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 )

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8953 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 50). Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Introduction and first reading 8953

Division

Oral Questions

Manufactured homes. Mr. Leggatt –– 8953

B.C. Resources Investment Corp. Mr. Barber –– 8954

Financial assistance to village of Whistler. Mr. Barber –– 8955

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 73).

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading –– 8955

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 65).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8955

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 65). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 8956

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

On vote 45: minister's office (continued) –– 8956

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Ritchie

Ms. Brown

Mr. Davis

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Income Tax Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 74). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 8974

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we

have visiting our House today, on her first visit to the province of

British Columbia, Mrs. O'Donahue from the city of Toronto. Her husband

has served the city of Toronto since 1966 as an alderman. Accompanying

Mrs. O'Donahue is Mrs. Tasia Richards from Vancouver, and Mrs. Maude

Ritchie, who is the wife of our member for Central Fraser Valley. Would

the House please welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, on one day every session we have a special visitor to this

House who demands behaviour above what is normal in this Legislature.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Your mother!

MR. BARRETT:

Yes. Mr. Speaker, this is the day my mother has chosen to visit this

august assembly for this year, so I ask the House to welcome my mother,

Mrs. Gordon, her friend Mrs. Barkusky and my wife, Shirley. Please, I

ask the House to establish again that new high of good behaviour

because of her visit.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, I'm very happy to have visiting with us today my favorite

cousins from California, Mrs. Alida Vink, Mrs. Coby Rice, her daughters

Beth and Kate, and my wife Lillian. I would ask the House to bid them

welcome to Victoria.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, visiting

us today in the gallery, representing 49,000 health-care workers, is

the Alliance to Save Health Care. I notice buttons all over the

gallery. I would like the House to welcome them. At the same time I

would like one of the Pages to assist me in presenting the minister

with something he couldn't receive because he didn't get out on the

steps of the Legislature: a large banner and petition to save health

care.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest it might have been more

appropriate for that to have taken place perhaps under the minister's

estimates. Let's keep introduction time sacred to that function.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'd ask all members to bid good welcome to Mr. David Wilson, executive

director of the alumni society of the Youth Parliament of B.C.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like the House to join me in welcoming a well-known entertainer

on Vancouver Island, and also a good friend of mine who used to live at

Yellow Point and now lives at Sidney. Welcome to Marlene Nash.

MR. SEGARTY: I'd like the House to welcome this afternoon His Worship

Mayor Richard Pinotti from Elkford, the fastest-growing city in Canada. Mr.

Pinotti is known as King Cole of Canada. Along with him is city administrator

Bob Miles. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome, and would point

out that one of the reasons we've got such good health care in this province

today is because the government is aggressive in opening up the interior of

this province.

MR. STRACHAN: I'd love to be able to top that.

behalf of myself and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), would

the House please join us in welcoming the mayor of Prince George, His

Worship Elmer Mercier, and city clerk Wayne Buchanan.

Introduction of Bills

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Heinrich presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 50 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Brummet

Mussallem

Sun shine

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

50. Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982, ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MANUFACTURED HOMES

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. One of the hardest

hit sectors in the B.C. economy is the manufactured homes. It's now

running at about 25 percent capacity. Denison Mines has just awarded

its first major contract in the Tumbler Ridge project to Alma Homes of

Alberta, and not to a British Columbia company. Could the minister

advise why that took place?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I do not have knowledge of that particular contract. In Canada we treat everybody across the

[ Page 8954 ]

nation

equally, and I suspect it was open to competitive bidding. Between

British Columbia and Alberta we have a boundary, not a fence.

MR. LEGGATT:

The minister assumes that it was open to competitive bidding. In this

particular case, only three of the six major manufacturers in British

Columbia were even invited to tender on this particular project. Why is

there no preference given on these projects to British Columbia

companies, so we can put workers to work?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'm not aware of the contents of the particular contract to which the

member refers, but I would suggest that he might refer that question to

my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), who, I think, would be quite prepared to provide

the member with some of the information. He's been working on it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We only have 15 minutes for question period.

MR. LEGGATT:

Given the fact that British Columbia taxpayers are spending $500

million of their money on that project, will the minister tell us why

British Columbia taxpayers aren't given preference for jobs in small

business?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With apologies to the Leader of the Opposition's mother....

wasn't so long ago, as I recall, that the member for Coquitlam-Moody

requested a moratorium on mobile- and manufactured-home production.

MR. LEGGATT: Nonsense!

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I well remember, Mr. Speaker, that there was some debate on that last

year. My answer is this: competition occurs across the country. If

we're going to balkanize the province of British Columbia, we know what

the end result is going to be. Surely there are a number of operations

in British Columbia that would perform work in Alberta, Saskatchewan

and Manitoba, and I'm also well aware that there are some problems in

those provinces with respect to unemployment, particularly in the

manufacturing sector. I suppose this goes along with the risk of going

into business; being competitive is really in the interests of all

taxpayers.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister says that we

have to be competitive. He still hasn't answered the question as to why

three of our major manufacturing firms weren't even invited to tender.

How can you be competitive when you aren't invited to tender? Can the

minister advise the House why it is that under the master contract

between Quintette Coal and the government there is no provision which

requires Denison Mines to at least contact the major manufacturers of

British Columbia and invite them to tender before the award is granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please, hon. members. The Premier will come to order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Coquitlam-Moody is somewhat reluctant to

address his question to the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development. I'm advised that perhaps invitations were offered, but if

the member continues to ask that particular question of me, I'll take

it as notice and pass the information on to my colleague.

MR. LEGGATT:

My final question to the Minister of Labour is that he should be aware

that we have asked the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development questions over two years, and have yet to receive a

straight answer in this House on that coal deal.

[Mr. Speaker rose. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Question period is for the purpose of asking questions. The member for

Coquitlam-Moody is out of order. He did not have a question. It would

be tantamount to a fraudulent point of order.

The — is it the first or second? — first member for Victoria.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Last.

B.C. RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORP.

MR. BARBER: If I'm the last member for Victoria, does that mean you're going to wipe out the riding altogether? They're capable of it.

have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier advise whether or not

his bill to remove the 1 percent safeguard for small British Columbia

shareholders in BCRIC resulted from a request by the board of directors

of BCRIC that he do so?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is it a matter that anticipates legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the question. I cannot hear the question with the amount of noise in the House.

MR. BARBER:

My question to the Premier is, again: can he advise whether or not his

bill to remove the 1 percent safeguard for small shareholders in BCRIC

resulted from a request from the board of directors that he do so?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Although the question is not in order because it's a bill on which

there will be ample debate in this Legislature, I would not want the

impression to be left by the presumption of the question, which is totally wrong, that the small shareholder is unprotected in BCRIC. The answer to the second part of the question is no.

[ Page 8955 ]

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on the same matter. Did

he receive a request from the president, Donald Watson of BCRIC, that

he amend the BCRIC charter, as he has proposed to do?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I can make it very clear to that member that the measure is taken to

allow the same opportunities for shares in that company to trade as in

any other private-sector firm in this province. One of the things the

small shareholders have requested is a greater opportunity for any

shareholder to be able to bring discipline on the directors, as

directors are disciplined by their shareholders when that restriction

is not there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon.

members, in reviewing Beauchesne, I note that questions which

anticipate an order of the day or other matters are not in order.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm that as of this morning there were

23 million BCRIC shares, representing in fact 36 percent of the total,

registered to owners resident outside the province of British Columbia?

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

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the Premier said that something he said would

never happen.... On June 14, 1979, he advised the House — and I

quote from Hansard : "We have put in safeguards so that no group

or groups can dominate. The 1 percent for individuals and groups and

businesses and associations is there to provide the opportunity for as

broad a base of ownership as there can be." Is the Premier prepared to

admit today that his former policy, that B.C. is not for sale, is no

longer operative?

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

MR. BARBER: The Premier may not admit it, but we know it, and so does big business as of last night.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

TO VILLAGE OF WHISTLER

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I'm advised

that the government has now received a proposal from the village of

Whistler to assist them to deal with the problems of overexpansion. The

assistance requested is financial. Can the Minister of Finance indicate

whether or not they have decided to assist the village of Whistler in

their current financial difficulties?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, no such request has reached my office or my ministry.

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Minister of Tourism. TIDSA has now

contributed a total of $3.8 million to the Whistler recreational

centre. This is part of a total, through TIDSA, of $13.1 million for

the whole project. Can the minister advise as to the current status of

the request by the village of Whistler to increase the TIDSA

contribution toward the recreational centre at the village?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No.

MR. BARBER:

Would the Minister of Tourism advise what arrangements she has made to

secure completion of these tourist-oriented projects without leaving a

massive debt for Whistler ratepayers?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I thought the member realized that he's addressing the wrong minister.

Introduction of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES

AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act,

Bill

73 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

NORTHWEST BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL

COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In introducing this bill, may I simply and briefly say that the members

of this assembly are being given the opportunity in 1982 to make right

what has been left undone since March 20, 1959. On that day, the

Northwest Baptist Theological College Act was enacted in this House

and, inadvertently — the bill to become effective on proclamation — a

proclamation was not issued.

On checking the Parliamentary

Guide I find that no members present in the House today were present in

1959 when this bill was enacted; indeed, the only persons in this

chamber at that time were the distinguished Clerk and his Deputy Clerk.

Therefore, if anyone takes solace in pointing the finger of blame as to

why the situation should have arisen, they will know how limited their

opportunities are.

After March 20, 1959, the Northwest

Baptist Theological College embarked upon its objectives. It has

acquired its properties, offered courses of instruction and granted

degrees. Under arrangements with the federal government, it has

acquired status under the Income Tax Act as an organization to which

donations can be made with the amounts of those donations deductible

against income tax. It would be the very worst of bad faith if the

Legislative Assembly, at this time, did not take this course of action,

which is, on the passage of this bill, to make right all those things

which have been omitted over the years. I think the members will join

me, unanimously, in seeking to overcome the results of this

inadvertence.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, It sounds to me like one of those nemine contradicente bills.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page 8956 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 65 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

65, Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

65, Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

MR. COCKE:

This morning we were treated to a rather usual plea from the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). It's very interesting how schizophrenic

one gets when one gets defensive. Yesterday when the Minister of Health

was introducing his estimates he talked about emotionalism: that we

should not be playing the emotional game in the criticism of health

care. I wonder if that's part and parcel of the entire way the ministry

is treating this subject.

