1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8917 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Site C land. Mrs. Wallace –– 8917

Dome LNG contract award. Mr. D'Arcy –– 8918

Mr. Leggatt

Use of 2,4-D in Okanagan lakes. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 8919

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Gardom)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8919

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 55 –– 8924

Hon. Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Division

On vote 56: intergovernmental relations –– 8925

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 56 –– 8925

Division

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

On vote 45: minister's office –– 8926

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Brummet

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Bennett

Introduction and first reading –– 8939

Appendix –– 8939

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE:

I'm very pleased to see in the gallery opposite today a representative

from the city council of the city of North Vancouver. I ask this House

to welcome Alderman Frank Marcino and his lovely daughter Kathy to the

Legislature and to Victoria.

MR. RITCHIE: I also see

a good friend and constituent of mine in the gallery, Mr. Bryan

Hambley. Mr. Hambley is past chairman of the Abbotsford and district

school board and is presently active on our Fraser Valley College board

— a very dedicated community worker. Would the members please welcome

Mr. Hambley.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to add my

words of welcome to Frank Marcino from North Vancouver. He's an old

friend of mine and of many others on this side as well.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I would be pleased if all members of the House would welcome Mrs.

Sharon Douglas from Victoria, who is in the gallery today and visiting

our House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know that Bruce

Eriksen, when he was here on Monday, was saddened to see his member

absent from the House. It's not often that I have the opportunity of

introducing people, but on behalf of the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is absent on holidays, I'd like to introduce a

resident of Vancouver Centre, Jennifer Jones.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I'm especially honoured today to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and to

this House eight Girl Scouts from Los Angeles. They are from the Las

Monteguis troop and they come as guests of Canada and British Columbia.

I would also like to mention that the Girl Scouts' sister organization

in Canada is known as the Girl Guides.

MR. STRACHAN: I just noticed a friend in the gallery. Would the House please welcome from the College of New Caledonia, Dr. Jan Cioe.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the French wine industry, I'd like to extend

a welcome to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman) for being with us today.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the House delegates from the B.C.

School Trustees Association, the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C.

Association of Colleges and the College-Institute Educators Association

who are here in gallery today and who will be attending a meeting

shortly after question period.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome a citizen of

Prince George, Bob Sebastian, who is a visitor in the gallery today. He is a

well-known painter of Indian culture and history and is now known right across

the country. I'd like the House to extend him a particularly warm welcome.

Oral Questions

SITE C LAND

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Can the minister explain why B.C. Hydro has

subdivided agricultural land at Site C without the approval of the

Agricultural Land Commission?

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

MRS. WALLACE:

That's surprising; I thought B.C. Hydro was his responsibility. B.C.

Hydro has said to the Utilities Commission that it anticipates it can

bypass the Agricultural Land Commission and go directly to cabinet to

get the land out of the reserve. Can the minister advise whether the

cabinet has given a commitment to B.C. Hydro that it will be able to go

directly to cabinet and bypass the Land Commission?

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

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I'll try the Minister of Agriculture. The Agricultural

Land Commission indicated that they were going to intervene in the Site

C hearings. Did the minister advise the Agricultural Land Commission

that it would not be appropriate for them to take that action?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat will probably recall that

there were technical documents filed by the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food at the Site C hearings to give the information that they required

to carry out the hearings. The member is also aware, I'm sure, that

there is no question that there is some land there that is classed as

agricultural land. The issue was not whether or not it was

agriculturally viable; the question was what the use was going to be,

either agriculture or energy.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the

minister has told me a lot of things I already knew, but he didn't

answer my question. Did the minister contact the Agricultural Land

Commission and advise them that they should not intervene at those

hearings, after they had indicated that they were going to intervene?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker. to clarify — because I think it's important that it is on

the record — B.C. Hydro is not questioning the agricultural capability

of some of the land within the pondage area. The approach to the

Utilities Commission is to determine the need for energy and whether or

not the recommendation from the Utilities Commission to cabinet would

be for energy or for retaining land in the agricultural land reserve

for agricultural production.

As I said before, there is no

question as to some of the capability of the land. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, the decision was made that there was not a need for the

Agricultural Land Commission to state the capability of the land in

question, because even B.C. Hydro knew that there was some agricultural

land within the pondage area.

[ Page 8918 ]

MRS. WALLACE:

Very slowly: did the minister intervene with the Agricultural Land

Commission and ask them not to appear at the Site C hearings?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to answer the member opposite....

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The determination in regard to whether or not the Land Commission would

file intervention was made in discussion with the commissioners, my

staff and my ministry months and months ago. If you're asking did I

come down with a heavy hand as the minister and say "Do not," the

answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE: Was the Minister of

Agriculture aware of the subdividing of land by B.C. Hydro? If so, did

he take any action to prevent that subdivision?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I was not, and am not, aware of the subdivision of land owned by Hydro.

MRS. WALLACE:

Will the minister make a commitment to this House and the people of

British Columbia that the question of the withdrawal of Site C lands

from the agricultural land reserve will be referred to the Agricultural

Land Commission? I assume the answer is no, but I would like to know.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The matter is future policy of the government, if that determination

were proceeded with. The member knows that the Agricultural Land

Commission Act stipulates that subdivisions within the ALR have to be

approved by the Agricultural Land Commission. The member also knows —

because her party, when it was government, had a

section which is still

in the act that says so — that the cabinet can exclude land from the

agricultural land reserve.

As I see the situation

developing, should a decision be made to proceed with Site C, then the

land in question, which would be flooded.... The Utilities Commission

would recommend to cabinet, and cabinet would decide either to proceed

with an energy facility or to keep the land within the ALR and have it

for agriculture. The subdivision, if we're talking about Site C, in my

opinion would not be relevant. It would be a determination whether or

not to proceed with an energy facility.

MRS. WALLACE:

The subdivisions have taken place. The land has been divided by B.C.

Hydro without reference to the Agricultural Land Commission. You

yourself indicated that it had to go to the Agricultural Land

Commission before it could be approved. Will you now take immediate

steps to ensure that those subdivisions are revoked, here and now, so

that if in fact the Site C doesn't go ahead, the land will still remain

in viable units?

MR. SPEAKER: The question as to what steps have been taken would be in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not aware of the subdivisions taking place; therefore I'll take that part of her question as notice.

DOME LNG CONTRACT AWARD

MR. D'ARCY:

Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources please tell

the House why he has decided on a coverup regarding the applications

for the LNG project, resulting in the fact that the industry, the

competitive bidders, the petrochemical industry and the people of B.C.

find it impossible to decide for themselves whether or not an

intelligent choice was made on the LNG export proposal?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There is no coverup.

MR. D'ARCY:

I did not ask the minister whether or not there had been a coverup.

Obviously there is a coverup, so we don't need to ask him that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have the question.

MR. D'ARCY:

What I asked the minister, and I will ask him again, is this: since he

has decided to cover up and conceal the application, will he now decide

to table the relative merits of the various applications so that the

industry and the people of B.C. can decide whether he knows what he's

doing regarding B.C. gas?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said

at the press conference when I announced the successful LNG proponent

that further details would be released in a couple of weeks, and that

still holds true.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is

directed to the same minister. The original proposal — the initial

proposal of the Dome group — was that Canadian ships would be

constructed and used for the transport of LNG to Japan. The proposal

that the minister has tentatively accepted contains no such provision.

Will the minister explain to the House why he didn't insist on Canadian

ships, for at least part of this project, before he gave his approval?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The proposal of Dome, or any of the other proponents, never contained

any proposal to build ships in Canada. At one time Dome Petroleum

suggested that it might build ships in Canada, but it wasn't part of

the proposals. Nor did any of the other proponents even mention

building ships in Canada.

The estimated cost of LNG carriers

in Europe and Japan is about $160 million per vessel in U.S. dollars.

In the United States it's about $200 million. In Canada it's over $220

million per vessel, after applying the present federal subsidy, which,

I understand, is somewhere around 7 percent — down quite considerably

from the 20 percent it was at one time. The current world market price

for existing surplus LNG carriers — and there are now about 24 ships

not being used, which are considered surplus and are up for sale — is

$90 million. Dome's original thought, which was subsequently withdrawn,

was to build a brand new shipyard, perhaps two. At the present time

none of the shipyards in Canada is big enough to build these vessels.

The only proposal that was even suggested was to build only the hulls

in Canada for four of the five carriers needed. The cryogenic vessels

that would go with those hulls would still have been built and

installed in Japan.

[ Page 8919 ]

The

subsidization of the ships themselves would have been bad enough, but

there would have been massive subsidies necessary for the shipyards.

Over the life of the project, the added cost to the taxpayers by using

Canadian-built vessels, even with the cost of the vessels, would have

averaged about $75 million a year. This would have very seriously

reduced the B.C. and Alberta revenues; or, again, it would have

required a very high front-end capital subsidy, with no assurance of

the longevity of the shipyard. In fact, we would probably have been

stuck with one, perhaps two, shipyards that would have no work

following the construction of these vessels. It was thought by all of

the proponents, and by the government, that that kind of taxpayer

subsidy just wasn't worth it to the Canadian taxpayer.

MR. LEGGATT:

In view of the fact that this government can subsidize a railroad for

the Japanese on the Anzac line, why can't it subsidize Canadian

shipping for workers in this province? Perhaps the minister can answer

that question and the next one.

Did the minister receive any

representation from the Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) with respect to the Dome proposal, or with respect to any

of the other applicants for the project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The selection of the successful proponent was a joint recommendation to

cabinet by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and

the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It was a joint

operation from the beginning; the recommendation to cabinet was a joint

recommendation, and that recommendation was accepted by cabinet.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to reply to some questions taken on notice during yesterday's question period.

Leave granted.

USE OF 2,4-D IN OKANAGAN LAKES

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) asked whether the United States

Army Corps of Engineers consulted "with the minister or the Ministry of

the Environment with respect to drift conditions, concentrations, water

intakes and recreation-use areas on Osoyoos Lake prior to applying

2,4-D." I replied yesterday that they did not consult with me, but they

may have consulted with staff in my regional office.

I have

now checked, and ministry personnel were not aware of, and had not been

consulted on, the treatment that caused the 2,4-D contamination of the

water in the British Columbia portion of Osoyoos Lake. The first

knowledge of the potential 2,4-D contamination of our water was

received in the Vernon offices of the aquatic studies branch on Friday,

July 16, 1982, when a representative of the United States Army Corps of

Engineers warned that there was a possibility of a drift into Canada.

In response to that, I have drafted a letter to the Army Corps of

Engineers expressing the hope that in future, when they are applying

2,4-D in an attempt to eradicate Eurasian water milfoil, they advise us

when they are doing it on a transboundary water question.

