to

believe that a quicker turnaround can actually cost you more, and it

probably does. But I still think it’s a better use of the facilities.

It's interesting to note that in British Columbia our average

acute-care length of stay is now 8.8 days or somewhere near that. In

Washington state I think it's about 4.3 days. I think the reason the

difference is so obvious is that there is a different incentive to move

people through the system in Washington state, and that's called cost.

There is an incentive on the part of the patients themselves to move

out as quickly as possible. There is an incentive on the part of the

doctor to move his patient through as quickly as possible, and on the

hospital as well, because they don't wish to be stuck with bad bills.

We don't have the same incentive, but it has improved considerably. In

fact, in British Columbia the average length of stay is, I think,

considerably brighter, from my point of view, than in some other

provinces.

I don't have the statistics before me at the moment with respect to

services provided in our hospital system, say, for the calendar year

1983 compared with a similar period of time in previous years. But the

information I received was quite interesting: while there had been a

reduction in the number of acute-care beds at one point, the number of

services provided had not fallen off in the next year. I will get that

information, because it is a most interesting statistical study.

The member mentioned a few numbers. I'm not going to argue numbers

at the moment; I just wish to provide some information which has been

provided to me. In alcohol and drug the number in our book for 1984-85,

we believe — and we will know in a matter of a few weeks, I guess — the

estimate, if expended, will actually be greater than last year's actual

expenditure. The estimate in the blue book for 1984-85 will probably

exceed the actual expenditure on the program in the previous year;

similarly in home nursing and in adult day-care. We believe the

estimate provided for 1984-85 will probably exceed the actual

expenditure in these areas for the previous year. There are reasons for

that. There are reasons why the numbers put forward last year, as an

estimate, may not have been achieved in actual expenditure. We actually

believe there will be an increase in those areas in dollars spent for

the services over the year.

The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) spoke about the concept of

amalgamation of a number of facilities in the Elk valley. If I could

for just a moment, I'd like to acknowledge what we feel has been a

successful venture on the part of the ministry and some of the

facilities in the province towards amalgamation, consolidation,

coordination or cooperation

[ Page 4128 ]

— whatever word may be offered — and in improved

efficiency in administration and in some costs as well. We have had an

amalgamation — I suppose that would be the word — at the board level of

the two major Victoria hospitals. We believe we've had reasonable

success. In the riding of the member for New Westminster, the Royal

Columbian Hospital and the Eagle Ridge facility in Port Moody are going

to join as a common board to operate the two facilities. We have had

good cooperation from the boards. We believe that that too will assist

in some of the very real problems in that area. We are continuing to

look for opportunities of amalgamation or consolidation throughout the

province. Interestingly, most of it has come to us from hospitals

themselves. In meeting with chairmen of the boards of hospitals a month

or so ago, I believe there were four hospitals that came forward to one

of my officials and asked if we would consider some form of

amalgamation or consolidation in their area. So we're looking at all of

them. We have had good cooperation from the people associated with

that. That's a program which, I think, can and will work and will save

money for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a drop in the

competition between facilities. When they are together as a common

board, it's easier for them to understand that perhaps they do not have

to duplicate the same facilities or services in each facility, but can

work together as one to provide the service to the people of the

province.

[4:45]

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: I challenge the quorum.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We have a quorum.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

I was really quite pleased to hear the Minister of Health agreeing

that prevention is better than the cure, because I just wanted to raise

a couple of issues under the area of prevention. I want to start out

first of all by saying that I know that he's not responsible for the

area I'm going to be covering with one of these issues, but the reason

I'm raising it here is that in the final analysis the cost involved

falls on his ministry. I'm talking about the number of young people —

children, actually, under the age of six — who are injured or who might

even die as a direct result of being involved in automobile accidents

when they are riding unrestrainted in a car: that is, neither in a car

seat nor with a seatbelt on. So I want to ask first of all whether the

minister could secure some figures for me. I'd like to know how many

children under the age of six have been hospitalized as a result of

being involved in automobile accidents. I'm willing to accept

statistics for 1983, 1982 or even 1981 — whatever year statistics are

available for.

The second thing I'd like to find out is how many of these children

were permanently disabled as a result of being involved in an accident.

The third question is — and I don't know whether hospitals keep

these statistics or not: how many children died as a result of being

involved in an automobile accident? I'm not asking about children who

were involved in accidents outside of a car — kids hit by a car — but

about accidents involving children who were riding in a car. And if

it's possible, I'd like to know what the cost on the health care system

was of caring for those children. As I said before, I'll accept any

year, whether it be 1981, 1982 or 1983.

I know the minister is going to tell me, Madam Chairperson, that

this doesn't fall under his ministry. I recognize, because I raised

this under Transportation and under the estimates of the minister

responsible for ICBC.... But as I said earlier, in the final analysis

the cost involved in caring for these children falls on the Ministry of

Health, and that's the reason I find that this is the source to which

I'm coming to get this information.