I'm going to take you back to May

13, when the deputy minister was in Nanaimo speaking to the Registered

Nurses Association. According to news accounts, at that time he

suggested that complaints from even a few health-care professionals are

upsetting and worrisome to the public. He asked the nurses to give the

ministry the benefit of the doubt. He went on to say: "I think it's up

to professionals to not cause the public to panic but to support one

another." Following his visit, the nurses decided that the public had

the right to know, and I say that the public have a right to know.

have a huge number of people waiting for health care. We've talked

about children, we've talked about older people, and we've talked about

the pain and discomfort that some people are confronted with. Is that

unfair? Is it unfair to tell the truth, to tell what's going on? If the

public want to hide their heads in the sand and if the public are not

interested, I would be very surprised. I believe the public have every

right to know precisely what's happening in government as it pertains

to them.

The minister, along with the Finance minister (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) and the Premier, is cutting services severely. What are

those services?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

"Not so, " says the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). Stand on your feet

and say it publicly. Tell us about EMI and about psychiatric day-care

units that are closing — our Royal Columbian; the whole thing closed

down. Rehabilitation units for stroke victims have closed. Ostomy

therapists have been laid off.

That member obviously

reflects that feeling of there being no priority for the delivery of

health care on the part of that government. The member will get up and

extol the great virtues of all the development of the northland. He'll

get up and extol the benefits of the leghold trap and talk about wolves

and all sorts of things in this House. We've been on the Health

estimates for two days. Will he get up and talk about any problems he's

having in his area?

MR. KEMPF: We're not having any.

MR. COCKE: Oh, he's not having any. We'll go over the list in a few minutes.

Nurses

have been laid off; health workers have been laid off. Isn't it passing

strange that yesterday I was showing the House all the ads from the

province of Alberta, trying to pick up people who have been laid off

here in our province to go to work there. For the first time in years

our graduating classes of nurses won't find work. I suggest we're

dealing, generally speaking, with crisis management, and I also suggest

that we have a government that does not consider health a priority. Mr.

Chairman, I would just like to give you what one person has to say.

I've got a file of correspondence as long as your arm. The most

correspondence I've ever had in opposition has been this year as a

result of the health cutbacks. This is from May 6, 1982.

am writing to protest the current cutbacks in budgeting the health-care

system. I am of the opinion that our Health minister has made a serious

judgmental error. I'm a registered nurse with ten years' experience in

this field, and contrary to the minister, it is my belief that

ultimately the restraints will affect the quality of patient care in

the province.

"Further to the above, I now

find myself without a job and I'm about to join the ranks of the other

1.2 million unemployed in this country. This situation is totally

unacceptable to me. I therefore have no other alternative but to seek

employment outside Canada where my skills and experience will be

welcomed. Needless to say, this is not an action of choice."

Mr.

Chairman, we're losing people who are so important to us. I want to say

that the cutbacks, which incidentally have mystified some of the

ministers, are having a profound effect. I want to read you a line

here: "The Premier was mystified by hospital cuts." This was as

recently as May 14. Let me quote further: "But Bennett said in a

Thursday interview in Victoria that he's at a loss to explain why the

beds are being closed." I'll explain it to you very carefully how it

happens: the beds are closed when the hospitals are warned that their

[ Page 8957 ]

every-two-week

advance will be cut off if they don't cut their budgets, period. Now

they've got a whole bunch of people to pay. So it's very easy to

control the situation out there.

This morning I very calmly

asked a number of questions, and those questions were not answered. I

would hope that the minister has had time to reflect on the Blues,

because I believe those questions that I asked around the whole

budgeting system and around the whole funding question should be asked.

They were answered in such a superficial way that I can't believe it.

The minister suggests that we should do something other than draw

attention to the concerns that people have over health care.

He said another thing yesterday — and I'm going to quote from the Blues, Mr. Chairman:

The Ministry of Health has attempted to establish over the years

and particularly recently, a philosophy of priority. The first priority 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....

Oh,

the member for Omineca has disappeared. What a shame! I was going to

tell him some of the things that are going on in his area.

Mr.

Chairman, let me take you to the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet), who said yesterday that all was rosy in his area. This is a

letter from Dawson Creek to Mrs. Pat Wadsworth, executive director of

the Health Association. What does the letter say? It's from the health

education resource advisory committee up there, and it says:

"Last

March I provided Garry" — meaning Garry Cardiff — "with a fairly

comprehensive outline of the activity of the committee and its

accomplishments. It was my hope, as chairman of that committee, to firm

up the viability of the committee so that it could continue to do its

work. As you will note from his letter, funding for the committee's

work appears to have disappeared."

This is a brief quote from Mr. Cardiff's letter:

"Unfortunately,

the 1982-83 fiscal policy is such that I cannot approve specific

funding for committee work, especially if it will involve a year-end

adjustment for the hospital budget. Under these circumstances you may

wish to either terminate the work of the committee or discuss future

objectives with the B.C. Health Association."

That was prior

to his saying: "I would appreciate you extending my appreciation to the

members of your committee and subcommittee for their very hard work in

this area." He indicated that it was good work they were doing. That's

in Dawson Creek, up north.

Preventive health care is a

priority with the minister. We surveyed 17 public health units in this

province, and what did we find? We found a shortfall of 13 to 15 public

health inspectors, 5 to 11 public health nurses, 7 to 8 speech

therapists, 5 nutrition aides, 11 mental health nurses, 2

audiologists, 1 community physiotherapist, 2 dental staff workers and 2

medical doctor. The VD control was short as well. In April there were

only two health educators in the province. Does this reflect a

minister's priority for public health? Are we to take the minister

seriously when he says, as he did yesterday, that prevention is a

priority? If prevention were a priority, you wouldn't see public health

suffering the way it is.

We've reviewed the hospital

situation over and over again, but we can't seem to get the minister's

attention. We find in every district, from north to south, that people

are complaining about the shortage of health workers. In the northern

interior it's exactly the same as it is down south. I'll probably, as

time goes by, give you the specifics of Omineca, but I would certainly

like to wait until such time as the member for Omineca is here. I know

he's going to get up and do some defending.

I want to talk for a moment or two again, because I couldn't get answers to questions....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, he answered your questions.

MR. COCKE:

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations groans. He would groan too

if he were on this side of the House and had this morning introduced

questions that were not answered. What would he do under those

circumstances? He would do what I'm forced to do, and that's to

dramatize what's actually going on. One has to.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Lower the lights.

MR. COCKE:

"Lower the lights," that old hotliner says. He doesn't even take his

own ministry seriously. "Lift your sights," they say. This is the kind

of chaos that minister has created. "Cuts shatter hospital morale." And

he says: "Lower the lights." Lower the lights for me. "Staff rail at

spending priorities." "Hospitals seek mediation on nurse talks." It's

all over the place; it's everywhere in this province, and that minister

says: "Lower the lights." How dramatic can he get? There's no lowering

of the lights when you're on a hotline, and that's where you should be

today with your predecessor, instead of wrecking the health-care system

in our province. "Lower the lights," he says.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, if we address the Chair and keep other comments to a

minimum we tend to have an orderly debate. However, if members do not

address the Chair, then we seem to involve ourselves in some extra

discussion that is not really needed or conducive; nor is it within the

bounds of parliamentary dictates. Therefore I would ask members to

address the Chair in their remarks and we could carry on in that manner.

MR. COCKE: When one calls attention to what is happening out there, one has to wonder whether there's any kind of a plan whatsoever.

drew the attention of the House the other day to the fact that there

was a person in the Royal Jubilee Hospital who had had a relatively

serious operation and required rehabilitation at Gorge Road Hospital.

Gorge Road Hospital, for those who don't know, happens to be a

rehabilitation hospital. It also has extended care, but it is a

rehabilitation hospital. In the first place, the patient that was at

the Royal Jubilee Hospital having an operation would have been out of

hospital in seven days. Instead, Mr. Chairman, the patient occupied a

bed in the Jubilee for 21 days, or very close to three weeks. When he

got out of the Jubilee, he didn't go to the Gorge Road Hospital. Why

didn't he go to the Gorge Road Hospital? Gorge Road Hospital, Mr.

Chairman, because of its budget cutbacks, had already closed down 15

beds — or it closed down a number of beds for rehabilitation, but I'm

not exactly positive what they are because I had it on another list. Is

it any

[ Page 8958 ]

wonder,

then, that I charge the government with no planning? Obviously,

rehabilitative therapy has to be economical. In the first place it gets

the people out of the more expensive beds into the less expensive and

more appropriate beds. It also brings about rehabilitation that much

sooner. The longer that person sits at home waiting for rehabilitative

therapy, the longer the process of rehabilitative therapy is going to

take.

Mr. Chairman, there have been 2,500 jobs lost. There

are those who say that there are probably 5,000 people in the

health-care field that are directly affected, because there are a lot

of people on call that will not be called, who are not viewed to be

full-time employees. There are any number of people affected. Where do

we see that effect taking place? We see it here with the Jubilee laying

off over 100 staff. We see Juan de Fuca Hospitals laying off 131 casual

and part time staff. We see the Victoria General laying off 712 casual

and part-time staff.

Mr. Chairman, in December of last year,

the RNABC reported a shortage of 472 nurses in B.C. Hospitals today say

the nurses' union has 315 nurses listed as being laid off, and the only

jobs listed for B.C. nurses are for highly experienced and specialized

nurses. Of course, as I asked yesterday, who's recruiting our nurses?

Alberta, with a regular string of advertisements. I say that the

long-term stupidity on the part of this government has created a

situation in B.C., which historically has imported nurses.... For

example, in 1980 we hired 2,268, and only 511 were educated in B.C.

Therefore we imported 1,757.

We have 1,496 bed closures.

If it's the intention of the ministry to reduce the number of

acute-care beds in the province, why hasn't the minister done it in a

planned manner, taking regional needs into consideration in

consultation with hospital boards and the B.C. Health Association? I

charge that there has been no consultation whatsoever. I remember when

they set up long-term care. Did they consult with the hospitals? Did

they consult with the local health delivery people? No, Mr. Chairman,

it was instituted here in this ivory tower, and that's where everything

happens. But who's to carry the can? The hospitals. If the minister can

possibly force them to close those beds because of budgetary

constraints and making the hospitals look bad, he feels that the heat

will be taken off himself. We know that the legislative authority under

section 41 has created a situation in Richmond where the hospital union

requested an injunction on any closure of beds before the minister

actually signed. That was a good precedent. I think the minister should

sign for every bed closure in this province.

When he talks

about the number of beds per thousand population here in this province

and says we're so overbedded, I want him to recall that there are

hundreds of longterm care patients occupying acute-care beds. We've

identified 1,200 who are occupying beds that are very costly. If the

minister wants to provide for those people and open up those beds for

acutely ill people, that's going to create a little less pressure. He

has chosen exactly the wrong course. In a time of stress, in a time of

real concern in our province, the minister, along with his colleagues,

has decided to put pressure on this very sensitive area. There is no

question that stress-related illnesses are increasing, yet we cut back.

times of stress, if there must be restraint, let that restraint be on

high-flying ministers and their expense accounts. Let that restraint be

on building stadiums, if necessary. Let that restraint be on financing

and subsidizing northeast coal for the sake of the Japanese steel

industry. Let that restraint be anywhere but in health care. If there

are economies, let's bring about those economies, but let's do it in a

consultative way. Let's do it in a way whereby everybody has an

opportunity to put forward his concerns, reflecting the needs of his

own community.