The

second question I took on notice was one regarding Eurasian water

milfoil and "a complete review of the progress of Okanagan Lake 2,4-D

program." That's really not the case. No review has ever specifically

been done on that. However, my colleague. Hon. James Nielsen, when he

was the Minister of Environment, struck an advisory committee involving

the University of British Columbia. We now have their seventh interim

report, and are acting on those recommendations.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

On vote 55: ministers office, $138,000.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Chairman, this is the very moment, I'm sure, the whole assembly has

been waiting for. It's indeed a great pleasure for me to call vote 55:

resolved that a sum not exceeding 138,000 meagre little dollars be

granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of

Intergovernmental Relations and my humble little office.

Mr.

Chairman. In opening these estimates I wish to make it abundantly clear

that I have resisted the siren song of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

I have turned down candy-apples, half-smoked cigars. nights at the

movies and days at the race-track, and try as they will, Mr. Chairman,

I categorically refuse to accept so much as a farthing increase in

these estimates; like Grant, I stand fast. I do hope, though, that in

the furtherance of our restraint program we may well contemplate

savings throughout the whole of the year, notwithstanding the prophecy

of the Province newspaper.

also trust, Mr. Chairman, that the press will sharpen their pencils,

gird their cameras and burnish their recorders, as wonderous items of

current interest and bodings of things to come dance before their eager

little eyes during these debates. But I would like to make one thing

very clear: I do not agree with the hon. first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), who. I'm told, is unavoidably not with us today; but

for a chap, Mr. Chairman. who knocks a bank, creates a run and hives

off to Switzerland, it's a little like an eighteenth-century whodunit.

The question has to be: did he sell short? But I agree not with him

that this gallery is all bad, for some of them aren't good enough to be

bad, and a few of them aren't bad enough to be good. But in Russia, Mr.

Chairman, the dissidents end up in Siberia, and I suppose in British

Columbia the less fortunate in the media end up in Disneyland North —

in the press gallery in Victoria — with about similar fringe benefits,

bearing in mind that which they usually have to face that is

repetitious, sometimes boring, and dull, and that which is not

certainly seems to escape the attention of several members of the

assembly, and yet they are compelled to write about it. So they indeed

do have their difficulties.

I think a lot of compliment, Mr.

Chairman, is due to everyone involved in the ministry. It does have a

small staff: a total of 46, of whom 12 are based in B.C. Houses in

London and in Ottawa. By way of general comparison, the Alberta

ministry has about 80, with Quebec in the neighbourhood of about 500. A

lot of compliment is due to everyone involved in

[ Page 8920 ]

its

endeavours, the very capable secretariat led by Mr. Mark Krasnick; the

constitutional side and its great accomplishment led by Mr. Mel Smith;

my efficient staff with Mr. Jim Matkin at the general helm. I'd also

pay my respects to the great capacities of Mr. Alex Hart, QC, our

outstanding B.C. agent-general in London, truly an agent-general

nonpareil; and further to Mr. David McPhee and Miss Ann Vice, our most

efficient and charming representatives in Ottawa. For their dedication,

their hard work and their continuing capacity to be innovative and

helpful in the interest of all of the people of this province I offer

everyone in the ministry the best of thanks and the sincerest of

congratulations.

I wish to make a number of points as

concisely as I'm able to in these opening remarks, which I shall

endeavour to compress. I would like to talk a little bit about my view

of our current state of federal-provincial affairs — i.e. Canadian

democratic federalism, which is a unique dynamic — and of where we may

find it going over the short and long haul; my views of Canadian

governance insofar as it relates to our capacity to operate

individually and collectively how it became that way, and how it may

and should change. I'd also like to make a short assessment of the

Canadian constitutional journey over 1982 — what was averted, and what

we may see in store and realizable — plus say a few words about the

operational aspect of the good people in this ministry.

I'd

say it's very far from comforting for everybody to note in the country

these days that our principal growth industries are unemployment, UIC

claims, high interests rates, bankruptcies, soaring federal deficits,

the crippling of the Canadian dollar and a malaise of confidence of

capital. I think the most regrettable aspects of the country today are

the questions about the continuance of Canada as we economically,

geographically and, indeed, politically know it, as well as the crisis

at the centre of leadership and the will to provide Canadian

leadership. All of that notwithstanding, I — as most Canadians are, as

well as, I'm sure, pretty well everybody in this House — am very much

an optimist and have great faith in our country and in the Canadian

people's capacity to rise above all of this. It goes without saying

that we have to recognize that in Canada we live in a truly

heaven-blessed area of the world. We have to reflect upon how fortunate

we are, with the abundance of our resources, freedoms and

opportunities, and most of all upon the fact that we live in peace —

witness the horror that happened in the United Kingdom yesterday. Thank

God that is not a lifestyle for us. Indeed, it should not be a

lifestyle over there.

With all of that first and foremost in

mind, what we in Canada have to do is start working our way out of

where we now are. The words to stress are "work," "Canadian commitment"

and "Canadian dedication." It's certainly not going to happen by drift;

nothing is bound to turn up. Perhaps it was best stated by the late

President Kennedy when he said: "Ask not what your country can do for

you; ask what you can do for your country." That has to be the call

across our country today. This is going to mean some burdens and some

sacrifice, and most importantly, sharing of those. But I'd say that

with that kind of attitude and action, providing it is positive action,

there is no question that Canada can and will make it. How long it will

take will depend upon our degree of commitment.

A lot has

been said recently about the federal budget, but I wonder whether or

not its true ramifications are effectively and properly understood

across the nation. It seems to be an attempt to continue — and I stress

the word "continue" — to mistrack our national fiscal presence until

events overtake the players or some presently unforeseeable western

world economic miracle emerges. Taking it at its faceless value, it is

mostly, regrettably, without hope or the capacity for any truly

significant, long-range, positive impact. It's very clear that within

existing Ottawa philosophical parameters, Mr. MaeEachen had very little

room to move. But it is no Liberal budget in the historic liberal

sense, or even in the Liberal sense. I'd say it's just another shuffle

of the cards — a little jiggery here, a little pokery there — a

technocratic exercise. It's more third-level bureaucratic control and

more clobbering of the middle class. We see leeching of the indexing of

income tax and the results of that be larded onto pensioners and the

elderly — in fact, penalizing those who got the country into the good

shape that we were enjoying yesterday. Once again, they're sucking up

more tax dollars, distilling them through the public service until they

have been regulated and eroded to the point that merely dribbles can be

distributed, like Oliver's first bowl, to all of those they probably

categorize as the expectant grateful. Some benevolence!

Without

a marked shift in economic philosophy, the more to come would have to

be more of the same, more bad news and more red ink. "The country is

close to being on its economic knees," said fellow British Columbian,

the federal auditor-general, Mr. Kenneth Dye. "We're going down the

bloody drain if we don't do something about it," said Mr. James

Macdonell, who held the post from 1973 to 1980. "Essential, desirable,

non-essential — that's how to develop program activity," he stated,

"and some of that activity should be stopped. Where the call is to

stop, stop — for God's sake, stop." Sure, some worthwhile endeavours

may well have to be shelved during these economic times, until Canada

can work its way out of this. If such measures are good, society will

readily see that they can re-emerge later when Canada can afford it. If

they are not any good, fine, excellent; and what better time than this

to effect that kind of pruning? But from Mr. MacEachen we can forecast

more debt. It went from $10 billion to $20 billion in the last nine

months, and that $20 billion, Mr. Chairman, was at 82 cents. With the

dollar drop it's probably much closer to $22 billion or $23 billion

today. No doubt it's going to be way beyond that by Christmas — some

present! — and with no apparent longrange federal strategy for

reduction. Thirty cents out of every federal dollar now goes to service

debt. Canada is paying $25 million a day, and if Mr. Dye's predictions

are correct we're going to be facing 50 cents out of every buck for

debt: $40 million to $50 million a day to keep afloat, and that's

positively scary.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, under the current economic philosophical parameters of the

federal administration, and assuming, as I said, there are no western

world miracles — there don't appear to be any coming down the track —

one can only expect more and worse of the same: more tinkering;

probably a national slicing of the social cost big-hitters — health,

education and human resources; drastically cutting back on EPF and

transfer payments; shifting of dollar costs onto the provinces, which,

because of B.C.'s being a payer and not a receiver of equalization,

would mean an even tougher load for British Columbia. That is what

these MacPierres have produced, with Canada facing the greatest capital

outflow

[ Page 8921 ]

and the least capital inflow, the greatest capital economic dearth in decades.

But

rather than emphasizing the incestuous dictates of regulatory debility,

Mr. MacEachen should have drastically altered, or better still

abandoned, the NEP. He should have tied FIRA into a sack with several

heavy stones and sent it to its reward in the Rideau Canal. He should

have eliminated the capital gains tax for the present, and initiated,

as we have proposed, income tax free investment bonds with fair and

manageable interest rates for borrowers, and massively infuse these

back into the marketplace as low-cost mortgages, loans to small

businesses, to fishermen and farmers, and provide startup depreciation

and profit-sharing incentives for business. Plus, and more importantly,

he should rationalize our tax jungle. I listened with a great deal of

interest to the member for Surrey and my colleague the Minister of

Finance when they skirted around this during the estimates of the

Ministry of Finance yesterday. We should be providing reliefs and

incentives by tax points or allowances, or something like them — by

lines on income tax returns.

Those are the ways and the

light to economic recovery in this country, instead of maintaining once

again and proliferating once again legions of bureaucracy and

restrictive regulation which would serve little but to perpetuate and

fuel our economic erosion.

Mr. Trudeau's principal thrust

for solution down the line appears to be economic martial law. What I'm

advocating is economic freedom. But unless the country somehow,

sometime, somewhere, finds its own solution, Mr. Trudeau could well

impose his solution — economic martial law. Canada does not deserve

that. It needs freedom to grow, freedom to prosper. It needs economic

freedom, not economic martial law. I say we have to develop a right

climate for capital, to work effectively, function, give value,

deregulate, attain our potential; that's the appropriate route to take.

Because if you look at the history of our country, that is the proven

and the workable formula. It's always been the modus operandi for

Canadian success. When Canada has not succeeded throughout our history,

it's because we have taken a course different than that. So for

goodness sake, can we not at least learn from history.

As I

mentioned earlier, some good can come from this. Until this point there

has not seemed to be a ready, willing and able capacity in the nation

to assess and sunset that which is redundant — the overlapping and the

duplicating. We became creatures of habit. We became very grudgingly

acquiescent to the inefficient. Instead of working as hard as we could

to eliminate red tape throughout the whole of our country, Canadians

either passively succumbed to it, or they went elsewhere. Neither

course is being assistive to the nation. We can't do that anymore. We

have faced the day and the time of truth. It's not an end that is in

sight: it is right here right now. I say that for this nation to thrive

and survive we have to take a 180 degree turn and return to how the

country has best operated and can best operate.

I'd like now to talk about commitment to our country and back to the....

MR. MACDONALD: Back to the eighteenth century, the seventeenth century, the sixteenth century....