If we can accept the statistics given to us by the B.C. Medical

Association in their educational program that tries to encourage

parents — or adults, anyway — with children in the car to use

restraints with them, it seems that it's quite costly and a large

expense on the health care system. I'm wondering if, taking that into

account, the minister would consider having the Ministry of Health

itself embark on an educational program.... That's the only thing I can

ask for, since Health cannot introduce legislation making the wearing

of seatbelts compulsory; that belongs to a different ministry. But I

believe that Health can embark on an educational program to advise

adults of the dangers and risks involved in having young people under

the age of six in a moving automobile when they're not restrained

either by a car seat or by seatbelts. I certainly see education as one

of the functions of the Ministry of Health, and I'm wondering whether

he would consider that.

The second area that I'd like to cover in terms of prevention is the

alarming escalation of smoking among teenagers. Smoking in that group

is increasing faster than in any other. I know the ministry is aware of

the long-term impact of this particular destructive habit on the health

care system as well as on the young people themselves. Again, I realize

that the only thing the Minister of Health can do is embark on an

education program. In fact, some pretty good programs in the past,

dealing with the use of alcohol and drugs as well as tobacco, have been

the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. I wonder if the minister

would tell me whether there are any plans to continue or increase these

programs, because it seems that the program has to be introduced to

younger and younger kids.

Whereas before we found that smoking among

older teenagers was the habit, it now seems that younger and younger

teenagers are involved in this particular habit, with, as we know,

disastrous consequences. I have to admit that I find it particularly

disappointing that young female teenagers are the ones most guilty in

this respect. I am disappointed that they have not come to recognize

the dangers inherent in what they're doing, and exercise some common

sense and intelligence in this regard. However, for better or for worse

I think there is still a role for the Minister of Health to play here,

and I'm wondering if the ministry is going to exercise that mandate.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The third and final area of prevention that I want to deal with has

to do with preventive health services to women. As the minister knows,

the Ministry of Human Resources has terminated funding for the

post-partum counselling program and also for family planning. These are

two services which, when they were in existence, were used very

extensively. I am wondering, first of all, if the ministry has done any

kind of study to find out where the women who were using postpartum are

now going. Has there been an increase, for

[ Page 4129 ]

example, in the number of women seeking psychiatric

services, or in those ending up in psychiatric wards showing symptoms

of post-partum depression? Are they ending up in the psychiatric wards

at great expense to the health delivery system? Are they going to

psychiatrists, another burden on the health delivery system? If that is

the case, has there been any analysis of the increase in cost on the

health delivery system as a direct result of the Ministry of Human

Resources terminating funding to those two particular groups? I don't

know how you measure the impact of the work that family planning does,

but if the ministry has been able to do that, maybe the minister can

give me those figures too.

The Women's Health Collective: again that's a group that was

involved to a large extent in the delivery of preventive health care

and health counselling — almost exclusively, I realize, to younger

women, but certainly to women who would not use the traditional health

delivery systems. Is there anything showing up in the system on the

impact of cutting back funding to this particular group? I guess it was

a week or two ago that the federal minister responsible for this area

indicated that funding for the Women's Health Collective would

continue, I think in the neighbourhood of $150,000; so whatever break

there was would hopefully have been a very minor one. I'm really

anxious to find out whether the ministry is monitoring what happens to

the health care system, the costs and pressure on this system, when

these preventive services that were funded by other ministries — or

even by the ministry itself — are terminated.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In the last area, Mr. Chairman, I think the

capability of the ministry in determining or even gathering that

information would require a period of time to have elapsed. It would

not be as quick as that. I don't think statistically or just from

gathering the information that it would be anywhere near in the system

at the moment. A specific attempt could be made to try to identify and

follow, and as the member said, it might be very difficult to

specifically identify one with the other, but maybe in some round

numbers, yes, it's quite possible. I'll inquire into that.

[5:00]

The other two issues are much more specific, and I think more

information is known. The member mentioned that the smoking problem

with teenagers, for some reason now, seems to have affected the female

more than the male teenager, and it has. The incidence of smoking for

teenage females is the largest area of growth. It's quite possible it

is in relation to the percentage previously, but yes, that is a major

concern. I think perhaps it relates to something the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned too, about the exercise at the

various schools. It's unfortunate that there isn't more impetus

occurring at that level where the youngsters are exposed for such a

long period of time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The restraint program for children under six. It follows, Mr.

Chairman, that the restraints which are available in automobiles now in

some circumstances would not be suitable for very small children, but

there are alternatives available. The regular seatbelt apparatus can be

utilized by a large number of youngsters under six. As we all know,

youngsters are not all the same size. Some are large enough to be

restrained by that which is now in an automobile. And there should he a

concerted effort to encourage the use of restraints. I would think that

it's quite possible you could argue that many parents may simply not

even think of a small child requiring restraint, for some reason. There

should be, I concur —and the BCMA and I have discussed it as well — an

effort made to really get the point across to parents that there is

tremendous advantage to having your children under restraint in the car

while it's moving, and to think for a moment of the dangers inherent in

having the child sitting on the lap of a parent or unrestrained in the

back seat in the event of an accident. I would venture to guess that

many adults who do up their seatbelts when they get in the car have a

youngster floating around unrestrained. I agree that there should be

emphasis placed on that, and there is a certain area that I intend to

pursue with respect to that. I concur that there should he a tremendous

amount of emphasis placed on that.