The Royal Columbian Hospital, which I talked

about this morning, was a good example. It wasn't until the ambulances

were diverted and diverted that the minister finally decided to "loan"

them $750,000.

I suggest we're being treated to a very bad

scene by a totally insensitive government and a minister with ice in

his veins. I suggest this is no longer the time for looking coldly at

health care; now is the time that the government, must re establish its

priorities. If the Premier isn't responsible, then it's his job to

remove this cold-blooded minister from this ministry.

When in doubt, mumble. Let me see what he has said from time to time.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Is he back on the turkey board? Good; that's where he belongs.

Speaking

of turkey, in response to Cold Turkey Day, January 12, 1982, the

minister was quoted as having said: "Who cares? I won't try not

smoking, because I don't feel like it." That's fair enough, but I don't

think a Minister of Health should make that kind of comment, in view of

the fact that this morning we saw that 28,700 died as a result of

smoking. I think we should be making comments that are just a little

bit more worthwhile.

On May 2, 1982, the chairperson of the

provincial Health ministers refused to attend the federal-provincial

Health ministers' conference because the Socreds had too slim a

majority in the Legislature, and he — the Minister of Health — didn't

want to be absent. So in his place went his deputy. However, when

questioned by the press, what did the Whip, the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem), the good old honest car dealer from Dewdney, say? He said

it would have been possible. Mussallem went on to say that he gets

requests all the time from cabinet minister who wish to be absent, and

he lets them leave "if our numbers are right." He said the Socreds had

28 of government's 31 members, "so we weren't tight." So the minister

could have gone but didn't ask. He didn't want to go and do his duty

for the province of B.C., and what were they discussing down there?

User fees.

MR. RITCHIE: Where's Lauk doing his duty for the province right now?

MR. COCKE: Don't get edgy, my poor little friend. Go out and grade another turkey.

June 7, 1982, the minister stayed in Victoria and again sent his deputy

to the opening ceremonies of the Vancouver General's new emergency

cardiac care facility. The deputy was quoted as saying: "I know this

will sound hollow to some of you but, listening to jeers, I'm glad that

I came because I don't think he deserves this." We've got to protect

him from jeers, that poor sensitive minister.

I'm getting the red light. In this House that means that I have to resume my seat for a moment or two.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If I may take my role once again in this scintillating debate....

[ Page 8959 ]

MR. COCKE: Yes, you'll "scint" it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, Dennis, you're boring among other things.

Mr. Chairman, among the more important items that the member for New Westminster has just discussed is Cold Turkey Day, a Vancouver Sun

newspaper promotion in which they let loose 13 turkeys in Stanley Park.

They had hoped 26 could be released, but only half of the NDP caucus

was available. That was the promotion — Cold Turkey Day, courtesy the Vancouver Sun .

The member might have read what else I told the reporters; I told them

I really had no interest in taking

part in a newspaper promotion.

The

federal — provincial conference: we have duties in the House, as all

members, with the exception of the first member for Vancouver Centre,

seem to understand. Attendance in the House is one of our first

obligations. For some reason, Mr. Chairman — and it predates the day I

first entered the House — we do not have the system of pairing which is

common in other jurisdictions, and which permits ministers or other

members to attend conferences and not affect the balance within the

House. I don't know whether the concept of pairing has ever been

discussed since it was discouraged for some reason.

Duties

in the House are first for any member of this assembly. I was well

covered at that conference by my deputy minister on my behalf, and by

the minister from Alberta who chaired the meeting. I was also provided

with advance copies of the federal minister's presentation to the

conference, and spoke to various ministers by telephone. The next

meeting is scheduled for Vancouver so it won't present the same problem.

According

to the NDP, it's wrong for ministers to travel. They keep trying to

reduce everyone's travel budget, so it's wrong to travel. But then, for

reasons of their own, if you don't attend something it was wrong that

you didn't attend. It's pretty obvious that whether you attend or

choose not to attend, it's wrong, according to them. That's fine. Their

partner, the member for Vancouver Centre, decided that duties in the

House weren't important at all. Vacation called, and he is gone for

five weeks. Some of us perhaps take duties in the House somewhat more

seriously, as attendance records will I think show, particularly when

they're recorded by way of a division in this House. Attendance records

will show that some feel their duties in the House are paramount.

Opening

day for a new unit at the Vancouver General Hospital happened to

coincide, again, with duties in the House called the public accounts

committee.

MR. COCKE: Defending Pouilly-Fuissé.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The member for New Westminster laughs. He presumably feels that public

accounts is not a committee which should be attended by members who are

assigned that duty. If that's his attitude, fine, but I don't share

that attitude with him. I believe the duties of those members who serve

on public accounts are very important, and they should attend. At the

last meeting of public accounts members were missing, including the

member for Vancouver Centre, who is missing in more ways than one, but

certainly missing from the House and that committee — and from the

province and the country. Every member has the obligation to attend,

and should they choose not to attend, they can offer whatever

explanation they wish. But I believe that the duties in the House are

paramount to other duties, which are optional. I have no hesitation in

sending my deputy minister to represent the Ministry of Health anywhere

in the province or country, and other officials within the ministry who

have my support in speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Health.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

was very interested in a statement made by the member for New

Westminster with respect to a diversion of ambulances from the Royal

Columbian Hospital, and I have asked staff to please make contact with

those responsible, because it disturbs me to hear what was said. The

member said: "Ambulances have been diverted, I believe, again and again

and again and again." I am quite prepared to accept the member's

statement. I would like to know the information because, as this House

and the people of British Columbia know, quite frequently statements

made by that member cannot be taken at face value. I have asked staff

if they would please check once again for me. They're getting the

information which they have provided me from our emergency division.

I've asked them to please contact the hospital itself, because they may

be more familiar with the precise details. The information we have

received from our emergency services people is that between September

1, 1981 and April 1, 1982 ambulances were diverted from Royal Columbian

Hospital four times. Since the restraint program has been in place —

this is the information provided to me — one ambulance has been

diverted for a non-emergency patient. I'm interested to get that story

from the hospital and those responsible, because if they have been

diverted again and again and again and again, I want to know about it

and I want to know the reasons why from the authorities in place who

are most familiar with the information.

But I'm reluctant to

accept, without some checking, certain statements made by the member

for New Westminster, who has told this House that he knows more than

all the members combined on this side of the House. He said that in

this House: "I know more than all of you combined." That's the same

member who said he'd built the Royal Columbian Hospital — going back

before the member for Dewdney's (Mr. Mussallem'

s) days to do that.

That's the same member who said the hospital in MacKenzie had been shut

down.

MR. COCKE: Right.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Of course he says: "Right." It's in the book. What a shock it was to

the people in MacKenzie — and the newspapers: "Mackenzie Hospital

Closure Denied."

MR. COCKE: That's right. You've got a hospital you can't use. What's a hospital without an operating room?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

"That's right," the member says. It's right that it's closed down; and

he says it's right that the newspapers said the closure was denied.

Both are right. But then it was the administrator of the hospital who

denied it was closed — he's there.

MR. COCKE: Of course he denied it was closed. He's afraid of you.

[ Page 8960 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

He went outside and looked. That was one statement, that it was closed

— much to the chagrin and surprise of those who were there.

That's

the same member who said — I'm quite sure the member will say that he

was right, but I don't quite understand some of the reasoning — that

the Vancouver General Hospital was under public trusteeship. He said

that I said it was one of the most inefficient hospitals in the

province. "And," he said, "if by his own admission public trusteeship

has proved a failure...."" He said it was still under public

trusteeship. Well, my deputy minister, some years back, was the public

trustee; then the former former Minister of Health became the public

trustee; then he was relieved of that position and the board took over

its duties, and it has not been under public trusteeship since. Perhaps

we're dealing in semantics. What one person believes public trustee to

be.... I would only refer to that

section of the act that relates

to a public trustee. I consider a public trustee to be "one who is

named under the act to perform as a public trustee."

We had

a case from that member in May of 1981 — and, I might mention, a

tremendous amount of anxiety was caused to a family in my constituency

of Richmond for no good reason. That member rose one day and spoke of a man

in Richmond who has terminal brain cancer, and that member said

that that person was transported about for four hours in an ambulance

looking for a hospital bed of some kind. That member said that they

went to a hospital, they couldn't admit him; they drove around to one

or two hospitals and they were closed and they wouldn't admit him, and

four hours went by. We checked into that story, because that was a

very, very strong statement. We spoke to the dispatchers, the doctors,

the hospitals and the family, and the story was very, very different.

The only difference the next day when we checked was the anxiety the

family had undergone. This member decided, Mr. Chairman: let's play

cheap politics with someone's pain, agony and suffering.

You

might notice that very rarely does that member ever identify a source.

It's "someone tells me, an association tells me, a lamppost told me, or

a little bird." Mr. Chairman, we all understand that within our system

of government business — health or whatever you wish to refer to —

there are people who. are spokesmen for organizations, be they a

hospital, a health association, a union or whatever, and when we make

contact with these various organizations, we contact the person who has

been given authority by the association to speak on their behalf. If

the member is suggesting to me or anyone else that because a member of

a group is speaking he is speaking as the official spokesman for that

organization, I can't accept that. I can certainly accept a statement

from the president of the group or from the person who's been

designated as that speaker, but to expect to be able to cover every

statement made by every member of every organization, and for that

member to say: "That's what they're telling me".... Sure, maybe they

are. We'd like to speak to those who have the responsibility of

speaking for their association so we can get the story as clearly as we

can.

Mr. Chairman, time and again issues are raised with

respect to the situation of an individual, and the ministry takes as

much time as is required to investigate the circumstances of the case;

we try to resolve to the best of our ability the difficulties that may

be involved in the case. If members of the opposition, particularly the

official critic, wish to bring case upon case to us, we'll check them

all out. We have no difficulty in doing that; we can do it as quickly

as that member would like us to do, provided the information is given

to us as early as possible. If they're going to wait until a certain

day has arrived or question period or estimates and have the stories

build up until that time, fine, but it's going to delay the process.