HON. MR. GARDOM:

There's the difference between a man who lacks vision, like my friend

over there, and a person who is speaking to you from the perspective of

a great future for a great country. We are not trying to debilitate our

country. We are not trying to shackle it with mountains of red tape and

bureaucracy, as would be your mould. We think that is completely wrong.

have to commit ourselves to our country and to its overall well-being.

There is no question that the separatist talk that we've been hearing,

as it is being continuously espoused by the socialist PQ in Quebec, by

the hard-right WestFeds out west, or by those centralists who would

separate us from federalism, the unitary statistics who roam around

Ottawa and central Canada, and by the Waffle Manifestoers, has hurt and

is continuing to hurt our national and international economic and

capital capacity and credibility. Who, in the name of the good Lord,

would wish to invest in a country that is proposing to dissolve? Nobody

in their right mind. Right of self-determination: I'd say, less than my

royal backside: it was called treason when I was a child.

Some

self-designed. self-serving, irresponsible member in this assembly a

few days ago created a bank run, and some very rightful waves of

indignation spread across the country. But where is the national

outrage against those who would sever Canada and make far worse the

economic fortunes of even those who support them, as well as the whole

of the nation and the overall future of every Canadian? Perhaps this is

a good thing, I don't know that, I don't have much Scottish blood in

me. What I do have recoils at having to finance these kinds of

separatist endeavours in any way. It's an excess nobody can afford now.

A few years ago, I said that maybe equalization payments should be lodged

in trust rather than paid to those who receive Canadian benefits but use them

to finance, and conspire to finance, the departure from the Canadian scene.

I looked upon that from the perspective of unity within the Canadian family.

Yet some chose, for political advantage, I guess, to brand me as heretic against

Quebec. That's absolute nonsense. I am for Quebec in Canada. I am for Alberta

and B.C. in Canada. But more and more, I think that equalization payments should

not be plunked into the hands of governments but should find their way to the

citizens in the recipient provinces by decreased tax points or what have you.

think W.A. C. was miles ahead of his time on this score. He saw the

danger of all Canadian dollars becoming capable of provincial political

manipulation. I want the people in the Maritimes, Quebec, Manitoba and

Saskatchewan to know that this is money from a Canadian to a Canadian,

and not to any government or group who may be working to leave our

country and who is against our country. It's just not right; it's just

not Canadian. If anybody wishes to categorize that type of activity as

the luxury of a tolerant society, it's a luxury that Canada can just

not afford today.

The equalization formula mode of payment —

certainly not its concept or principle, which is one of sharing and

providing standards of service across a country, which is the Canadian

way and in the Canadian interest, and which is great.... But that

formula and mode of payment should be changed, and now is the time to

do it, without any question.

About the process of

governance: there are too many, too restrictive, too overlapping and

there are four levels. How did this come about? I suppose there's

nothing that bureaucracy will favour or cling to more than turf.

They'll fight to the death over turf. Pay and the rate of pay depend

upon turf. The proliferation of restrictive turf-enhancing legislation

over the

[ Page 8922 ]

past half a century — I'd say very specifically over the past 25 years — has produced where we're at now.

We're

really so overgoverned throughout the whole of our country, it's

preposterous. I'd say it very juicily fits the mould of my friends

across the way. It well fits the socialistic mould, and indeed

complements the designs of the structurists and of the Cartesian

dialecticians who unfortunately seem to envelop us in just about every

quarter. But how wrong it is. It isn't productive. It hampers

initiative. It restricts development. It scares capital. Its appetite

for dollars is insatiable and it's always self-perpetuating. But be it

by luxury or by laissez-faire, we've got it. But for Canada to survive,

we cannot carry on with this current mould.

A few years ago

I suggested that it would be a demonstration of national will and

purpose if all governments — all emanations of government, federal,

provincial, regional and municipal, universally, throughout the

country, all of them; not one by one, but all of them at one time —

established the 40-hour work week. "Well, he wants to send children

back to the mines," said certain of our political and labour leaders.

No way, Mr. Chairman. I only wanted the country to best function....

How one can effectively run an institution — and one knows that

government's operations are institutional, all taxpayer-paid, all

dollar-open-ended — how you can possibly run a 24-hour-a-day,

seven-day-a-week, 365 day-a-year institution except with an eight-hour

shift is ludicrous. Had we as a nation taken a course such as that a

few years back, I think we might well not have been in the degree of

soup we're in today.

I'd like to say a couple of words about

accountability. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) yesterday, when they were talking about accountability and

that which had been discussed at the meetings of the public accounts

committee of the country. Specifically, by way of illustration, about

the national media.... I may have trouble getting out of caucus

tonight, Mr. Chairman, but I like the CBC. But what I like about it is

its concept, not necessarily how it's run. I say that all organs and

emanations of government — the Crown corporations, all recipients of

tax money, professionals and so on — have to be subject to effective

accountability. We cannot permit them to operate as economic fiefdoms

unto themselves. Their tax revenues and expenditures should be under

the same kind of accountability and scrutiny as the direct expenditures

of senior governments. That would include disclosure of hours of work,

payments for services, and goods and materials at all levels. There's a

right to know, and if there is fat it should be trimmed. If there are

gross mistakes they should be bared.

My colleague the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is indicating from his seat: are

we getting value in Canada from the CBC? It's $500 million in the glue.

Well, if that is considered to be value, okay. But if it isn't — and I

would think that most of the Canadian public surely think it is not —

pare it. Let's do something about it. But for goodness' sake, Mr.

Chairman, let it become accountable.

In passing, I would

note that the courts seem to have found that organization to be the

all-Canadian libellor last year. That was never its mandate. Canadian

taxpayers and, I'm sure, by far the majority in the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation greatly resent that national communications

medium becoming involved in that kind of exercise, with the taxpayer

footing the bill for both the libel and the libellor. Let them return

to ethical standards as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a

few words about tenure. Have we not today come to the point in time in

our history that we should not continue to have two rules for the game

— essentially, one in the public sector and one in the private sector?

Apart from the very ancient arguments from the towers of learning about

academic freedom, the tenure system is a throwback and carryover from

the Great Depression, when lower salaries were accepted upon the

understanding of security of payment and continuity of service. Now the

pay on balance is good, and the security of payment is excellent, but

surely we have outlived the concept of tenure. Wouldn't society be

better served by the thousands of truly dedicated public servants who

put out, as most do, if they did not have to always suffer those who

won't pull their fair share, and if we perhaps considered some form of

merit return for good performance? There is precious little tenure in

the private sector. There one can't have more dollars in than out — if

so, it's game over. It's a big issue and it's certainly controversial.

But can Canada afford to carry on the way it has? I doubt it.

When

discussing public-sector leadership, one cannot escape reflecting upon

the private sector. It has to give value; it's got to shore up its

productivity. It's certainly got to contribute its energy and its

counsel to the public milieu. In a democratic society, like it or not

we're all in the kitchen. There has to be a partnership of effort.

Neither the private sector alone nor the public sector alone can do the

complete job; both are required.

I very much welcome recent

remarks about belt-tightening from some of our very high-level

corporate leaders. We heard lots of sound and well-chronicled

statements. But I'd say to some of them that society also expects them

to practise what they preach. In these kinds of times those leaders who

happen to be in the stratospheric $200,000 and $300,000 and $400,000

per year bracket should move down as well.

Now I want to take a look at the constitutional arena. This will be my last topic, Mr. Chairman.

The

year 1982 was a remarkable year. It was an historic one for our

country, and I'm very happy to say that this ministry was able to play

a considerable part. What was initially proposed by the federal

administration for Canada, and all but thrust down its throat, through

the nostrils of the United Kingdom, was a proposal that would have all

but ended Canadian federalism as we now know it and as we have known

it. It would have perpetuated economic, political and institutional

power in central Canada, contrary to the natural evolution of our

country. It would have seen enshrined a veto capacity upon a

non-elected, nationally appointed, ill-representative institution, the

hoary old Senate; it would have even more tilted against the capacity

of the west and the hinterlands to achieve their rightful potential.

Perhaps it would have lessened, if not eventually eliminated, the role

of the monarchy as well. In retrospect, it would have opened up

divisions far, far greater than those that exist at the present time.

that juggernaut had to be stopped. In that endeavour the national New

Democratic Party and the provincial NDP were of no assistance

whatsoever; but to the contrary, and, indeed, fully supportive of Mr.

Trudeau's neo-Canadian designs. It was wrong, it was dangerous, it was

patently antifederalist, and we could have become a unitary state. It

all but succeeded, but for five provinces, at first, opposing and

offering constructive alternatives; and slowly their numbers increased

to eight. That was followed by the very clearly and soundly expressed

resentment of the Canadian public to the

[ Page 8923 ]

federal

NDP-supported unilateral process. Next, it was buttressed by the

decision of the three courts of appeal and, finally, by the highest

court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. Even as late as then,

tremendous effort was still required, because notwithstanding the eight

provinces, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian public there

was still very clear articulation that the majority in the Canadian

Parliament would have forced the measure through, with the United

Kingdom, as the Prime Minister rather indelicately stated, being

expected to hold her nose and jump to his bidding. Fortunately,

mounting opposition at Westminster also became more apparent and, at

long last, thanks primarily to the efforts of B.C. and our Premier, the

Prime Minister and his supporters were compelled, much contrary to

their wishes and intellectual designs, to come to the table and

negotiate.

When all of this was going on, as I said over and

over again at that time, Canadian energies and Canadian efforts could

have been so much better utilized by practising cooperative federalism,

as opposed to confrontational federalism, and to address the far more

commanding and more crucial issues that were then besetting us, and

which are even more greatly besetting us today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, are you about to conclude, or would you like leave to continue, as your time as expired?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would appreciate five minutes, but it's entirely up to the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Eventually a bargain was struck. With a better exercise of reason, I

think, on their part, and a better exercise of reason on the part of

the federal administration; Quebec might well have been a party to that

bargain, with compensation for opting-out and mobility rights appearing

to be their final objection at that point in time.

Thank the

good Lord that the exercise initiated by the provinces begat a formula

that does recognize the individuality of the provinces of our country

and the capacities of its regions. The amending formula developed by

eight provinces offers mechanisms for adjustment and amendment; it

dispenses with Senate veto; it affirms that, constitutionally, we are

still a federation; it affirms the monarchical system of government; it

enshrines our national parliamentary and judicial institutions; it

permits federal and provincial initiative for constitutional change,

yet it maintains the capacity for strong national presence. Without

qualification, I'd like to say that something of value resulted. from

which, over the years, much can be developed to continue to improve the

working structure of our country.

Had Mr. Trudeau's central

Canada power grab, aided and abetted, most regretfully, by the federal

NDP.... I suppose you'd have to say that the provincial NDP were either

supportive of the federal NDP and Mr. Trudeau or passive, take your

pick. One can rest assured that the likelihood of Canada being able to

work its way out of our current economic morass would have been even

more difficult now, if not well nigh impossible, because an increased

centralistic constitutional hold would have been all the more putty for

just those chosen few in that part of the country to mould. I'd say

that's pretty scary stuff, but it was prevented.