It's of interest in the area of health promotion, in our preventive

services, that four significant issues are being emphasized at this

particular time. There are more than four, but these are four which at

the moment have been placed in what we refer to as a health promotion

unit. They're going to address these four. They are not the four the

member spoke of, although — these are not in a priority list —

addressing smoking issues is one and raising low birth weights is

another. Reducing back injuries and encouraging self-care programs for

senior citizens are the others. The health promotion unit will be

addressing the smoking issue and will be addressing some of the other

issues. I have no hesitation in having them also look at the

restraint/seatbelt issue, and see how we might best get that message

across so it results in greater utilization.

The other issues. I will ask some of our people whether there is a

method whereby they can audit the results of any other program being

cancelled, whether there is a direct relationship, and whether we can

somehow determine that. I'd be pleased to ask someone in the ministry

to see what answer they can come up with.

MS. BROWN: Very briefly, I want to thank the minister for

that commitment to do something about the car restraint program for

young people, because what we're dealing with, of course, is a group in

our society which cannot speak for themselves, so unless all of us

speak for them, they remain at risk. I certainly am very pleased that

the minister has committed himself to working with the BCMA in terms of

the educational job involved in getting that message across to the

parents. It would help, though, if I could get those figures that I

asked for. Is it possible that the hospital keeps those figures? They

do? That's fine. Thank you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just to clarify, it's a combination — ICBC

keeps certain records and hospitals others, but we will certainly

attempt to, although the numbers are going to be capable of being

interpreted liberally, if that's not an offensive word — because

records are not necessarily kept of long-term effects relating

specifically to that type of incident.

One other comment on the promotions. In our system today within the

health program, the major problems today are chronic disease and

accidents, so certainly that's an area that deserves attention.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to join this debate on a number of

issues, and especially I would like to support my colleague from

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I guess we all look at

[ Page 4130 ]

it from a different side of life. Unlike her, I

have not visited the hospitals with people who had been permanently

injured and had brain damage, especially children from car accidents,

but I know from lots of experience — I've seen many children injured in

car accidents — that if they had had some type of restraint they

wouldn't have been. I can always remember my first coroner's inquest,

and I know that your deputy will maybe understand it. This was an

accident where damage to the car was only $75, but a person was killed.

The coroner asked me if he would have been alive if he'd had a

seatbelt. In the early sixties seatbelts weren't something that people

thought of in any great degree. I said: "Yes, he would have been." I

was sure of that. I think it is the education that has taken place over

the years that we all get into our cars today — or the vast majority of

us — and buckle up our seatbelt because we have been convinced by media

and advertising that it is a way of life.

I think your ministry could use some of the $18 million your

government has for advertising for the next step that my colleague is

talking about. We will accept it. The normal reaction is that we're

against buckling up, but it does save lives.

I have a few other suggestions to the minister that really have

bothered myself and many of my constituents. I know philosophically we

are in opposition to the government's degree of user fees. I honestly

believe that when someone is sick or injured he needs hospital

treatment, and I really cannot accept the government's position that

people really do go to hospital and abuse the system or use it

unnecessarily. In emergency situations people do go there, but it is

only one shot — $10. When you go into acute care, 8 to 20 days is an

average stay. Many in the community think that all those in

extended-care hospitals are senior citizens collecting old-age pension

who are automatically covered or people who are on some sort of GAIN or

handicapped pension. But there are a large number of citizens in

extended-care hospitals, in most cases wives of husbands who are

working — husbands who are maintaining a regular job while maintaining

a home, with wives in extended care hospitals for which they are now

paying $12 to $13 a day.

This is not on a one-shot basis — not 8 to 20 days. They are in

there for 30 days a month, 365 days a year. There is added expense of

paying the extended care penalty because the wife happened to have MS

or some other serious illness where she is confined to hospital for the

rest of her life, while he maintains a job and home and is looking

after the family. That additional burden from a working man's wages is

breaking so many families today. Many husbands have told me it would be

cheaper if they could desert their wives and she could sue him as a

deserted wife, or if he could leave her. But the love of a wife is not

something.... The average man would not want to go through the procedure of divorcing or deserting a wife.

One case that came to my community office is now before the courts.

The Gorge Hospital is suing the husband and forcing him to sell the

family home to get the 30-odd thousand dollar bill he has run up. She's

been in the hospital since the fifties. When it was $1 a day the

problem wasn't something that affected him, but in the last eight

years, since this present Social Credit government came to power, they

have continued to raise the rates. In this particular case this man is

a fisherman. He has a small boat and he's in and out of work. He has a

lot of problems. After having a wife in hospital as long as he has, I

believe there have been other marital problems develop that affect that

particular family and that individual.

I will say, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that I don't

think it is all one-sided. The cumulative effect of what has happened

with the high extended-care costs to a family yea