I said earlier today, members of the opposite side and members on this

side, in their concern for individual citizens, have brought

information to my attention, and we have responded without headlines,

without publicity, without news releases, without statements in the

House, because we recognize that every member of this House, with very

few exceptions, is genuinely concerned about the well-being of

constituents, and no one wants to see someone suffer. So it's not

politically advantageous to allow a person to suffer in discomfort

simply because the

schedule doesn't permit that it be brought to the

attention of the authorities now. Maybe it's Friday afternoon, but the

House isn't sitting till Monday, so let's hold onto this story until we

can get some political mileage out of it. Meanwhile the person may be

in a position which could be alleviated if the information were brought

forward immediately.

MR. COCKE: What a hypocritical....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You have much to answer for.

MR. COCKE: You have a hell of a way of running a health system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's beginning to hurt; some sensitive nerves have been touched, obviously.

MS. BROWN: You're practising medicine without a licence.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, if that lady would be quiet for a moment perhaps I could

address you. Otherwise I'll address her directly, because he's got a

deputy sitting right behind him, in training.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) will please come to order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I won't even go into the background of that.... The member for New

Westminster would know the medical terminology, since he's a

quasi-pseudo MD. There is a term used to describe those with grandiose

thoughts and ideas about themselves — a Napoleonic complex or

something; I'm not sure. But I won't go into the background of the

statement: "I built the Royal Columbian Hospital."

AN HON. MEMBER: Megalomania would do.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is it megalomania?

MR. COCKE: I know a psychopath when I see one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The member for New Westminster says he knows a psychopath when he sees

one, in case the world has not shared that knowledge previously.

[ Page 8961 ]

was told some time back that we could expect some pretty good stuff

from the opposition on health, particularly from the member for

Vancouver Centre, who decided: "Aw, let the member for New Westminster

do it. I'll go on vacation." I think it was decent of him, anyway.

One

of the problems that faces us in this system is, I believe, the need in

the minds of many to make political hay out of anything. The old axiom

suggests that all is fair in war; I suppose politics could be included

in that.

I disagree with the idea that for political

purposes, political gain, political advantage or whatever you should

attempt to bring into focus the personal suffering of individuals which

could be alleviated, at least to some degree, by simple communication

of information, rather than through the political process. People have

been in contact with the ministry and have advised us that they regret

the publicity that their case has had, because it has caused undue

anxiety within their own families.

I fully respect the

circumstances of individuals, or members of their family, who must

speak out because they feel that they are not being treated properly,

fairly or promptly. They speak out, and then frequently they've lost

control of the situation. I can understand that they are not

experienced in that field, and that it's definitely going to occur. We

try to respond as quickly as we possibly can. Much of the information

we receive about individual cases will not be made public, because we

don't intend to make public information of a confidential nature.

had one case — I'm not going to mention the name of an open-heart

surgery candidate. A great deal of publicity was given to this

particular situation. When it was brought to our attention, I had one

of our medical people contact a member of that family. A very good

conversation ensued; some information was given and some direction was

given. Later, by correspondence, a very strong note of gratitude was

received from a member of the family, who suggested that she simply

didn't understand the options available, in certain circumstances, and

was greatly relieved that she had the opportunity to speak to somebody

within the ministry. That is available to all. I think I mentioned

earlier this morning that members on both sides of the House take that

opportunity, with pretty good results. That's the system. That's what's

available to members of this House or citizens of the province.

The

member for New Westminster asked a number of questions earlier today.

Some additional information has been put together; all I have to do is

find it. One specific question was the one I mentioned with respect to

ambulance diversions, which I'm having researched further because the

earlier information I got was inconsistent with the information given

to me by the member for New Westminster, and I'm very concerned about

that.

The member for New Westminster spoke about the

ministry operating within legislative authority. I've asked some of the

officials to jot down a few responses with respect to that. Perhaps the

member may disagree, but the information provided to me by the people

responsible said that the ministry has never operated on a per diem

payment. Adjustments were made to approved budgets, based on decreases

or increases of workloads expressed in patient-days.

Section 10 of the

Hospital Insurance Act states: "There shall be a sum paid by the

minister." It's a permissive

section and does not stipulate how the

money is to be paid. "Grants" has been used as the term in the estimate

book since 1977. Mr. Chairman, it should be obvious to all that that is

a legal

interpretation of a statute — which I think the member was

asking for.

Are we on global budgets? Yes, we are. We still

operate on a global budget concept. We allow money to transfer from

salaries to equipment, but not equipment to salaries. That's a control

device, which the funding agency has a responsibility to ensure the

correct procedures are followed.

The question on bare

statistics and percentages. We offered the hospitals 7.7 percent, 7.72

percent and 7.9 percent increases in the grant. But they were expected

to increase their revenues by 17 percent, 20 percent and 24 percent. It

varied from hospital to hospital. The member is correct in the numbers,

because we provided him with those numbers — indirectly. Mr. Chairman,

that was based on information provided to us on what the anticipated

revenue was from, other than the grant. The per diem increased from

$6.50 to $7.50 — that's part of the revenue. It was calculated that

that's what those individual hospitals would achieve. Each year, at the

end of the fiscal term, a reconciliation is taken to determine if the

hospitals achieved what they anticipated, and there can be a tremendous

number of variables. Some hospitals which have had a lot of Workers'

Compensation cases referred to them may not see that number this year;

therefore their revenue is down from that source, and there's a

reconciliation that takes place. The estimates are simply in error, and

a reconciliation can take place. That's why the percentages are

different, because we're dealing with two entirely different bases.

Mr.

Chairman, the member for New Westminster said and I can't go back to

all of the conversation — that someone within the ministry told

hospitals that they would have their regular bimonthly cash flow cut

off if they did not reduce their budgets. If I'm wrong, please advise

me. I'll have to get the Blues. I think that's what the member said.

I'm concerned if someone is making such a statement. We've done the

best we can in a short period of time, and I'm advised that such a

threat as this has never been made: "The transfer of cash from hospital

programs to hospitals every two weeks is the individual hospital's

principal source of income, and any such reductions would simply force

the hospital to borrow the money from the bank."

If the

member knows of someone who has made that statement, I don't have to

have the answer today, but I would certainly like to find out who made

such a statement and to whom. I don't think it is proper to make

statements which could be interpreted as threats. I don't think it's

proper conduct. I don't think the hospitals, or anyone else in receipt

of public cash, should have to put up with that. So if the member has

it. I would certainly look into it, quite apart from discussions in the

chamber.

Mr. Chairman, we have a process underway with

respect to the hospitals, which began in April — before April actually,

but the April letter was also part of the process — in which we asked

the hospitals to advise us what they believed would be necessary, and

what they intended to do to stay within the overall global budget. I

suppose the majority of the hospitals have responded by now, although I

understand some still have not. Each of those responses is being

reviewed by ministerial staff officials, and some adjustments have

already been made. Some of the hospitals have provided certain

information which has led people within the ministry to reconsider some

adjustments to the global grant. That is a continuing process, and it

will continue. There are some hospitals that have such a difference of

opinion with respect

[ Page 8962 ]

their needs compared to the analysis of the ministry that we have asked

independent consultants to review these cases and advise. I've told the

representatives on the boards of those hospitals that if they're right

and that is shown by the independent audit, we'll accept their judgment.

told the hospitals, many of them: "We are not simply going to say to

you that we're right and you're wrong." If an independent operational

audit indicates that the hospital is correct, then we'll respond in a

very positive way to see that they're properly funded. The member for

New Westminster seems to get all excited that you would bring in an

outside auditor to look at an operation of the hospital. The hospitals

themselves don't; they welcome it. The Royal Columbian Hospital people

said they welcomed an independent outside operational audit to be

undertaken at that hospital. They welcome it; in fact, they even asked

for it, because they respect the expertise of these audit

organizations, as we do. When that final paper comes in, we'll see that

the differences of opinion are identified and corrective action is

taken if it's indicated.

A lot of problems associated with

all of the business, everywhere in the province, in the country and

probably in the world.... The member has brought forward a few

thoughts, and I don't disagree with all of them. We'll respond to

specific cases if that's what's going to be happening. Again the member

spoke about

section 41 of the Hospital Act and the Richmond General

Hospital in my constituency, and an injunction which was granted to one

of the hospital employee unions which, in effect, said: "You can't

close beds unless you have written permission from the minister."

Richmond General Hospital had not closed any beds. What they had

recommended to me was that an annex be closed and also that the

services provided by that annex no longer be made available. We met

with them and we discussed it. They said that they would, in effect,

transfer those patients from the annex to the main hospital and

continue the service, but close the building itself down, thereby

maximizing the savings they felt they could achieve by closing down a

unit and saving the maintenance costs and everything that went with it.

That's what they suggested as a compromise and that's what was approved.

The

member for New Westminster says: "The minister should sign for every

bed closure." I think that's what the act says is necessary in

section

41. I understand that it hasn't been carried on since the act was

passed, and I don't know that.... I'd have to get the specific

date, because many beds have been closed routinely without written

permission.

MR. COCKE: I was interested that the

minister spent a few minutes providing a few answers. Prior.to that he

spent all of his time whipping away at the member for New Westminster.

I presume that he feels that he's having to create an illusion around

cases that will, to some extent, reduce the impact of what I might have

to say. Anyway, so much for that.

He talks about the Vancouver General Hospital.

Interjection.

MR COCKE: Oh, come on. Get up and say something!

MR. BRUMMET: Your credibility's not that good.

MR. COCKE: Isn't it? If my credibility was good with the member

for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), I'd have to go out and cut my throat.

I don't feel that I have that concern at the moment.

The

minister talks about the VGH, and you're darned right it's semantics.

Certainly I know that the now deputy was the former administrator of

that hospital. Certainly it's not under administration per se, but who

appoints every member of the board? They're at the pleasure of the

Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and, for heaven's sake, the Lieutenant

Governor-in-Council runs that hospital, through the Ministry of Health.

Come on. If the board doesn't do what it's told, then the board is

finished. Don't look in the old acts; the fact of the matter is that

that's the way it is. They have no society any longer.

The

case in Richmond, where the minister says I terrified the

family.... It was the family who phoned me, so don't give me the

old stuff about me terrifying the family. They phoned me afterwards and

apologized, too. Yes, you phoned the family....

MR. BRUMMET: What did you do with it? You used it as a political weapon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for North Peace River will come to order, please.

MR. COCKE:

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the minister tells us that what we must do is

very quietly take any problems that we have to the minister, and he'll

take care of them, or he will try, but we must communicate without any

publicity whatsoever. Most of the cases that I've raised have already

been public. The one I talked about yesterday hadn't gone in the paper,

and so I didn't refer to it other than to tell you what was going on

again at Children's. I communicated with that doctor, and he said he

has 12 like it. However, he's also said it in the Province this

morning. The minister is trying to make us believe that there is

nothing wrong out there, yet every day the headlines in the paper tell

us that there is.

Mr. Chairman, the minister says that he

can't believe that he or his ministry would threaten hospitals. Let me

tell you what the minister said when he was asked about the restraint.