My final

point is that the constitution in Canada will and should change, but I

hope very gradually and only when clearly necessary. A constitution has

to be of strong stuff. It has to provide certainty and it's not

supposed to be altered at whim, but some change will be faced and soon.

There's the conference that has been called under

section 37 regarding

the Indian community, and apart from that I'd say the provinces and the

federal administration have the capacity — next year, I think — to

achieve something which may now be realizable. But if it's not

realizable, I'd say we should not attempt to achieve it. It may be

realizable, because I don't think that Canadians should lose profit

from their constitutional labours over the past two years. It should

not require a lot of constitutional jawboning, because the work has

been done. It just requires the will to agree failing that, continue to

leave matters on the back burner until accord can be reached. I'm

speaking of matters such as property rights within the charter,

agreeing to a consultative process between the Attorneys and the

Minister of Justice for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada,

clarifying provincial authority over inland fisheries, honing into some

aspects of communications, and seeing how we can make all aspect of

family law more available and of easier and less expensive access to

all Canadians.

In the last rounds there was pretty well

universal agreement reached on these points; and precious little work,

in my view, would be needed to bring about these sorts of improvements,

providing the will is there, because I think the cost of constitutional

reform and the time involved is today, under the economic stress the

country's suffering, something that we can't afford. So if the will is

there, get to it. If the will is not there, let's not vet to it at all.

Finally, reform of or complete abandonment of the upper house has to continue to be addressed.

would very much like to express my appreciation to the hon. members

once again for granting me this bit of extra time, and I welcome your

questions.

MR. HALL: The last half an hour plus has

been a very interesting experience for many of us, particulary those

who have been here for some time. The minister was obviously burning to

make that speech. I'm not too sure whether it was the last speech he's

going to make in the chamber or whether he's writing a book, but he

made a long speech. Very little of it was in order, if I may be so bold

as to say so; very little of it had anything to do with his

administrative responsibilities as the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations — just the beginning and the end did. However, it was

interesting, from a historical perspective, to listen to the member's

economic theories, to listen to cliche upon cliche, to listen to

another round of Ottawa-bashing, and to realize that that member

himself was a member of the party that has been the government party in

Ottawa for many years. However, had that member been loyal to his

political principles and remained in the Liberal Party, he might have

caused some effort and redirection of the federal Liberal Party and we

wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Instead, he ran away. I still

think that western Liberals who deserted and went to the government

party for personal reasons did a greater disservice than ever, when one

looks at that action in 1974 in the fullness of time and we see the

kind of mess we're in today. Therefore I listened to the member's

speech with a great deal of interest.

He had one supporter throughout his speech, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). who applauded his

[ Page 8924 ]

every remark until he mentioned the CBC, and then the minister lost him.

He's

got a selective view of the role of the New Democratic Party regarding

the constitution, a selective view of the role played by the government

of Saskatchewan and a definite selective, if not faulty, hindsight view

of the role played by the federal party and membership of the New

Democratic Party — and that's fair enough, I suppose. But let me say

this to you, and then I think I'll get back in order: whatever the

member's view is, they were there. When the final deal was made in the

kitchen, they were there; our two principal members were in bed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'd already made the agreement.

MR. HALL: Oh, come on — our two guys were in bed.

talks about debt, and the 30 cents on every dollar the federal Liberals

have got to pay. My goodness me! I'll take second place to nobody in

fighting federal Liberals, but let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that

every time you and your wife spend a dollar at B.C. Hydro, 50 cents of

it goes to pay debt. That's worse than federal Liberalism; that's B.C.

Social Credit's energy policy — 50 cents debt on every dollar.

Now we get to order.

listened, and I was pleased to give an extra extension because I wanted

to listen to the member's speech. Really, it was a speech that should

have been made during the more formal debates on the budget or the

throne speech, because it dealt with a kind of reminiscent, longing

look at things long ago, yesteryear; if we only could turn back the

clock and have things nicely arranged — a sort of a pale-blue

Conservative viewpoint. It won't work any more. No matter how much we

may personally like this minister — the long-serving member for

Vancouver–Point Grey — we've really got to look at his performance here

and look at the vote we're dealing with, vote 55.

We on this

side have got serious doubts about this portfolio. For instance, in his

opening remarks he pointed out that the people who are on this list....

If we look in our records, they all work for somebody else; they're all

at somebody else's beck and call; they're doing work for other

ministers, other departments. We feet, Mr. Chairman, that this

portfolio — and I want to put as kind a view on it as I can — has been

constructed as a pre-retirement home for this ebullient, effusive,

egregious member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and we cannot support the

expenditure, Mr. Chairman. Therefore I'm going to move the following:

that vote 55 be reduced by $137, 999. In explanation, that means that

the vote will remain at $1, and that's because we just don't think this

portfolio should exist. Technically we have to leave one dollar there,

otherwise I'd send a dollar across myself. But that really sums up the

viewpoint of the opposition that this is a manufactured arrangement,

and one which we can't support.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm not too sure whether it's a speck of dust or something else, but

I've got a wife and family, and maybe I could check with the Salvation

Army as to whether they will have a little benefit for me before the

day is out, if this vote carries.

MR. HALL: This is restraint with a capital R.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll say!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, it has become popular for members of the opposition who

haven't taken the time to do their homework in the debates in Committee

of Supply to make up for their lack of careful consideration of the

matters which are before this committee by the presentation of

facetious amendments to reduce the vote. I can remember years gone by

in this assembly — and the second member for Surrey was present during

those years — when the reduction of a minister's vote was a serious

criticism, a want of confidence in the way in which that minister

discharged his responsibility; it had its purpose in those days and it

provoked some significant debate. Now, however, this lazy opposition

has so destroyed that traditional method of expressing criticism that

it is no longer of any value. But those of us who've been here for a

few years still remember. Therefore I can't let this occasion go by in

case some person reading the proceedings of this committee should think

that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was correct in expressing

want of confidence in the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

criticized the ministry and said there shouldn't be a ministry. The

business of government unfortunately has become much greater, and there

is the need within government itself to have the opportunity to

interrelate the responsibilities of the various ministries. The

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations discharges that responsibility.

Mr.

Chairman, even if it were not for that ongoing responsibility, I wish

to say, and I can say without fear of criticism, that this minister and

members of his ministry during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, in the

question of the constitutional debates which have taken place in this

country, have discharged themselves on the part of the government of

British Columbia, the province and all its citizens, and indeed on the

part of all Canadians, in such a manner as to justify credit and

distinction to this minister and to this government. To suggest in 1982

in this facetious manner that there should be some criticism of that

responsibility is not acceptable to me.

The member refers to

the meetings in the kitchen. If you want to read the papers and base

your debates upon that kind of information, then you'll get that kind

of debate. The fact of the matter is that I was present, not so often

as my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, when for

hour after hour, day after day, and late into the night, struggling

with the problems of constitutional reform and revision in this

country, this minister and the members of his staff discharged their

responsibility, as I say, to the credit of this province and the

benefit of the people of Canada.

I wish to make it

abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that I will be voting against this

facetious, ridiculous, ill-informed and untimely amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The minister seeks his vote. I can't understand it. I would like to address this amendment.

One

shouldn't judge the importance of a ministry by the size of its budget.

If that's all we used to judge anything in this House, then ministers

would be ranked by the amount of

[ Page

8925 ]

dollars

spent in their ministry, and not by what they contribute to the good of

the province and to the overall strength of our political process.

want to inform this House and the members of this committee that the

changes that have taken place in the professional attitude in B.C.

House in London and in Ottawa in dealings on the international level

and on the national have been phenomenal since this minister has taken

over. The watching brief, the staff of professional services that are

provided for ministers and other members when they are in Ottawa, is as

good a service as you could expect to get in this House as a minister.

Instead of being in a hotel room at the mercy of whatever services may

be available and being at the whim of Ottawa, all of a sudden you have

some professional people who are able to assist in all of those matters

that Ottawa is discussing without our having to be there ourselves. The

briefing papers and the other information presented by the staff in the

Ottawa office are absolutely invaluable.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Before

the member for Surrey made the motion. I perhaps should have reminded

him that one of the issues that have been plaguing this province since

before I was born, and one of the issues which we had hoped to resolve

this year, is the issue of the International Joint Commission in our

relations with the United States over the Skagit River Valley. The

efforts and the work put into it by the minister and his staff are

clearly something to be highly commended. We also have negotiations

with Washington state and the state of Alaska on fisheries matters. We

are now getting, in my ministry and other ministries of government,

services of a minister who is able to give us that type of

professionalism which we have never had before.

There may be

a time when ministries are realigned. I suspect that what will happen

has happened from time to time. But I expect that my colleague the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, or his successor, will be

there to ably represent his very worthy portfolio.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

Hon. Mr. Williams requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

Vote 55 approved.

On vote 56: intergovernmental relations, $2,775,693

MR. HALL:

I would like to ask the minister one question. Could the minister tell

us now if he's staffed B.C. House in Ottawa and, if so, who are the

people representing us there?

HON. MR. GARDOM: There

are four people in B.C. House in Ottawa: Mr. David McPhee, Miss Ann

Vice, and two secretaries — I've forgotten their names. My apologies to

each of them.

MR. HALL: We've examined this vote and

we find there are the usual two touches of profligacy that we've

noticed in almost every ministry. whereby office expenditures have gone

up well beyond inflation, well beyond the guidelines laid down by the

Premier and the Minister of Finance. In this particular case office

expenses are going up 112 percent and office furniture is going up 114

percent.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: No.

they're going up $101.000 in one case and $53,000 in the other. That's

a lot of Windsor chairs, Mr. Minister of Finance: chairs, wooden,

four-legged, ministers, for the use of.

I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that vote 56 be reduced by the sum of $154,400.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I contemplated a movement for reduction from the hon. member — it's

been a practice of the opposition in this session. For his information,

in vote 56 the total increase this year over last year is 8 percent.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2 1

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 8926 ]

Vote 56 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 45: minister's office, $222,410.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I think the Ministry of Health, along with other government ministries,

gives you an idea of the paper war we fight. By even preparing notes

for our estimates today, we find it necessary to bring reams and reams

of information, files, paper releases and additional information in

anticipation of inquiries which may be made by members of this assembly.

The

Ministry of Health represents the largest expenditure within the

provincial budget in the approximate range of 30 percent of the

provincial budget, and it has stayed within that range for the last

number of years. It is reasonably representative of the portion of

budgets offered at the provincial level by the various governments

across Canada. In British Columbia the dollar figure approaches the

$2.5 billion mark. It is somewhat shy of that this year, but rapidly

approaching it.