He said he's losing patience with the restraint complaints — his words.

He went on to say: "I'm at the point that if a hospital wants to tell

me they can't run their business, that's fine; we'll put someone in

there who can."

MS. BROWN: That's a threat.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's a promise.

MR. COCKE:

Oh, dear, that's not a threat, that's a promise. What the hell

difference does it make, Mr. Minister? Threat, promise, it's the same

thing.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're a threat to the people, you see.

MR. COCKE:

Oh, I'm a threat to the people. I'll tell you what: I'll make you a

little bet. If the people have an opportunity between you and me, I'll

bet you 50 bucks they choose me over you for a Minister of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please address the Chair and address vote 45.

[ Page 8963 ]

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if you want to ask the people about

this whole crew here as opposed to that crew there, now is a good time

to do it. They're so tired of that bunch of worn-out Liberals and the

coalition of the old Conservatives and a few Socreds, that this

province is desperately wanting... When you walk down the street,

Mr. Chairman, what do you hear? "When is the next election?" Time after

time after time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 45, please.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I'd go on to give you another couple of the minister's

quotes, but I think I can save them. I just want to say that as far as

I'm concerned the minister should really pay attention to what he's

doing; to the fact that the cutbacks are hurting desperately; to the

fact that the cutbacks are not being enjoyed by other areas; and to the

fact that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) seems to be getting along very well, with no great

cutbacks in northeast coal and other areas of concern. I just suggest

that the Minister of Health is carrying the can for that government,

which lacks priority in the delivery of health care, period.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to briefly make a few comments during this debate.

I hope that the so-called Health critic, if he's going to leave the

chamber, will come back very soon, because I like to look him in the

face whenever I speak.

First of all, I'd like to observe the

buttons that all of the NDP members are wearing today, and the only

thing I can say about those is that it's only the colour that seems to

fit. The slogan "Stop" doesn't fit at all, because I don't believe they

ever got started.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the people out

there who are expecting some great things from that critic who just

left the chamber are terribly disappointed today. In fact, if the

people out there knew that there are only five members of the NDP in

the chamber while this very, very important debate is taking place,

they'd all agree with us that all of their slogans and all of their

sayings right along are nothing but a sham.

MS. BROWN:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how many members

of the government are in here. Also, where is the Minister of Health?

Five Socreds and no Minister of Health — let the record show that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's not a valid point of order.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, at one point during this debate there were only two NDP

members in this chamber — the so-called critic, and the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds attempting to give him a little support in the House. I

can honestly say that if it weren't for the tremendous box of newspaper

clippings that the Health critic is dragging up and down the corridor —

the Health critic has left; he doesn't want to hear the truth — he

would have absolutely nothing for this debate today. It's typical of

his performance all during this session and in question period, when

all he does is get up and read headlines and articles from the

newspapers.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

As I

have sat in this House over the past three years, I have become very

discouraged listening to some of the debate that takes place from the

opposition benches, particularly as it applies to sick people, senior

citizens and the less fortunate people of the province. It's really

disturbing to me, Mr. Chairman, how they have become such experts at

riding the backs of sick people. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is

cringing in her seat, because she is one of the real experts at riding

on the backs of the less fortunate. If we go back through Hansard ,

if we check through all the question periods, it's obvious that this

group came into this session this year thinking that there was going to

be an election and the only way they could bring on an election was to

do something dramatic — to ride on the backs of the sick people and the

seniors of this province.

The member who left the chamber,

the member for New Westminster. claimed during his speech yesterday

that I am unfit to represent my constituency. Not only do I feel very

fit indeed to look after mv constituency, but it's interesting to note

that I have had the opportunity to help people from other

constituencies, including New Westminster.

I'd like to tell

you a true story about a lady who was having difficulty getting into

the Royal Columbian Hospital. This information was passed along to me

and I looked into the matter. I got in touch with this lady, and I

gathered from her conversation that she was very concerned that there

was a real possibility that the socialist party — the NDP, and

particularly the Health critic for the NDP — would get hold of this

little problem of hers and turn it into a political football. I was

contacted, and I followed through by getting in touch with the proper

people.

MS. BROWN: You're using it now.

MR. KEMPF: You'd use it for partisan purposes.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to my left and the hon.

member to my right, neither of whom has the floor, to refrain from

commenting. They will have an opportunity to take their places in the

debate.

MR. RITCHIE: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman,

This

lady, as I have already said, was fearful of her little problem getting

into the hands of the NDP and particularly the Health critic, the

member for New Westminster. She was afraid that her name and her

personal problem would become public knowledge, and that she would be

used as a political football, as they have done with so many others, I

made the proper contacts and looked after that constituent, as any

responsible MLA should. They result was. of course, that the lady had

her problem taken care of without any great delay at all.

That

is only one, Mr. Chairman. There has been another since that time,

concerning the Vancouver General Hospital. I'm going through this

because I think it's important to point out to the House, and I hope

that through the press it can be pointed out to the people of this

province, that the responsibility of an MLA is not to take the problems

of sick people and use them as a political football. It's not the

responsibility of an MLA to come into this chamber and hold onto the

problems of a constituent until it's politically profitable to use them

publicly to attempt to disgrace our Minister of Health or our

government. No, Mr. Chairman, it's the responsibility of an MLA to look

into that matter and help that person.

[ Page 8964 ]

this other case, the lady had been told by her surgeon that her surgery

would have to be postponed for about five months. It was a simple

matter for me, as an MLA, to contact the administrator of that hospital

and ask him if he would have the surgeon or the doctor who had advised

this lady that she could not have her surgery as required, but would

have to wait four or five months because the government had reduced the

funding to the hospital.... The outcome of that problem was that

the lady was scheduled for her surgery very soon after I entered into

the matter.

It's very important to have on record that the

responsibility of an MLA is not to bring these problems to this chamber

at question period or any other time, and use them to attempt to

disgrace a minister or a government. Rather, the responsibility is to

look after that person and see that the required attention is provided

on time.

Mr. Chairman, during the debate on vote 45 the

member for New Westminster made a number of remarks. One of them was

that he was very disappointed that the members on this side of the

House were leaving during his speech. It would be very simple for him

to check the records, where he would see that all through this session

the attendance record of the NDP is dismal — it's terrible. I don't

believe it's much over 60 percent. That criticism is rather hard for us

on this side of the House to accept, knowing our record for attendance.

One member of the NDP is unable to be in the chamber due to illness; we

wish him well, and a speedy recovery. But we also learned that one of

their members, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), is

allowed or is shipped off — we're not sure which — for a five-week

holiday in Europe with full pay.

It's one thing to be

critical of this side of the House having to leave during debates,

because we have a lot of work. We are government and there are duties

to be taken care of in the offices of cabinet ministers, etc. But we

find an opposition party prepared to ship out one of their members on a

five week holiday; that is disgraceful. The only reason I can see for

that was the devastating remark beforehand, which really left a

terrible aftermath of fear and anger, not only among those people who

have been dealing with the particular bank he referred to, but also

among the many senior citizens who had their little investments with

that bank. There will be some benefit to this because today, I think,

the fine which can apply should start — approximately $250 per day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: What vote are you on?

MR. RITCHIE: I'm on vote 45.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would remind the hon. member that currently we are on vote 45, the

Ministry of Health estimates. In this particular committee we must be

strictly relevant to those matters currently before us. I would ask the

member to bear that in mind when continuing his remarks.

MR. RITCHIE:

I thank you for that guidance, Mr. Chairman. It is very difficult for

one to stay strictly within the vote being debated when you're

attempting to respond to some of the remarks made by the opposition,

remarks such as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) made here the

other day in the House when he accused us of being political

prostitutes — a terrible remark. In order to respond to some of the

things that are said, there is a possibility that I may push the rules

a little bit, or stray a little, and I know that you will keep me in my

place. I will be pleased to respect the Chair.

The member

for New Westminster talked about high flying expenses. Speaking of

expenses, on March 14, 1974, the then Minister of Consumer Services

sponsored a dinner in Victoria at a cost of $400. I believe there were

about 20 people there. Of those $400, $250 was for food, $105 was for

booze, and the balance would be for gratuities. In today's dollars,

that would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $800, or approximately

$40 per person attending that dinner. I bring this out only because we

are really dealing with dollars and cents in this debate. We're being

criticized because not enough dollars are being made available for

health programs.

In 1973 that same minister joined the then

Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition, on a fishing trip. We have

heard criticism come across the floor at us because of certain per diem

charges, but listen to this one. This was a fishing trip that lasted

all day. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Premier of the

province inviting one of his colleagues on a fishing trip. We don't

know exactly who paid the rental on the boats, but what is wrong with

this particular fishing trip was that the taxpayers of British Columbia

were the suckers, because it was the taxpayers of British Columbia that

paid the per diem charge made by that member. Here we have a minister

of the Crown, along with the Premier of the province, out on a fishing

trip in 1973, and charging the taxpayers of this province a $25 per

diem. Shame on you! Shame on you that you should sit across the floor

there and criticize members of this side with all these silly little

charges....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon.

members, the Chair is having some difficulty, associating in any way

whatsoever the remarks of the member with vote 45. While a certain

amount of latitude is allowed in maybe referring to a point in

comparison, the Chair must advise the member at this time that his

current debate in no way meets the requirements of the standing orders

of the House. I would advise him to carry on with the discussion on

vote 45.

MR. RITCHIE: I appreciate the guidance, but

I find it so difficult to respond truly and accurately to the

statements and the speeches of the members of the opposition, because

they are all over the ball park. Just over the past hour in this

chamber we have heard them talking about turkeys, megaprojects,

personal expenses and all sorts of things. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank

you for bringing me into line, and I certainly expect that should I get

out of line again you'll do so again.

I feel very strongly

that here we are talking about dollars and cents.... We're being

criticized, because there aren't enough dollars being put into

health-care programs, for expense accounts and all of the little,

trifling things that go on from day to day. At the same time there is

seldom an opportunity to respond to the hypocrites on that side of the

House that would have the audacity to bring such things up, when they

know themselves exactly what their record is.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, while the term hypocritical is allowable,

the designation to another hon. member in this House is not

permissible. I would ask the member to withdraw that particular

reference as it would pertain specifically to another member of this

House.

[ Page 8965 ]

MR. RITCHIE:

I really wasn't reflecting on any particular member. But if it's

offending the opposition I'll be pleased to withdraw the description —

although it suits very well. I withdraw the remark.

The

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) is in the House now. We've heard

all of the talk about the expenses of first-class travel and how we're

taking this extra money out of the hospital system and using it up on

first-class travel for some of our members. On October 29, 1974,

first-class tickets to and from Ottawa were purchased through Bayshore

Travel for people by the names of Dave Barrett and Harvey Beech. I can

only conclude that that was the Premier of the day, that person who is

always so critical of the spending on this side. He who would never

admit to travelling first class did indeed travel first class to and

from Ottawa on October 29, 1974. Then, as they continued to dip into

the public trough, as they have often accused us of doing, on October

12, 1975, that same member, the then Premier of the province and now

Leader of the Opposition, Dave Barrett, along with a Mr. John Wood,

also travelled to and from Ottawa on first-class tickets.

have sat on this side of the House all through this session, and almost

daily we have listened to the opposition harping and whining and being

critical of some of the actions of our ministers — actions that are

normal with the responsibility that goes with the position. I'm not

being critical of the then Premier of the province travelling first

class, but I don't think he and his colleagues should be using that now

to criticize this government, when they themselves know what they did.

Where was that money coming from?

I'm on vote 45, and I'm

talking about taking taxpayers' dollars and putting them into health

care. I'm responding to criticism from the opposition with respect to

spending and how this spending is hurting those who need health care.

The situation in 1975 shows that the taxpayers of British Columbia were

gouged badly at that time, yet we have heard criticism of some of our

members who found it necessary to use taxis when they visited other

cities and other countries.

Between June 18 and 26, 1975,

the taxpayers of British Columbia paid out a total of $811.64 — and

listen to this to Daimler Hire Ltd. of London, England.

AN HON. MEMBER: What for?

MR. RITCHIE:

Well, $811.64 covered the cost of chauffeur-driven limousines. They

didn't just pick up a taxi; these were limousines. These weren't

ordinary limousines; these were Daimlers, because they had to put on a

show in London.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind the

member that, while the points the member is covering may be appropriate

at some place in debate, the Chair is finding it increasingly difficult

to allow the member to continue with his line of debate under the

estimates currently before us. As the Chair has pointed out on numerous

occasions, hon. members, simply relating other matters which may be

used as a comparison for health figures will not allow us to canvass

those other matters. We must be specifically relevant to the vote

before us, which is the Ministry of Health, vote 45, minister's office.

On that we may have a very wide-ranging debate, but the Chair must

advise the member that he is bordering on irrelevancy. The debate that

he is currently engaged in is straining the rules of the House to the

maximum.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I think there

may be a way around this, so that the member can have his freedom of

speech. If he were to ask leave to make a statement, I think we'd be

quite willing to give him that permission.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point of order by the member would maybe have some validity if we

were in the House, but in committee we cannot give such leave. We are

bound by the rules which the House commands us to adhere to in this

committee.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, as I've said

before, I can appreciate the difficult position that you're in. My

feelings today have developed over a period of time spent listening to

the debate from the other side of the House where they do nothing but

criticize some of the spending of our government members or cabinet

ministers, do nothing but criticize us for taking money away from

health care. This goes on and on and on, Mr. Chairman, and I cannot,

under any circumstances, avoid breaking the rules. I'm simply

responding to the things they've been saying right along, which have

been breaking the rules of this House all through this session.

How

can I express my feelings about what has been going on over there if

I'm restricted to this vote 45 and cannot respond? The member for New

Westminster talked about megaprojects, about Pouilly-Fuissé wine, about

high-flying expense accounts, and on and on. All I want to get on the

record is that they cannot continue to do that and have the people

believe them. I have people in my constituency, particularly senior

citizens, who are very concerned because of the things being said by

those members on the other side of the House. It is for that reason

that I have wanted for some time the opportunity to respond to some of

the things said by the opposition. All we have to do is go back in the

Blues: nothing but scare tactics, nothing but falsehoods; talk about

expenses; don't do as we do, do as we say.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot be contained when I find out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett)....

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. First, the member says he cannot be

contained. Well, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that for a start you contain

him.

The second point is that the member is a member of

public accounts, and that is where the member should bring these

vouchers that he has to have them discussed, as indeed every member has

been so warned, so directed and so ordered to do. I can promise the

member that as chairman I will, under the rules by which that committee

operates, do my level best to make sure his urge for expression and his

desire not be contained will be given full expression.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point of order is well taken. Again, I have to advise the member

for Central Fraser Valley that we are limited to what we may or may not

bring into a particular piece of legislation before this committee. We

are currently on the estimates of the Ministry of Health, the

minister's office. Under that particular

section the member is free to

have a very wide-ranging debate on the Ministry of Health. He is not

free, however, to range into matters which would be canvassed more

appropriately at another time or in another place.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but I repeat that it's very difficult in this House to respond truly and

[ Page 8966 ]

accurately

to the comments of the opposition. The second member for Surrey just

got on his feet on a point of order to tell this House that these are

supposed to be dealt with in public accounts. He is again misleading

this House by saying so, because he should know better that these

accounts cannot be dealt with in public accounts. We're restricted in

public accounts to dealing with the report at hand, which is the year

1981-82.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HALL:

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I most respectfully ask you to bring

the member to order. I also ask for the protection from the Chair

against this wild member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members,

again — and for the last time — the Chair will caution the member for

Central Fraser Valley that the rule of relevance is one of

long-standing tradition in this House, and it has now been brought to

the member's attention — in the opinion of the Chair, satisfactorily —

a number of times. The member now will either carry on with his debate

under the appropriate

section or the Chair will have to intervene.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I really apologize for expressing my feelings here today,

but I speak on behalf of many people in my constituency who hear these

frightening remarks from the opposition about health care. They're the

ones I'm concerned about, and I want them to know exactly what goes on

over here. I have risen in my place here before and expressed my

concern about the level of debate from the opposition, and about the

way they dig around in the mud in order to find something that would be

politically profitable to them. If it weren't for the newspapers of

this province, they would have absolutely nothing coming in here.

Mr.

Chairman, I am on vote 45. I'm talking about policy, spending and

health care. I'm talking about those who would be so critical of our

government on some of our spending, accusing us of taking it away from

the health-care program, when we know that right here in the records it

shows.... I certainly hope that the press in the gallery will look

into this and see for themselves.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

They're not here at the moment, but I'm sure they're listening. On June

18, 1975, to June 26, 1975, the taxpayers of British Columbia paid out

$811.64 to Daimler Hire Ltd. of London, England.

Mr.

Chairman, if that group over there are going to be permitted to

continue with the type of debate they have been continuing with all

through this session, then these things must come out. The public must

know about it. The cost of these limousines and this Mercedes-Benz

saloon....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The

Chair, having advised the member that his current line of debate is out

of order, will now have to advise the member that under standing orders

I must instruct the member to take his place and yield the floor to

another member who is prepared to address the vote before us. I so

instruct the member to take his place.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'm really surprised at that. I feel

that I should be allowed to continue and respond to some of the

statements that have been made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The Chair has reached a decision on the matter. That concludes that particular aspect.

MS. BROWN:

One of the statements made by the previous member at the beginning of

his participation in this debate had to do with a woman, I think he

said, in his riding who needed to have some surgery done. She was

informed by her doctor that it would be a wait of some months. So as

the MLA for the riding, he intervened on her behalf, and the surgery

was carried through much more quickly; she was moved up the waiting

list. The minister, earlier, in responding to some of the questions

from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), also made the

statement that any of the members of the House who had constituents

with health care problems who needed immediate attention should bring

this matter to his attention, and he would try to expedite as quickly

as possible.

I think those two statements demonstrate,

clearly and precisely, what the opposition is opposed to in the

delivery of health care in this province. We cannot support the concept

of health care by patronage. In other words, only those people who

contact their MLAs and whose MLAs intervene on their behalf get speedy

attention. That is precisely what the debate is all about: that every

British Columbian should have equal access to the health-care system,

regardless of whether they contact their MLAs or whether the minister

has been informed of their problems.

Every time an MLA

intervenes on behalf of a constituent to have someone moved up a

waiting list, someone is burnped from that list. That is preferential

treatment being given because that person used the access he has to his

member of the Legislature. That is not a good way for a health-care

system to work. That is precisely what the opposition has been trying

to get through to the member and the minister. It is not good enough

for the minister to say: "If any member has a problem on behalf of a

constituent bring it to my attention, and I will have my ministry

investigate and the matter dealt with as quickly as possible."

would like to see in this province a health-care system that is so

efficient and working so well on behalf of all British Columbians that

it is never necessary for a constituent to have to bring a problem

either directly to the minister or through his representative to the

minister.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Well, the member for Kamloops is saying: "Then there's no need for MLAs."

MR. RICHMOND: No, I didn't say that. I said: "Never anything wrong. Never a problem." Utopia, no matter what the cost.

[ Page 8967 ]

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was saying.

would like to repeat, however — and I hope the minister will respond to

this in his response — that a good health-care system makes it

unnecessary for anyone to have to go to the media, through his MLA or

directly to the minister to ask for a case to be expedited. The

situation that we are facing in the province now is that a number of

people are finding that they have to use the patronage route. They have

to go either directly to the minister or through a member of this House

in order to have their cases expedited, and that is not good enough. We

would like to see the health-care system improved so that that

unfortunate system is no longer necessary.

However, what I

would specifically like to speak about, make some comments on and ask

some questions about today is the delivery of health-care services to

children. I'm glad to see that.... I think the minister's director

of planning is on the floor. Some of the things I'm going to raise

could use the scrutiny of the director of planning in terms of how

they're going to be dealt with. Children, I think, are probably the

most defenceless members of our society, when you think about it —

well, maybe not yours or mine, but certainly sick and disabled children

are. That is why it is so important that the kinds of services that are

in place in our society for sick and disabled children — or even for

healthy children — should be the best that it is possible for our

society to afford,

[Mr. King in the chair.]

I'm

first going to speak specifically about disabled children, and then

about sick children. We've been very lucky in this province that we've

had an institution dedicated to serving the needs of disabled children

who have needed rehabilitation treatment and long-term care. I am

speaking about Sunny Hill Hospital. Although Sunny Hill Hospital is

located in the Vancouver area, it's a hospital which serves the entire

province. It serves all of the children of the province who have need

for the rehabilitation services and the kind of long-term care which

the hospital is equipped to give.

As a direct result of the

fiscal restraint policies of the government, Sunny Hill Hospital has

found that it has to cut back on some of the services to these

children. I know that in his response to me the minister will point out

that Sunny Hill Hospital actually got an increase in their budget this

year of 7 percent. But in view of the fact that the actual increase

that they have to deal with as a result of inflation is about 17

percent — and I'm quoting figures which were given to me when I

received a carbon copy of a letter sent to the minister — the hospital

is finding that it's faced with an effective decrease of 10 percent. I

notice that the minister is probably trying to find the particular

brief that I'm speaking from. To jog his memory, I'll tell him that it

comes from the Sunny Hill auxiliary association and it was addressed to him and I received a carbon copy of it.