The concept of health care in Canada, at

this time in our history, is under tremendous attack by the people of

our nation and by those who observe the activities of governments

within Canada and within the provinces. The people of our country and

our province have enjoyed an outstanding health-care system for a great

number of years. There are those who have been students of the

health-care system, those who have been students of economics and those

who have been students of government and government measures and

procedures over the years, who are now openly questioning the capacity

of the country, of the people of the nation, to maintain the level of

health care that has been available and accepted by the citizens for a

large number of years. Some prominent Canadians are questioning the

impact of the cost of maintaining health programs in our country,

combined with other social services, be they education, welfare or

other measures included under the general heading of social services.

Many prominent Canadians are speaking out and asking whether the nation

has the capacity to maintain that level of social service. Some

citizens who have held elective office, some who have been involved in

the medical or health side of the nation, some who in the past have

been strong proponents of the medical programs we know as medicare or

hospitalization or whatever, are beginning to seriously question

whether those programs can be maintained in their present form, or at

least for how long. It's even been suggested by some that perhaps the

huge impost of health care in our country could bankrupt the nation.

That's an extreme point of view put forward by some, and I believe a

view not shared by that many at this time.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Ministers

of health across Canada, at the various meetings which have taken place

over the past few years, have increasingly been concerned about the

capacity of their respective provinces to maintain the high level of

service which Canadians have enjoyed for so long. Many ministers of

health have expressed concern about the capacity within their

jurisdiction to expand services beyond what is already in place. As you

will know, in the province of British Columbia, the programs offered to

citizens by way of health services are in excess of similar programs

offered in other provinces. I might mention that one of the latest

expansions of our health-care program in British Columbia is the

denticare program. Immediately prior to that came the long-term care

program.

These features are not enjoyed by all citizens of

Canada through their provincial health ministries. Many of the services

offered in British Columbia are unique to this province. British

Columbia has, for many, many years, enjoyed a position of considerable

affluence. Some other provinces, particularly in the Maritimes — and

Saskatchewan, perhaps, years ago — were considered to be in the

"have-not" category. They were not able to expand their health-care

programs to the same extent as those provinces considered to be "have"

provinces. The factors we face in the Ministry of Health are shared by

almost all the provinces and territories in Canada. The problems of one

province seem to parallel, to a very large degree, the problems in the

other provinces. From the statements made by the Minister of National

Health and Welfare, even the federal government is beginning to

appreciate, understand or sympathize with some of those problems.

One

of the problems facing British Columbia is the demographics of our

population. On many occasions the province has brought to the attention

of the federal government what we in British Columbia consider to be a

very legitimate request: that is that when considering

federal-provincial arrangements for health benefits, the demographics

of our population be taken into consideration. British Columbia is a

very attractive area for citizens of our country to retire to. We

attract a lot of people from various parts of Canada who come here to

spend their retirement years, particularly in cities such as Victoria.

There is no argument that the cost of maintaining health increases

considerably as citizens reach the senior citizen age level. It's

suggested that those people over 65 years of age, on average, cost

approximately three and a half times as much as a person under 65, and

when a person reaches age 80 the cost is approximately seven times the

average for all citizens.

In British Columbia the Ministry

of Health provides approximately $800 per citizen this year for health

care, which includes services directly received from a health

professional, services available by way of intermediate-care and other

facilities which combine housing and nursing, and, of course, the

procedures that take place at our hospitals.

With respect to

health, the topical subject before us today is the situation in the

province's hospitals. In early April of this year the hospitals were

advised as to what their budgets would be. The budgets, which were

developed by the hospitals and the Ministry of Health, were delivered

to the administrators or boards of the hospitals in the first week of

April. The first week of April is significant in that it's probably the

earliest that the hospitals had received firm budget figures. It may be

difficult for people to accept or to understand why, for many years,

hospitals had not received their budget figures until well into their

fiscal year. Well, the situation was somewhat different: certain

factors of cost were not always considered in the budget, but were

reconciled at the end of the fiscal year. The system seemed to work for

a period of time, with varying degrees of success.

A couple

of years ago, a year and a half ago, or perhaps a year ago — in that

time-frame — an effort was made to better inform the hospitals as to

what their fiscal situation would be. As I said, this year they were

advised in the first part of April as to what their budgets were. The

reaction from the hospitals

[ Page

8927 ]

was immediate and expected. I think almost all of

the hospitals — there were a few exceptions — advised the Ministry of

Health that they were underfunded, that they would require more money

to maintain the service level they had reached.

The

hospitals had to, and still do, take into account certain figures and

factors which are not yet calculable, as to wage settlements. Even to

this day, the hospitals are unaware of what moneys will be required to

resolve wage settlements that are still under negotiation. Many

hospitals have set aside money in reserve in anticipation of certain

wage-level results. Each hospital has not necessarily set aside the

same percentage.

Every hospital in our province is unique.

By way of representation to the ministry, each hospital has expressed

to us why they are unique and what their specific problems are.

a number of occasions, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health and

requests by the hospitals, the ministry has appointed operational

auditors or other teams to go into a hospital and look at specific

factors which have been identified either by the Ministry of Health or

the hospitals themselves to try to determine the validity of claims

made by either the hospital administration or the Ministry of Health.

In some circumstances, I'm sure such investigations will provide us

with a great deal more information rather than what we have at the

moment, which in many cases is opinion.

Times are changing

very rapidly in our nation and in the province, and times are changing

very rapidly in what officials of the B.C. Health Association refer to

as their industry. The hospitals in our province provide excellent

service to hundreds of thousands of citizens a year. If you spend time

speaking with administrators of hospitals, representatives of hospital

boards, representatives of regional districts' hospital component,

representatives of the medical fraternity, and those in the BCMA or

other associations, you come away with a great many attitudes and

opinions as to where the problems are and how they can be modified or

rectified. Within the membership of those organizations you will find

strong differences of opinion. You will find that usually the majority

will agree to most of the opinions expressed. You will always find a

minority who will totally disagree with that in which the others

concur, and in all circumstances within these groups of people you will

find at least one or two or maybe three who have a totally separate

attitude and idea. In meeting with the people who are in the front line

— the doctors, nurses and others who are directly treating patients in

the hospitals — you will find some very strong opinions and attitudes.

Unfortunately,

in what some refer to as this health industry there seems to be a very

human trait, which is to point out where the other factor is in error.

It's not uncommon to have medical people suggest that the major problem

in the hospitals is at the administrative level and to find the

administrative level indicating the problem basically is at the medical

level. It is not uncommon to speak to people who suggest the problem

really is at the board level, and in speaking to board members you find

that the problem can be identified elsewhere. As well, all of these

people who are involved in this so-called industry indicate that part

of the problem is at the Ministry of Health level. People in the

Ministry of Health can identify, at least to their satisfaction, that

the problems may lie right across the board.

The Health

ministry services are extremely complex. Government has taken upon

itself a very active role in the delivery of health care to the

citizens of our province. Primarily that role has been one of fiscal

responsibility: of collecting and providing the necessary dollars to

permit the system to function. There's a tendency in some quarters of

our society which would suggest that government take on a greater role

than that of a fiscal agent, in effect: that is, to start interfering

in the medical side of health by making decisions which I believe more

properly should be left in the hands of those who are expert in

medicine. Frequently an example comes before us by way of a combination

of events which basically is suggesting that the Ministry of Health,

Minister of Health or provincial government should, in some way, make a

decision as to whether an individual citizen in this province should or

should not receive certain treatment. I would think that few people

would agree that government at any level should ever be making medical

decisions, particularly in an individual case or problem.

April, by way of advice in our budget letter to the hospitals, it was

clearly indicated that restraint would be necessary to maintain our

system. That was in April. Since the April letter the economic

situation of Canada and the economic situation of British Columbia has

certainly not shown many signs of improvement. I think all citizens of

the province now, fully admit. without any hesitation, that we're

indeed in a serious recession. I believe that all working people in the

province, whether they be in the health area or not, understand that

the time has come to try to make the system work with somewhat less

fuel than was previously demanded.

There is no question, Mr.

Chairman, that the provincial government, the Ministry of Health and

those agencies who are responsible for delivering health care are doing

a very good job in British Columbia. There have, I suppose, always been

situations, which can be identified, which would indicate that in that

particular case the person who has demanded or has expected service was

not satisfied. I do not anticipate any time in the future when that

will not be so. It's pretty obvious that no system will ever be in a

position to satisfy all the people all the time.

One of the

perplexing problems that citizens have a great deal of difficulty in

appreciating or understanding is why, in any time in any given

situation, a citizen of the province who requires treatment for a

medical matter, a person who apparently is in serious need of health

care, should not have the facilities available to him almost upon

demand, or certainly within a very reasonable period of time, when it

is obvious and well known that other people who are in less serious

condition, and perhaps not in a condition which in any way is

life-threatening, are receiving treatment. In attempting to offer

explanations to citizens who, in corresponding with the ministry, put

it in very clear terms as to why they or members of their families have

been unable to receive surgery for a serious ailment — when they ask:

"Why is it that someone else who is in much less pain and discomfort

and in no danger of losing his life is receiving such service...?"

Well, that problem is very difficult to explain to a person, because we

in the Ministry of Health and the provincial government certainly do

not, nor do we wish to, have the responsibility of assigning those

facilities to an individual person based on need. The hospitals, of

course, accept that responsibility; the medical fraternity accepts that

responsibility.

If a person is in a life-threatening

situation, emergency services are readily available. If a person falls

into what is known as "elective surgery," then decisions are made by a

[ Page 8928 ]

number

of people: by the persons themselves as to when they feet they would be

available for such treatment; the physician and the surgeon as to when

they feel they would be available; the hospital itself as to when

facilities would be available. And it's different from hospital to

hospital; the administration of each hospital is not necessarily the

same as the other.

Decisions are made. In fact, thousands of

decisions are made each day; the health program in British Columbia

comes in contact with hundreds of thousands of people every day. Mr.

Chairman, the vast majority of those citizens receive the treatment

they expect, they demand and require; the vast majority of those people

are totally satisfied with the delivery of health care. It's a fact of

life that the practice of medicine and health treatment is imperfect,

and not all citizens who anticipate treatment, a cure, a resolution of

their problems, are going to be satisfied. There are so many

contributing factors to what can be the end result — frequently a

tragic result in the eyes of the individuals most closely associated

with it. There are always going to be factors which can be or can't be

explained. Emotionalism plays a very large

part in the criticism of

health care in British Columbia, or in any other jurisdiction.

Mr.

Chairman, statements can be made by people who are informed, who are

not informed or who are ill-informed; statements can be made by people

who are genuinely concerned, who are not concerned, and who are playing

a game for various reasons. Those statements can arouse in the citizens

of the province a certain attitude about health-care availability in

British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of time can be taken

in investigating the emotional stories which come before us. A factual

explanation may be offered soon thereafter. However, I suppose in the

world of the media and in the world of entertainment, of which the

media are a part, that which is emotional and immediate has a lot more

attraction than that which is factual and perhaps not immediate. We

have had a series of situations in the province which are brought to

the attention of the Ministry of Health in a routine way, where a

report has developed about an incident involving an individual.