I'm not going to ask the minister if he's ever visited Sunny Hill Hospital,

because, even if he has, I don't think that a visit to the hospital tells

you anything at all about it. Actually, I think it would be much more useful

for the minister if he spoke to some of the parents who have children in Sunny

Hill Hospital, spent some time with some of the people who work there. and then

after that spent some time at the hospital itself. Part of my responsibility

when I worked as a counsellor at Simon Fraser University, prior to coming into

the Legislature, was to be responsible for a volunteer program at the university.

Part of the volunteering component was that students volunteered their time

— not for any credit; they did not get any university credit for this at all

— to work in the community. They chose to work with children at the Sunny Hill

Hospital. As a result of that responsibility I had the opportunity to spend

a lot of time at Sunny Hill Hospital.

number of things happen at Sunny Hill Hospital which are often referred

to under the heading of "recreation and play," but in fact aren't

recreation. I think that when we read that Sunny Hill Hospital has had

to reduce its recreation budget, and had to lay off its music

therapist, we may be inclined to think: "Well, recreation, what's the

big deal?" Recreation at Sunny Hill Hospital, for those children, is

therapy. When those students used to volunteer to help with the

swimming program, of course it was fun for the kids to go swimming. But

more important than that, it was an opportunity for those children to

get some motor exercises for their limbs. It was really part of the

therapy. It was part of the rehabilitation process. It was also part of

the socialization process for those children. It really wasn't just

recreation. It was part of helping them to become self-reliant, to feel

secure at the same time as they were feeling pleasure at being able to

swim despite the fact that they couldn't walk. That's what that

recreation was all about. And when those students used to spend time

with some of those children at Sunny Hill, tossing a ball back and

forth, they weren't just playing a game of catch. It was the whole idea

of developing eye-and-hand, motor coordination, stimulating the

messages that went from the eye to the brain to the hand, to decide at

what time the hand would go up to catch the ball — and over and over

again missing the ball, and yet never giving up until eventually one

day the whole thing would come into place. That's the kind of thing

which is referred to as recreation, but which in fact is a very

important part of the rehabilitation treatment and therapy which those

children at Sunny Hill need and must have.

I was so upset

when I learned that one of the people to be cut at Sunny Hill, as a

direct result of this fiscal restraint program, was the music

therapist. There are some children at Sunny Hill who respond to

absolutely nothing else but music — no response whatsoever. You try

talking to them, you try to relate to them through touching or some

other way, and there is no response. But with music, somehow that gets

through. The music therapy program is usually, for some of those

children, just the beginning of the rehabilitation process. Now Sunny

Hill has found, as a direct result of not receiving sufficient funding

from the government, that they have had to lay off their music

therapist.

Mr. Chairman, Sunny Hill also has an integrated

day care. One of the things that we talk about on both sides of the

House, and have no opposition whatsoever to, is our goal of integrating

people with disabilities back into the community, rather than having

them in large institutions. This whole community-living concept is one

which has the complete support of every member in this House. Part of

that integration process at Sunny Hill takes place in the day care.

That is one resource which is going to have to go by the boards as a

direct result of Sunny Hill's budget not being sufficient to handle

that.

The letter from the auxiliary also introduced another

concept, and that is the use of Sunny Hill as a system of parent

relief. It is possible that parents of a very severely disabled

[ Page 8968 ]

child,

with a physical or mental disability, from time to time need some

respite and some rest. They can have that child admitted to Sunny Hill,

knowing full well that the child will receive the best of care and

attention during his or her stay there, and that the parents can have a

break, either to take a short holiday, or to take a business trip, or

just to give the family a rest. In a number of instances, simply

removing the child from the home for a short period of time would give

the other children and the parents some time with each other. That is

one of the programs that Sunny Hill delivers which is so important in

terms of the mental health of not just the child who is placed there,

but certainly of the parents as well.

In her letter this parent goes on to say:

"Parents are the cheapest care-givers possible. However,

if they give up or break up, as often happens, it costs the province $50 to

$150 a day to sustain this child in hospital, probably less to sustain one parent

and a child on welfare. Parents without relief are prone to break down from

exhaustion, loss of employment, violent behaviour, etc."

She

goes on to talk about the impact of this funding decrease on Sunny

Hill: "The environment has changed from one of growth, stimulation and

progress to one of regression in the children and frustration in the

hard-worked staff." This issue is not a figment of the imagination of

the opposition. This is a direct quote from two parents of the Sunny

Hill auxiliary association who sent this to the minister, with carbon

copies to a number of MLAs.

These

parents are talking about what I think is really the most tragic aspect

of this restraint program, which is the regression in those children.

When members on the government side talk about restraint, they say: "We

have to have restraint so that all those fat-cat civil servants stop

eating at the public trough." The real impact of restraint is the

cutback in services to the most defenceless members of our society,

such as these children in Sunny Hill, and their subsequent regression.

No longer is it an environment of growth, stimulation and progress;

instead, increased boredom and regression in the children and

frustration in the hard-worked staff. The parents go on to say that

these children are not getting the attention and support they need to

develop and feel cared for away from home. This parent says that Sunny

Hill is at once a home, a school, a convalescing ward, a rehabilitative

facility and a training centre for disabled children.

As I

said earlier — I want to repeat it — I think we are very fortunate in

this province to have had Sunny Hill Hospital. We have had the good

fortune of watching Sunny Hill become better with each passing year,

giving better care and better service to those children. Now we find

that Sunny Hill is not only having to lay off some of the vital members

of its staff but, as the administrator says, as well as the music

therapy program, five pre-school teachers had to go, and the activity

workers. These are not the people who deal specifically with the

physical care of the children, with keeping the children clean. These

are the people who deal with the stimulation of those children, making

it possible for them to grow and develop, to the limited extent that

this can happen. It's hard to decide really who is the more important,

the staff who take care of their physical needs or the staff who take

care of their emotional and growth needs.

I don't know how

Sunny Hill made their decision, but I know they shouldn't have had to

make that decision. Whether or not we need fiscal restraint, the

Minister of Health should have been absolutely firm that the service to

disabled children in this province should not be cut, He should have

fought tooth and nail with Treasury Board and his cabinet to protect

the service to these children.

The minister has a number of

letters from parents of children in Sunny Hill; they have sent copies

to other MLAs, including myself and the critic. The handicapped

resource centre sent a letter to the minister, pointing out that Sunny

Hill provides a unique service in this province. For many years it was

the only hospital that did. Now, thank goodness, it isn't. But in many

respects, it's still the best; at least it used to be until this latest

restraint program on the part of the minister.

Here's a letter from another parent talking about the integrated day-care program and how useful it has been for their children.

Hartman

House. I have letters from other parents talking about the long-range

damage and effect of the cutbacks of the recreational programs on

Saturday mornings and after 4 o'clock in the afternoon for children

under six. These children can't fight back. There's absolutely nothing

that they can do about the government's decision to destroy the quality

of care delivered by Sunny Hill Hospital.

They can't hurt

the minister, vote against the minister or anything. They can't fight

back in anyway whatsoever. Precisely because of that, the minister

should have fought on their behalf. Precisely because they are so

defenceless and vulnerable, the minister should have seen to it that

Sunny Hill Hospital had the funding that it needed to ensure that these

children get the kind of care and nurturing that they had and need.

They ask so little — they really do — out of life. They're being

deprived of even that as a direct result of this government's policies.

The government members stand on the floor of this House and talk about

fiscal restraint without ever once mentioning the real impact of fiscal

restraint on the most defenceless members of our society.

think it was in 1980 that the minister commissioned an interministerial

study of the needs of and services available to severely handicapped

children and adolescents. We've been waiting for that study to be

released. There is information in that study that surely is of

importance not just to the minister, but to other people in the

province as well. Mr. John Talbot, the coordinator, completed the

survey. We were told on February 16, 1981, that that survey was

completed and that the study would be released by the end of March.

We're still waiting for that. We were told that the first draft was

completed, and in June 1981 we were again told that the study was going

to be released any moment now. We're still waiting for that particular

study.

I think that study must indicate very clearly to the

minister the shortfall in terms of the delivery of health care to

disabled children in this province. That's one of the things I hope the

director of planning and legislation in the minister's department is

looking at. I hope that that study is now in that director's hands, and

that some of the recommendations in that study in terms of dealing with

the holes and shortfalls in the system are going to be implemented. It

is quite possible, when the minister responds, which I certainly hope

he will, that he will indicate that in fact that has already started,

and that giving additional funding to a facility like Sunny Hill

Hospital is something that's already on the drawing board, that the

rehiring of the activity workers and the recreational staff, and the

reopening of the swimming pool, outdoor campgrounds and those kinds of

services are imminent.

[ Page 8969 ]

want to add, Mr. Chairman, that as important as they are, volunteers

alone can't do it. There has to be paid supervisory staff to supervise

what the volunteers are doing and ultimately take responsibility for

the children. I know that Sunny Hill has a lot of dedicated,

hardworking volunteers. I know they're trying to do the job that's

being left undone as a result of these cutbacks, but volunteers alone

can't do it. I'm hoping that when the minister responds, Mr. Chairman,

he will give some indication that there is additional funding available

for Sunny Hill and that it will soon be up to full staff.

Another

service which is used by children and adolescents in the province — and

I'm now dealing with the family and child unit at the Eric Martin

Pavilion.... Dr. Phillip Ney, who started that unit and certainly

has been one of the pioneers in the whole area of family and child

services, I had and still have the pleasure of knowing — he's a very

old and very good friend, and both our families have been friends for a

number of years — so I have some understanding of the thought that went

into the planning of that particular unit. They soon recognized, Mr.

Chairman, that there really wasn't a service anywhere on Vancouver

Island which addressed itself to the most severely ill adolescents and

their families — and I'm talking about mental illness. He also

recognizes that a large number of these children — and I'm going to

refer to the statistics later — come to him through the justice system;

they are referrals from the Attorney-General's ministry or through the

Ministry of Human Resources. Like every other child, they were born

into this world with everything going for them, and then, as a result

of circumstances beyond their control, they ended up with some form of

severe mental problem and needed psychiatric care — not just as

individuals, but the whole family needed it. I just want to say very

quickly about the Eric Martin family and child unit....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The three-minute warning light is on.

MR. COCKE: I'll intervene.

MS. BROWN:

Would you? My colleague is going to intervene on my behalf, Mr.

Chairman, so that I can speak at greater length about the Eric Martin.

Oh, my colleague is not going to intervene; I am not through.

Mr.