Sometimes conclusions which are included in that initial report sound

very grave indeed. A lot of staff and a lot of staff time are taken in

investigating these reports.

Mr. Chairman, I'm always

pleased to recognize that in the very large majority of cases most of

the charges are unfounded or incorrect. Frequently, and I think almost

always, there is another side to the story and more information.

Recognizing the confidentiality of health matters, it's not hard to

understand why the initial stories are frequently inaccurate. It's

because the information is very hard to obtain. The doctors, hospitals

and others associated with health are very reluctant to release

information relative to a patient, because of the confidentiality of

such matters. So frequently the information which comes before the

ministry is second-hand, third-hand, and frequently the product of

rumours or stories that they hear. There are motivations behind it.

There are reasons why many of these stories begin. Some of them are

genuine expressions of concern by citizens. Others are mischievous, by

people with various motives, one of which is political. I don't

necessarily mean in the classic partisan political sense, as we know it

in this House, but for political motives at whichever level — large P,

small p, or in between. Some people, unfortunately, are misinformed and

mean no malice, but the damage can be done.

Mr. Chairman, I

find it very difficult at times to bring to this House certain

information relating to a specific case in which it appears that the

disclosure of the information continues to add to the discomfort of the

citizen involved. Failing to bring forward the information

unfortunately leads to suggestions that a coverup is underway. So

reluctantly, on occasion, specific information must come forward. I

don't consider that a violation of the confidentiality if the patient

or the patient's doctor has already taken

part in a public discussion

of the case.

Mr. Chairman, many of those who practise

medicine in our province have told me personally on more than one

occasion that they are getting a little bit tired of some of the

statements which are made, some of the stories which are circulating,

and some of the attitudes which people are attempting to persuade

others to have. I have invited each and every one of them to please

express themselves publicly. They have suggested to me that it is not

good enough that one doctor be quoted and be considered to be speaking

on behalf of the entire medical profession. I've suggested to them that

I certainly can't speak on their behalf, but they can. If they disagree

with statements which may be made by some of their colleagues, then I

feel that they have an obligation to offer their opinion on the matter

to the citizens of the province.

Mr. Chairman, there's a

certain magic associated with the terms "doctor" and "MD." It's a

certain magic that perhaps has been gained quite properly over the

years by those people who have dedicated themselves to that healing

profession, but even a doctor can be in error on occasion. I think of

four occasions historically when they've been proved to be wrong.

Sometimes their colleagues are the first to recognize it, although for

professional reasons they're reluctant to go public about it. I've said

to many doctors in recent days that I feel that they have an obligation

to assist the public in understanding the facts of certain matters. I

believe that perhaps that may occur.

Mr. Chairman, the

Ministry of Health is a widespread ministry, employing many thousands

of people directly, and indirectly affecting several tens of thousands

of other citizens in our province. About 75,000 people work in what's

referred to as the "health industry" — hospitals, institutions,

doctors' offices and all the obvious areas of contact in health. The

Ministry of Health has attempted to establish over the years, and

particularly recently, a philosophy of priority. The first philosophy

would be in the preventive area. I think most people agree, and it's

been the philosophy of health ministries since day one that preventive

services should receive top priority, whether it be public health

nursing, health inspections, speech and hearing programs, nutrition

advice, epidemiology, occupational health, dental health, labs, TB

control, VD control — that should be at the beginning. Wouldn't it be

wonderful if we could start from the beginning? The emphasis,

historically, in British Columbia and elsewhere has been at the other

end. Let's assist people by curing them of their problem rather than

preventing the condition.

Our second grouping is

community-care services. Community-care services, alternatives to the

acute-care system.... Of course we always will have our acute-care

facilities.

A great deal has been done, Mr. Chairman, over

the last while. A great deal has been done to assist many, many people

in this province with their health problems. There's been a major

expansion in the field of intermediate care, a major expansion in the

field of preventive dental health; that

[ Page 8929 ]

will

continue. We're in a soft time now, a difficult time from an economic

point of view, which is going to continue for some time. Every person

associated with health care delivery in the province is going to have

to recognize that they have a responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the minister request a little more time?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Does the red light mean that my time is over, sir?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think with consent....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps two minutes, and then we could hear comments.

The

economic realities of today are very severe. The Ministry of Health

expends the largest sum of provincial funds; the pressure is very real

and very obvious in the ministry. I have asked all of those who are

involved in health care to take upon themselves some responsibility. In

the main, we have had very good cooperation. The majority of hospital

boards, the majority of administrators, the majority of those who are

involved in health care have at least attempted to cooperate. A great

number of initiatives have been offered by these people in the field.

We work as closely as we possibly can, through the Ministry of Health,

with them. I've given them a relatively simple message: if we work

together we can get through this very difficult time. I believe they

believe that, and I really believe the citizens of the province believe

that.

MR. COCKE: I noted that when the minister's

estimates came up he was greeted with thunderous applause from his

colleagues in the House. They mostly have departed this chamber. Those

that are here are having some difficulty in staying awake, I note.

The

thunderous applause is not shared by the people in this province.

Despite everything that we have heard this afternoon from the Minister

of Health — "what a great health-care system we have; however, we have

a capacity to go only go so far, " and so on and so forth — the fact

is, Mr. Chairman, that the health-care delivery system that the NDP and

its CCF predecessors fought so hard to achieve is under attack by every

conservative, every pseudo-conservative, and every right-wing

organization in this country today.

MR. BRUMMET: Every ghoul.

MR. COCKE:

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) reminds me of a ghost.

"Every ghoul, " he says. I agree that he is here, and I am sure those

people who sent him here will think twice before they send him again.

All he can do is sit back and make rude remarks and not really

contribute much of anything.

We are asked whether the nation

has the capacity to maintain our present level of health care. Fm sure

that the minister, who reads widely, has by now read the reports of not

only the Economic Council of Canada, but of others doing economic

studies of our country, in dictating just what portion of our gross

national product or, for that matter, our gross provincial product is

spent on the delivery of health care. In Canada we're presently

spending something in the order of 7.1 percent of our gross national

product on the delivery of health care. In that great free-enterprise

country to the south, they are spending 9.2 percent of their gross

national product on the delivery of health care.

It strikes

me that while there are flaws in our system of delivering health care,

we are far more efficient than most jurisdictions in the world. And we

do have, even though it is under attack, a system of health care that's

accessible. When I say accessible, I don't mean accessible to the

talking about the ordinary people in this country — the people who

require the defence mechanisms of government in order to protect their

interests and rights.

One of the things that has come

through loud and clear is that this minister and this government do not

believe that health care is a right. The minister himself, in a speech

to the B.C. Medical Association, said it is a privilege. Obviously,

something is happening. If we go back to those bad old days, all of the

things our predecessors and the forward-thinking politicians in this

country fought for such a long time will be destroyed. I stand in this

House, along with my colleagues, and tell you that we will defend the

accessible universal health system as long as we have breath to defend

it.

The minister talks about bankrupting the nation because

of the expense of delivering health care, and then later in his speech

tells us that some people are raising the emotions and instilling fear

by the presentation of individual situations that have arisen. I wonder

what strikes more fear into me and the average person than having a

minister of health of this province stand up in this House and say the

huge impost of health care could bankrupt the nation. We spend 7.1

percent of our gross national product on the delivery of health care,

and he talks about bankrupting the nation? I suggest to you that ve're

a long, long way from bankrupting the nation. Can they all be wrong and

this government be right?

There are stories every day —

story after story, example after example — of people being denied

access to one level or another of our health-care delivery system. Mr.

Chairman, I suggest to you that we are in a very sensitive time. It's

up to an opposition, if they have any kind of dedication whatsoever, to

see to it that we do everything within our power to preserve the

health-care system in Canada and, in particular, in British Columbia.

Despite charges of raising emotions, raising fear and all the rest of

it, I will not stop doing what I consider to be necessary to bring the

attention of the people to what I consider to be a potentially very

tragic situation. As politicians we have all made innumerable tests of

people's feelings, of where their heads are at and so on. We talked to

people in our constituencies, we talked to people throughout the

province — and I am particularly interested in health care and have

been for the past 13 years that I've been in this House. People who

talk to me say loud and clear that they're prepared to pay for a

well-organized, universally accessible health-care system. That is what

I am prepared to defend.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

The

minister made another remark during the course of his introduction. He

said, of that early budget that he provided the hospitals at the

beginning of April — and that's remarkable, I will admit; but when you

consider how elementary it was, I guess it wasn't quite so remarkable

as one might at first think — that the hospitals' reaction was

immediate and expected. So, Mr. Chairman, the minister has admitted,

standing on the floor of this House, when he said that it

[ Page 8930 ]

was

expected, that he intended to raise a furor; otherwise, surely a

minister who wants some kind of peace in his constituency....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Buy them off.

MR. COCKE:

The minister says: "Buy them off." I say, consult — not buy them off,

consult. This minister has been totally isolated from the health

community in this province. That's the biggest mistake of the Social

Credit government over the years. They have been isolated to the extent

that they don't know what's going on out there. They decide in this

ivory tower that all the wit and all the wisdom abides in Victoria —

with all those health professionals out there, all the highly skilled,

well-trained, highly motivated, experienced people. My Lord, in this

province we have thousands and thousands of years of experience. And

who is consulted? When I go out and I talk to the health community,

which I've been doing for years, I find the same old expression of

concern: "We weren't consulted." But the minister can say: "Well, they

were warned that we weren't going to pick up their surpluses." They've

been warned since day one that they weren't going to have their

surpluses picked up. Yet every year, somehow or other, surpluses are

picked up — sometimes at random and sometimes in total. In any event,

there has never been real consultation with the grass roots, with the

delivery system, since this new government took power.

Mr.

Chairman, I believe that the reactions were immediate, I believe that

they were expected, and I think it's a darned shame that the Minister

of Health gets up on his feet in this House and admits having started a

war with the people out there in the delivery system.

What

do we feel we're going to gain by starting all these brush fires? I

will admit that in the old days there was a master of divide and

conquer sitting in that chair over there where the next member of the

dynasty now sits. He was an expert at dividing and conquering. But

until 1972 he usually took on just a few at a time. These people are

taking on everybody. This minister seems to be going after everybody in

the health community. But who does he find? Who he finds are the

patients and people out there who are absolutely without defence.

suggest that something we should all be thinking about when we assess

this government's performance in health care is that a government in a

time of "restraint" should start that restraint program in health care

before anywhere else. I take you back to April 1981 — that's a year ago

this last April. Who were the first under attack? The homemakers. They

were the first cut back. The minister jumped up and said: "Oh, no,

they're not being cut back." But they were, and still are. They will

continue to be under attack until there's a change of policy or of

government in this province.

Getting back to the hospitals

for a moment, the minister said every hospital is unique. Why then, if

every hospital is unique, the 7.9 percent across the board?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because they're all the same.

MR. COCKE: That's not unique. That was a slash across the whole face of health care. To me, that doesn't represent uniqueness.

Every

time they have a real problem in a hospital they bring in their

auditors. They have more private consultants out there looking at

hospitals in trouble than Carter has pills.

Talk about money spent on observing, rather than delivering service. Who's ever heard the like of it?

Mr.

Chairman, we're short of money to run our hospitals. Let me show you

what we're not short of money for. The member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem), I'm sure, feels a great shame when he sees an expensive

publication like this B.C. Day edition of Living Heritage .

The title is in very small print. This expensive thing that anybody in

the province can get as many of as they like, in living colour has

"That's the B.C. Spirit" smeared all over it in large type. And we

can't afford to pay for our health care in our province. This bunch of

PR-addicted people will do anything to improve their image by the

print, media or anything else. Yet they cannot provide for the health

care of our people.

I would like to dispel the thoughts that

some people might have in the back of their minds with respect to this

gross amount that we're spending on health care here. Do you know what

it says in my estimate book: $2,236,586,249. That's a massive sum,

isn't it, my dear colleagues? You'd think it was all coming out of the

minister's pocket, wouldn't you? Does anybody doubt it? Do you doubt

it? Or is it coming from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of everybody's pocket.

MR. COCKE: Right, everybody's pocket.

One

thing I've never heard the minister say is that he gets $969 million

from the feds. I never heard him say that once: $969 million of the $2

billion.

MR. KEMPF: Whose pockets do you think that comes from?

MR. COCKE:

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) can get up in his time and in his

place. Let's hear you defend the health system we have at present.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

Of the $2,236 million, $969 million comes from the feds. Secondly, $200

million comes from our donations to the medicare scheme. Now we're up

over $1.1 billion, aren't we? The former Minister of Health started a

little game; he said that a minimum of a third of medicare would come

from the premiums paid by the people of B.C. So if you get a third of

$600 million, I guess you have to have $200 million there somehow. Add

them up.

User charges account for another very sizeable sum.

I tried to add them up. You see, one of the problems we have around

here is that we never get the annual report from the ministry until his

estimates are over. Isn't it interesting how those annual reports roll

off the presses — not early, always late; not so one can study it while

going through his estimates. Here we are in July. Where's his annual

report? Do you know when he's going to stand up and table that report?

When he's through his estimates.

Anyway, I used last year's

annual report, and worked out a few little bits with my calculator,

thinking in terms of numbers of patient-days and numbers of

utilizations of ambulances and so on, and I came up with a modest $80

million. I'm sure it's considerably more, but I couldn't work them all

out. Now, of course, he's going to throw an inspection fee at people

who want to.... That same minister said that preventive service should

receive top priority, and he's going

[ Page 8931 ]

to charge $3 million for his inspection service for prevention. Well, well, well — schizophrenic.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Social Credit.

MR. COCKE: But they're one and the same, my friend. The Leader of the Opposition didn't quite recognize that they are one and the same.

are not taking every nickel from the budget in this province. I suggest

to you that these restraints in health care are to provide the Minister

of Finance with extra funds for diversion into other areas. When the

now Leader of the Opposition was in Ottawa, as the Premier and Minister

of Finance, along with the then Minister of Health, we fought hard to

stop the foolish new system of financial sharing with the feds. We

wanted to continue with the fifty-fifty. We said that B.C. wasn't going

to be particularly harmed in terms of actual dollars coming in, but

that some of the poorer provinces would be very badly hurt. Now we can

see that the rich provinces, because of the fact that those funds are

not earmarked directly, can divert those funds elsewhere. I ask a

question which may be somewhat rhetorical: could those funds be

diverted to megaprojects? Could those funds be diverted to building

highways in good old swing ridings?

AN HON. MEMBER: We could put hospital beds in the stadium.

MR. COCKE: That might be an idea: emergency ward in the stadium.

MR. KEMPF: A psychiatric ward for you.

MR. COCKE:

That's one of the things I love about the member for Omineca. He comes

out with such original stuff. "A psychiatric ward for you," he says. I

love that member. He's comic relief for all of us. In serious times we

need people like him around.

During his presentation the

minister went on to tell us that the vast majority of people get the

treatment they require. That really builds my confidence — "the vast

majority." Is it 80 percent? Is it 90 percent? Is it 95 percent? What's

the vast majority of people? I suggest to you that if people are being

denied, and by this statement, obviously they are.... He's admitted it

himself. If he says that only the vast majority of people get the

treatment they require, what about the rest of them? Where are their

rights? Again. we're getting back to the minister's feeling that health

care is a privilege. I agree that driving a car is a privilege and that

there are many things in terms of human endeavours that are privileges,

but I'm not going back to that archaic position that health care's a

care must be absolutely protected at all costs.

We went on

listening to the minister in his introductory remarks, and we heard

about emotionalism. Some people may be playing games — emotional

stories. "Some are mischievous," he says, "Some are political." Holy

doodle! Small p or big P, we couldn't quite distinguish which. "Some

are misinformed."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

That's an interesting interjection from the Leader of the Opposition:

"Some are hotlines." I can sure remember when, once in a while, I got

masochistic in the old days and used to listen to that minister, who

was then a hotliner, and he would let anybody say anything as long as

it was an attack on what he perceived to be those terrible socialists —

anything in the world; it was wide open.

MR. KEMPF: At least he had a job.

MR. COCKE:

There was another original statement from the member for Omineca. The

member for Omineca, "Two Story" Jack, has continually told us how hard

he's worked all his life; but what we've seen here is him leaning back

in his chair and making those ridiculous interjections. I don't believe

he's ever worked a day in his life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we return to vote 45, please.

MR. COCKE: There was a discussion the other day about a little boy being denied access to Children's Hospital.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do? Who's dole were you on?

MR. COCKE: I think I'll probably just rest my throat while that member

for Omineca comes to order.

There was a discussion the other day about little Jamie Woollard — he had front-page coverage in the Province ,

and he had coverage elsewhere, I gather. Jamie got into hospital. I

guess that's one of the ways you get into hospital. The Children's

Hospital — which, incidentally, was replacing 240 beds from the Health

Centre for Children at VGH and the Children's Hospital at 59th and

Cambie — now has 250 beds. But guess how many they're allowed to open?

According to their budget level, 189. Quickly, of course, a consultant

is sent in there to have a look. The report was due by July 15. I

wonder if they've seen it yet.

I have another example, and

they come fast and furious when the health-care system is in trouble.

Here is the case of a little boy by the name of Michael, who lives in

Kamloops. He was promised a bed in the Children's Hospital, and that he

would be going in on July 19. So the family — in the Chairman's

constituency — took a holiday, went to visit relatives in Ontario and

rushed back before Michael's admission day. They have mother child who

had to be left up there. The mother arrived down here only to find that

Michael can't get into hospital. Michael needs to get into hospital, he

has a very serious bladder problem, yet his mother was told that she

may as well go back to Kamloops, because they don't know when he's

going to get in. This is a little boy in considerable trouble — no

bladder control whatsoever, a psychological problem building up in that

child that, heaven only knows. could create irreparable harm in the

future. "Elective," as far as I'm concerned, is in his case an absolute

misnomer. That child should be operated on.

I wasn't going

to bring this up at this point, and may never have, except that the

minister was talking about these emotional stories and I've checked

that one out pretty darned thoroughly. Anyway, I'll sit down while the

red light sings at me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have a

couple of comments, Mr. Chairman, so that the committee is not be

confused with respect to statements by the member for New Westminster

[ Page 8932 ]

(Mr.

Cocke) that the Minister of Health said the health-care program could

bankrupt the nation. A very quick review of the Blues, when they are

available, will indicate that I said there are those in the country who

have stated that the health program could bankrupt the nation, and I

suggested that very few people probably agree. The person I had in mind

is a former NDP member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, Morton

Shulman, a general practitioner and former chief coroner in Toronto. I

don't believe he's in public office now, but he's well known across

Canada. Shulman considers himself somewhat of an economist as well as a

medical doctor. He has made a million dollars or so several times, so

he probably knows something about money, if not about economy. Shulman

predicted that the medicare system will drive the country into

bankruptcy unless there's a greater emphasis on user fees, or direct

charges for medical services, to get the healthy out of the hospitals

and the doctors' offices. He also suggested that patients pay up to

$1,000 in user fees a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a flyweight.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: He wasn't a flyweight when he was championing the cause of medicare years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Shulman, by his own remarks indicates that he was a champion of

medicare in its introduction, and a long-time supporter, as are many

people. But apparently Dr. Shulman has considered that he's at a

turnabout. It's Dr. Shulman I was referring to when I said that there

are those who suggest that the health-care program could bankrupt the

nation — more specifically, in Shulman's attitude, the medicare portion

of the health-care system.

It's interesting to play games,

particularly semantic games, with respect to words. The member for New

Westminster said the vast majority of people are satisfied with the

services they receive, but is that good enough? I suppose individually

it would never be good enough if you do not receive the service you

feel you should receive. However, I really don't think it's practical,

even though desirable, ever to establish a perfect system where 100

percent of those who demand services are completely satisfied with the

service they receive. That is utopian and perhaps would be very

pleasant, but from a practical point of view I suggest it shall not be

achieved, desirable as it may be.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

don't disagree with many of the comments made by the member for New

Westminster. In health care particularly there is, I think, a

tremendous amount of common ground among all people. My comment that

the response was immediate and expected from the hospitals was based on

a very simple bit of information: that is, historically hospitals are

never satisfied with their budgets. It's a rare occasion that a

hospital says: "Thank you, our budget is adequate." Hospitals don't do

that, not normally, although a couple have done so this year,

surprisingly enough. It's expected they will come back and say: "We

have specific circumstances we would like you to review," which we are

doing.

In fact, that is what was included in our letter to

them when we asked them to advise us. Many have responded and a great

deal has been accomplished. I'll read from a newspaper article:

"Hospitals

throughout B.C. have been urged to hold the line on spending. A request

was made by the Minister of Health in a form letter mailed to the

hospitals asking them to curtail the rate of increases in all areas of

expenditure. Spokesmen for Vancouver General and Royal Columbian

Hospitals, and the B.C. Medical Association, say they're not surprised

by the request. The minister pointed out that a marked change has taken

place in the economy: that the worldwide market for B.C. minerals and

timber has diminished, and that prices for those commodities have

dropped. The minister said salaries, wages and fringe benefits

represent 75 to 80 percent of the health-care expenditures. It is

essential that the change in economic climate be kept in mind when

negotiating wage increases or considering modifications in organization

that may call for additional personnel."

The minister of the

day, now the member for New Westminster, was experiencing a situation

somewhat reminiscent of this year, 1982. That was back in February

1975. In fact, it was Valentine's Day. Times have changed, the dates

have changed, but the conditions really haven't changed that much.

That's why, Mr. Member, I think the people within the Ministry of

Health, some of whom were in the ministry when the member for New

Westminster was minister, expected the response from the hospitals that

they would be advising us they needed more money. Some of them have

received more money; some of them may receive more money.