Chairman, the adolescent unit of the Eric Martin Pavilion has had to

cut back from operating seven days a week and dealing with ten

adolescents — that is 70 adolescents a week — to a five-day week, and

the number of adolescents that it's able to deal with has been reduced

to six. So it has gone from dealing with 70 to dealing with 30. In

addition, the unit is going to be closed for the entire month of

August. This certainly didn't happen last year, and it is quite

possible — and I could be wrong about this; the minister, I know, will

set me straight — that this is the first time that that unit has had to

close for an entire month. As a direct result of this, what we're

finding.... Certainly what I found when I visited the detention

centre here in Victoria was that there were children in the detention

centre who should have been on the sixth floor at the Eric Martin but

who couldn't get in because, as I said, there has been a reduction in

the number of adolescents that they're able to handle. So these

children are placed in the detention centre and then referred to a

private psychiatrist and have a one-to-one situation rather than the

kind of family and group therapy that they used to have — or that they

should have and would have had if they had been able to get on the

sixth floor, the family and child unit of the Eric Martin.

The

other thing about this unit, of course, is that it doesn't only serve

Vancouver Island, I discovered. In fact, a number of children from

Prince George and other areas used to be referred to this particular

unit, because it was such a good unit, an excellent unit, and it

probably still is, except that its capacity to deal with adolescents

has been curtailed by more than 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, I regret that

my green light had now turned to red and that I have no option but to

relinquish my place, but I hope that the minister will deal with my

questions.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be

brief and I'm going to deal with restraint, at least the kind of

restraint which is being exercised in respect to health care in this

province. I checked again with the staff of the Health ministry, and my

understanding is that expenditures through the Health ministry this

year will be up 14 percent, as opposed to last year. If we assume that

inflation runs at a 10 percent rate during the next 12 months, this is

a 4 percent increase in real expenditure. In other words, expenditure

is up proportionately more than all other activity in this province,

again in the current fiscal year. If this is restraint, it's a unique

kind of restraint. There's more money proportionately available for

health than ever before. There's more money available for health

proportionately out of the provincial budget than ever before. There's

more money relative to any other activity in the province. So it's a

unique kind of restraint — 4 percent real increase in health-care

activity in the province. This is a projection, admittedly, but it's a

projection that follows faithfully in line with the experience of the

last half-dozen years.

I want to refer to a recent paper

published in the Canadian Tax Journal. the March-April 1982 edition.

The paper was prepared for the Economic Council of Canada, and the

author was Constantine Kapsalis. The author tells us several

interesting things. He endeavours to prove that the new style of block

funding by the federal government, of its share of health-care

expenditures across Canada, hasn't had a marked impact on health care

throughout the nation over the last half-dozen years. The author looks

at the health expenditures of the various provinces, rates them, and

shows conclusively that British Columbia has led the pack throughout

this period.

page 223 of that study, we find that over

the last half-dozen years — from 1975-76, when the present government

assumed power, to 1980-81 — it gained on the rest of the nation 14

percent precisely. It was 14 percent up on Canada as a whole. A number

of provinces, instead of going up relative to the Canadian average,

fell back. I'm talking about healthcare expenditures of all kinds. New

Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba fell behind the Canadian

parade. British Columbia moved ahead faster than any other province in

respect to health care. British Columbia led even Alberta, which was up

11 percent over that six-year period compared to the Canadian average.

British Columbia, as I said before, was up 14 percent. A remarkable

performance, and I don't think most people appreciate it, certainly the

opposition doesn't recognize it. As I said at the outset, we're moving

on up again; this current fiscal year we're 4 percent ahead of last

year, in real terms. All the numbers I've been referring to are

[ Page 8970 ]

in real terms; inflation and deflation have been taken out of these statistics.

repeat, British Columbia has led the nation in terms of increases in

expenditure on health care. It's led all provinces, let alone the

nation. It's out ahead of Alberta.

Another statistic published by the Canadian Tax Foundation, which is an independent

body, is this: all provinces as a proportion of their provincial budget have

health-care expenditures which fall in the 25 percent to 30 percent range —

25 percent to 30 percent of their total provincial budgets are spent on health

care. British Columbia this year will be spending in the order of 33 percent,

again the highest proportion of any provincial budget in the nation. So our

health expenditures, which all members recognize have been growing at a rate

of between 15 percent and 20 percent a year, running ahead of all of Canada,

running ahead of each and every province, have now put us in a position where

we're spending more of our provincial tax income on health care than is

the case with any other province. This year we're up 4 percent in real terms,

and 14 percent in budgetary terms; 14 percent, seen in a context of let's

say a 6 percent Canada-wide guideline, is a remarkable increase in real health

care effort. How anyone can talk about restraint as it applies to health care

expenditures in this province defeats me.

MS. BROWN:

I'd like to continue on that, and I think the minister must be

absolutely fascinated when he tries to reconcile the statements made by

his colleague who just sat down with what he knows is actually

happening. How can one reconcile the kinds of increases that that

member just talked about with the kinds of things that are happening to

places like Sunny Hill Hospital? How can one reconcile the kinds of

increases, the 14 to 15 percent increases that that member just told us

about, with the kinds of things that are happening to the sixth floor

at the Eric Martin Pavilion at the Royal Jubilee? I'm not even

mentioning the other cutbacks in other hospitals, because I am

confining my remarks to services to children.

Maybe the

director of planning needs to play a more active role in decisions

being made by that ministry. I don't know. Maybe it's just gross

mismanagement that we're witnessing. Maybe it's just gross

incompetence; I don't know. I'm certainly not going to refute his

figures, but the facts remain and are there that a vital resource like

Sunny Hill Hospital is unable to meet the needs of the children of this

province and the family and children's unit at Eric Martin Institute is

having to cut back on its services despite the kinds of increases that

that member is talking about. Maybe the minister can reconcile these

two things when he stands up to respond.

However, back to

the Eric Martin. I want to read into the record part of an editorial

dated June 18 from the Times Colonist — just two things that it said.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

That is not true. Obviously the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development was not in the House and did not hear the statements which

I made about Sunny Hill Hospital without benefit of newspaper. If he

would like, I will repeat all 30 minutes of them for his benefit.

However, in referring to the family unit at the hospital, the editorial said:

"The

family unit...was a place where children with severe personality

problems could be brought to live for five weeks. The staff worked not

just with them, but endeavoured to draw the family together — the best

long-term hope in such cases. Now, under government-imposed budget

restraint, a day-care program will replace all of this, meaning reduced

help for fewer people.

"Reducing the program

at the Jubilee for disturbed children will save money, but one shudders

at the debts in policing costs, court services, probation, perhaps even

j ail services, which may be piling up for payment in the years ahead.

The humanitarian aspect aside, this is one budget cutback which doesn't

sound like good business."

All I was suggesting, Mr.

Chairman, was that to place the Royal Jubilee in such a position that

this unit has to reduce the number of adolescent children that it's

able to serve, at a time when everyone agrees that the need for the

service should be expanding rather than contracting, is not a good

budgetary decision. In the long term, it's going to be much more

expensive than any amount of money that's saved at this time by

reducing that service.

I want to raise another issue that

has to do with the responsibility that this ministry has for children.

Part of the responsibility through its community care facility service

is the inspection and licensing of day-care centres — and its family

day-care centres in particular that I would like to talk about at this

time. I'm not going to — I forgot what the word is that I'm not going

to do....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: You're not going to talk very long, we hope.

MS. BROWN:

You know, we never hear from the member for Omineca unless there are

wolves involved. If we were dealing with the minister responsible for

wolves, that member would be on his feet, bleeding all over this

chamber. But because we're talking about children he has nothing to

say. If only he would care for kids half as much as he cares for

wolves, he would probably bring some pressure to bear on that minister

to improve the delivery of health care to the children of this province

And I'm not suggesting that we turn the children into wolves just to

get his attention.

The ministry is now abrogating its

responsibilities in terms of annual — at least as a minimum —

inspections of these child-care facilities. As a direct result of

changes made through legislation, on which I'm not reflecting, the

minister has eliminated the compulsion to investigate and inspect those

facilities at least once annually. That was all the legislation asked

for: a minimum of one inspection a year. Of course, there was

incredible flexibility, allowing the ministry to inspect every day of

the year if that seemed necessary, or whatever number of times. Now the

compulsion of at least one inspection a year has been removed. As a

direct result, a number of day-care operators and associations are

requesting that the minister seriously reconsider his responsibilities

in this area. They believe, in fact, that not only should the

compulsion be returned to the act for at least one annual inspection,

but also the encouragement for many more inspections each year. They

feel it is not good enough simply to confine the responsibilities of

the community care licensing

[ Page 8971 ]

facilities

to inspecting these places once a year. It certainly is not good enough

to say that even that annual inspection is no longer necessary.

letter went to the minister from the Vancouver Island Day Care

Operators Association asking that the ministry return to its former

policy, or indeed increase that policy. There is also a letter from the

B.C. Family DayCare Association. This one I think should also be read

into the record. The members of the B.C. Family DayCare Association,

referring to Health's responsibility, would like to see the original

regulations returned and strengthened. They object to the fact that

they've been weakened, and say that this weakening undermines the whole

purpose for including the regulations in the first place. They ask:

"What safeguards will now exist to ensure that a safe environment is

provided if the decision to inspect is left so arbitrary?"

When

I spoke on this issue earlier, I brought to the minister's attention

that by simply relinquishing this responsibility for at least one

annual inspection, the minister was opening up the entire field to the

private, for-profit day-care corporations. Corporate day care has

always refused to do business in British Columbia because the

restrictions were so stringent. British Columbia cared enough about the

children who were using those facilities to insist on regular

inspections, and on high quality in terms of the delivery of service by

those centres, and certainly in terms of the facilities themselves.

That has now been relaxed, so corporate day care has open range. They

can move into the province at any time. In British Columbia we will

begin to experience what they have in Alberta, Ontario and other

provinces, where these groups — the McDonald's of day care, they're

called — have set up shop. Immediately, the quality of service and care

of the children begins to deteriorate, and they are placed in jeopardy.

am bringing that to the attention of the minister, as well as a letter

that he also received from the child care project, White Rock

Coordinating Centre, asking him to revert at least to the original

policy of insisting on annual inspections, or indeed to strengthen that.

There

was an instance in this province where, unfortunately, an accident

occurred in one of the day cares. As a result there was a coroner's

hearing, and some recommendations were made to that hearing. One of the

recommendations was that there should be a more regular system of

inspection, that regulations should be more strongly enforced, and that

there should be stiffer licensing procedures in terms of family day

care. I don't want to leave the impression that family day cares in the

province are not being well run, but the family day care association

themselves are asking that inspections be carried out at least once

annually on their membership, if not more often. These requests are not

coming from parents, and they're certainly not coming from politicians.

These requests are coming from the Vancouver Island Day Care Operators

Association, the B.C. Family DayCare Association, and the child care

project, White Rock Coordination