Reconciliations take place throughout the year. The vast majority of

the hospitals — and I'm sorry I don't have the precise percentage —

have indicated they do have the capacity to manage. They believe they

are doing a good job, and I concur.

MR. COCKE: I'm

pleased to hear the minister comparing 1975 to 1982. No question, 1974

and 1975 were tough years. Mr. Chairman, you never saw the upheaval.

Naturally there were discussions around the whole question of keeping

costs at a rational level — I've never been opposed to that. I'll never

forget that when I took over the Ministry of Health the first thing I

had to do was restore what Mr. Loffmark had taken away. Remember,

colleagues? In their financing they were permitted to have 75 percent

of the increase for hospital workers that year, and all health-care

staff.... Only 75 percent of it. So naturally they went into deficits

immediately, and when we took over in mid-1972 that was one of the

first things we had to address. But we did that, Mr. Chairman, and we

did everything we could in consultation.

I can remember

moving around this province day after day, month after month, talking

directly to the people involved in the delivery of health care. I think

that's the mistake the present government has made in virtually every

area. They do not talk to the constituency with whom they're involved.

As long as you're not doing that, you're missing the most vital — in my

opinion — role of an elected representative.

MR. BARRETT: Just giving orders.

[ Page 8933 ]

MR. COCKE: That's right. Sitting in the ivory tower, issuing orders, issuing budgets, edicts or whatever isn't enough.

wonder, however, when I read some of the things that have happened....

I'd like to refer to what I consider to be proof that the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who gets all his instructions from the

Premier, is actually running the Health ministry. I'll give you one or

two quotes, and I'll tell you who said it afterwards.

"Often

our government is criticized for cutting back in health care. Members

and supporters of the NDP are frequently involved in this criticism —

but not exclusively. We as a government have failed to adequately and

fully explain our commitment to the best possible health care service

in all parts of British Columbia.

"The cost of

our total health care system is quite certainly the most worrying

aspect of all provincial budget considerations. We have not yet reached

final figures for 1982-83, but if all health expenditures requests

could be granted next year we would be facing a bill in excess of $2.5

billion. Many of us recall that day, many years ago, when the late W.A.

C. Bennett tabled his first billion-dollar budget for the entire

government."

Then he goes on to encourage his supporters:

"Please speak out and support your government when you hear criticism

in the health area."

That's a message from the Minister of

Finance, the member for Saanich and the Islands, in December 1981, the

end of this last year. He said many other things in that little message

to his constituents. But he's kind of saying to the folks out there.

"Look, we've got some problems coming up. We want you party members to

defend us in every way you can."

What did the former

Minister of Health have to say? That's the guy who now has the hotline,

in exchange for the one who used to have a hotline. Rafe Mair says:

"It's Hugh Curtis and the Treasury Board who are making the decisions

Jim Nielsen is taking the heat for. Jim Nielsen has to be given, I

think, a great deal of credit for taking all that heat. I wouldn't have

been able to take it." He proved that. He left. The heat is generated

in the Ministry of Finance, but where does it all start? With the first

minister, the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett). He calls

the shots. That member for Okanagan South, who's known to be all heart,

expresses himself clearly from time to time in this House. There's no

doubt in my mind that the Ministry of Finance is calling the shots.

Mr.

Chairman, I will go on with some of that at some other time. I'd like

to talk now about one or two other areas. I believe there has been no

overall planning whatsoever. Some preliminary work was done. We now

have, I believe, the possibility of some planning, but that's probably

only after an election. Over the last few years we have had hiring

freezes and cutbacks that singled out target groups. but it has not

been properly planned or the work of a government that's really doing

anything with respect to seeing that we have a well-organized

health-care system.

You will remember that I talked about the first target group: homemakers. What

kind of plan created a monster like that? The very area that takes so much heat

off the system, the area that's least expensive, was the first under attack

— a year ago last April. But they were a target group and relatively defenceless.

You don't take on the big hospitals or some of the more visible or stronger

empires until such time as you've shown that you can take on the little

guy. That little guy, in this particular situation, happens to be the area that

provides the least expensive level of health care and, at the same time. the

least alienated level of health care.

In spite of the fact that the homemakers were under attack, the

ministry could not see that they had the other problem in terms of

getting chronically ill people out of acute-care hospitals. They were

too busy with their target of reducing the hours and service to people

who could be kept in their homes, or who could be removed from either

long-term care facilities or occupying acute-care beds. We've seen no

reduction to date in the number of people occupying acutecare beds,

none whatsoever. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that had we, instead

of starving home care, actually helped improve the system of home care,

we would now be in a better position with respect to our acute-care

beds and our long-term care facilities, but we didn't do that.

Therefore I go back to what I said in the first place. There's been no

real planning. It's called crisis management, jumping from one ice-floe

to another, and everything we see out there today reflects crisis

management. Well, who's the target this year? Acute-care hospitals. I

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the acute-care hospitals were treated

exactly the same way as the homemakers were a year ago; they imposed a

budget on the hospitals that they knew perfectly well the hospitals

could not live with, a budget that was a 7.9 percent increase over last

year's. Many of those hospitals — 46 out of the 52 that we contacted —

were in a deficit situation, and the imposition of a 7.9 percent

increase in the face of an 11 percent inflation factor doesn't make

much sense.

Why are we in a position where suddenly they are closing beds?

Well, it's interesting that the Premier and others have said they don't

know why the beds are being closed. You'd wonder, Mr. Chairman, what

they thought the hospitals were going to do. How could they possible

live with an impossible situation? I suggest that they couldn't, and

there is no particular reason why they should do anything other than

what they did. That was the response to the ministry — that, with

respect to their budgets. they would have to close down beds; otherwise

they would be running unsafe operations.

What's happening as

a result of that? A few months ago we were all sitting around here

concerned that we didn't have enough nurses to go around. Do you know

what's happening now? Alberta is attacking our health-care system as a

result of that Minister of Finance's, the first minister's and the

Minister of Health's conspiracy against health care. Read any paper

that you want to pick up. This is a brand-new situation in B.C. Here is

the Province of July 4: "Assistant director of nursing wanted." For where? Calgary General Hospital. Read the Province

of June 20: "'Clinical educators. Our nursing research education

department requires staff in specialized areas to be responsible for

clinical development of nursing personnel." Where? Red Deer Regional

Hospital. "Assistant director of nursing," — again in Calgary. Look at

this one; it's a beauty. It aces all the way back to St. Boniface,

Manitoba, where they've got a government today that will give some

priority to health care: "Intensive-care nurses, medicine and surgery."

"Coordinator of family therapy program" — where do they want one of

those? In the Department of Social Work. Alberta Childrens' Provincial

General Hospital. "Health-care nurse, community health" — in Athabasca.

The reason I clipped that one was because that's where I was

[ Page 8934 ]

born,

way up north in Alberta. But even they, in that little area up in the

tundra country, are advertising here in B.C., because they know

perfectly well that we're just laying them off to beat the band. That's

the result, Mr. Chairman, of this lack of planning. That's the result,

I suggest, of what's happened this year, and that was the targeting of

the hospitals.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk for a moment about some of the areas of this situation. I'd like to refer to an

article in the Province

on June 20. Here is something that the Province had to say in an

editorial entitled "Hospitals Fumbling for Answers." It says: "If

people accept the principle of restraint, it would make sense to call a

conference of hospital administrators and representative doctors to see

how best they can, as a whole, handle the problem." That's what you

call consultation.

MR. RITCHIE: Come on, Dennis, you can do better than that.

MR. COCKE:

If the member for Central Fraser Valley would listen to the remarks

that I brought up earlier in this debate, where I said "no

consultation...." I wouldn't expect it from that member, because I've

watched the way he acts and reacts. You're not fit to be a member of

this House, because of the way you're continually ignoring the needs of

your constituents, particularly with respect to health care.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would ask the member for New

Westminster to withdraw the remark that I am unfit to represent my

constituency. I resent it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. In the first place, I'll ask the members for Central Fraser

Valley and Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt the member who is now

speaking. In good parliamentary tradition, I'll ask the hon. member for

New Westminster to withdraw the remark and allusion to the member for

Central Fraser Valley.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, why

would I withdraw a remark that's neither not parliamentary nor, for

that matter, not factual? I believe it to be factual and parliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair finds it unparliamentary. It is tradition that

remarks like that have been censured by the Chair in the past. The

records will indicate that. I would ask that the member please withdraw

that remark.

MR. COCKE: I will suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, that it is not in the past; it's in the short past. This is

the kind of thing that's been happening in this House recently. In any

event, I withdraw the remark, if that's what the Chair decides.

MS. BROWN: He's incompetent, but what are you going to do?

MR. COCKE: What's the point? I think everybody knows it.

want to ask the minister one or two questions at this point. What

happened to the joint funding study that seems to have been going on

for some time? I gather that Bert Boyd is still the consultant working

on that. I heard that there was going to be some kind of report

regarding this joint funding study. I also recall that there seemed to

me to be other members on the committee who were studying this whole

question of joint funding, and then suddenly, I believe, the B.C.

Health Association was no longer party to that study. It strikes me

that this might be one of the problems that we've had: the fact that

there was a joint funding study going on — something that could

possibly have meant that the people involved outside of the ministry

would be party to the outcome — and then suddenly they were dismissed

and, as I understand it, it was continued by one consultant. I've heard

rumours that that has been added to recently, but I would just like to

check with the minister as to exactly what has happened to that joint

funding study. Are the rumours in fact true that it's continuing or has

there been a report? It would be interesting if the minister knows

anything about it and would let us know what's happening in that area.

Had we had some proper consultation in terms of joint funding we might

not be in the exact position that we're in now, where we're talking of

an arbitrary move being made by the Health ministry against the

hospitals — the 7.9 percent.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On the

joint funding project, this all began some years back, about three

years ago, and a joint venture was announced between B.C. Health

Association, as they call themselves for some reason, the Ministry of

Health and the Ministry of Finance. Outside consultants were contracted

to carry out a study of the needs of the government and the hospital

industry to make recommendations for meeting those needs. They wanted,

among other things, the development of a uniform reporting, system,

improved budgetary process, ongoing integration of funding and

strategic planning. It was agreed by all those taking part that there

was little need to carry on with a formal joint committee structure. It

was their recommendation that they themselves be disbanded as a formal

committee. It was recommended that BCHA involvement continue on an ad

hoc basis. A number of improvements have resulted from some of the

study, which continues to take place, and further will be implemented

in the future.

The ministry and the association do meet, and

they will continue to meet as what will probably be an informal

committee to discuss issues arising from implementation of some of the

recommendations which came through that joint committee. I'm always

concerned about committees being struck to resolve a problem, and three

or four years later they have not really come to any specific

conclusions, but rather some generalities. Some of the suggestions made

by those who took

part in the study have been implemented, others are

being considered and others are being further investigated. I think

that the joint-funding committee served a purpose, identified some

areas and had some minor responsibility in changes which have taken

place with respe