1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6129 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Harcourt –– 6129

Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 6131

Transit fares for post-secondary students. Mr. Rose 6131

Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. Cashore –– 6132

Rural property assessments and timber values. Mr. Long –– 6132

Ministerial Statement

Local government awareness week. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 6132

Mr. Blencoe

Tabling Documents –– 6133

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

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Jones

Mr. Perry

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Boone

Appendix –– 6159

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I would like to take a moment, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, to issue a couple of tributes.

The

first is to two fine British Columbians who are to be honoured tomorrow

during a ceremony on Parliament Hill. Bea Leinback of Vancouver and

Yukihisa Tanaka of Kelowna will receive citations for outstanding

citizenship, marking National Citizenship Week, which begins across the

country on April 18.

Ms. Leinback has been involved in

community work for more than 45 years and is considered one of the

driving forces behind the Kitsilano Showboat, which promotes the

performing arts and a multicultural community. She is the recipient of

the 1988 Woman of Distinction award for her community and humanitarian

work.

Mr. Tanaka, who was presented with the Order of the

Sacred Treasure by the late Emperor of Japan in 1987, will be

recognized for his volunteer work in the community, which includes

founding the Multicultural Society of Kelowna and arranging student

exchanges between Kelowna and her sister city in Japan.

These

two outstanding people and many others like them are what make this

province such an exceptional place, and we take great pride in saluting

them and their unselfish dedication to the well-being of our

communities.

May I also at this time pay tribute to those

Vancouver Canucks, who managed to make it to the seventh and deciding

game of the play-off series against the Calgary Flames. Although the

scoreboard read 4 to 3 for the Flames after almost a full period of

overtime, in the eyes of all British Columbians the Canucks were

certainly our winners, and on behalf of all our members, I know

congratulations are in order.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

It is a pleasure for me today to introduce a former Dawson Creek

resident, a gentleman now living in Victoria. Would the House please

join with me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Mike Labrecque.

MR. GABELMANN :

Annually, for some years, with the exception of one or two years,

Fletcher Challenge has organized students from various communities,

including Campbell River, to attend the Legislature here in Victoria.

Today in the gallery there are 30 grade 11 students from Robron,

Southgate and Carihi Secondary Schools in Campbell River. They are

accompanied by teachers John Elson and Frances Hudock. Also in the

gallery are Bob Porter and Bob Jakubec from Fletcher Challenge. I ask

the House to please make all of them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Visiting in the galleries today are two very good

friends of mine, both politically and socially, from Prince George. Would you

please welcome Bob and Lee Acott.

MR. PELTON :

I have a number of introductions to make today, if you'll bear with me:

Miss Anne Louise Ihasz from Halifax, Nova Scotia; Erwin and Betty

Huckele, new residents of Victoria from Germany; and Elizabeth Burnett

and Hildegart Hayward from Victoria.

Last, but by no means

least, on behalf of the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) and

me, I would like to tell the Legislature that in the galleries today we

have 30 grade 10 honours students from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary

School. These young people are here visiting the Legislature with one

of their teachers, Mr. Bugler, a gentleman I know very well. He's one

of the outstanding teachers in the system in the Maple Ridge area.

These people are here to see what goes on in the Legislature. I would

like everyone to welcome them, please.

MR. CASHORE :

We have in the gallery today a distinguished citizen of Coquitlam, an

individual who has given many years of outstanding leadership in the

field of crime prevention: Mr. Les Keen. Would you please join in

welcoming him today.

MR. BARNES : I would like the

House to join with me in welcoming an old friend of mine, Paul Murphy,

and his wife, Judy Wilson, from the Sunshine Coast. Over the years Paul

has been a great political friend. Many years ago I had a great deal of

fear and trepidation about having to leave my constituency to take a

trip to far-off places. When Dave Barrett was Premier he asked me to go

to China with him, and I thought: "I can't afford to leave my

constituents." Paul said: "You're going to have to make some tough

decisions, and this is one I think you should suffer with. Go with the

Premier."

MR. B.R. SMITH : I want to introduce four parents who are here today

from the Queen Alexandra committee. All are parents of multi-handicapped children,

part of a group that has been working hard for the last several years to get

home support care for these children — that is, expenses and not salaries. They

have gone about their business quietly and in a responsible way, working with

very good success within the Health ministry. I have pleasure today in introducing

Denise Schmidt, Pat Francis, Joyce Skrivanos and Stan Blythe. Will the House

make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GAS PIPELINE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Environment. On

Friday it was announced that the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline

would proceed on a fast-track basis. While I'm certain that everyone

would welcome cleaner air and the prevention of bunker fuel spills in

the Georgia strait, is the minister satisfied that the route chosen

[ Page 6130 ]

through

the Coquitlam watershed will not threaten the quality of the drinking

water for 1.3 million residents in greater Vancouver?

[2:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I notice that the Leader of the Opposition first looked to see if the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) was

here before asking the question.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Actually, it leads me into how I'm going to provide you with the

answer, because I'm going to read a statement that is now being faxed

to the mayors of all the lower mainland areas from my colleague the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The total statement

will become public in just a few moments following question period, but

I'd like to read the first paragraph to you on behalf of my colleague:

am writing to let you know that there is no way that the provincial

government will authorize the construction of a natural gas pipeline

through the Coquitlam River watershed without first being convinced in

advance that the pipeline company will observe all the guidelines and

standards established by Canada and the province to protect the health,

safety and convenience of all of the people in the lower mainland who

are dependent on water drawn from the Coquitlam reservoir."

I think, Mr. Speaker, that should satisfy the member's concern.

MR. HARCOURT :

The government's own environmental assessments, which have been

described in some detail, point to a number of deficiencies in the

pipeline company's application. These include inadequate or inaccurate

information on stream crossings and a construction timetable that is

too tight to do a proper study of all the environmental impacts in the

light of these concerns, why does the minister insist on fast-tracking

the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island and putting it through the

lower mainland's water supply?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Just let me repeat. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition hasn't heard

the answer or wasn't prepared for an answer, which led him to ask the

second question, which had been answered in the first place. We say

that there is no way — watch my lips, okay? — that the

provincial government will authorize the construction of a natural gas

pipeline through the Coquitlani watershed, without being convinced that

the pipeline company will observe all the guidelines and standards

established by Canada and the province to protect the health, safety

and convenience of all of the people in the lower mainland who are

dependent on water drawn from the Coquitlam reservoir. I'll send you a

copy of this after question period.

MR. HARCOURT : In

March the Minister of Environment said he had no evidence that there

would be any problems. The Minister of Energy has said that this

pipeline has to be fast-tracked to be economically viable. So you can

throw out these letters in panic, because you've got 18 mayors who are

up in arms about it. We have Vancouver's senior medical adviser saying

it will cost taxpayers $200 million to $300 million to put in a proper

filtration plant. In the light of this hastily-put-together letter, put

out to deal with the mayors, who are unanimous, I want to know if the

minister has advised his colleagues that there is an alternative route

along Indian Arm that is a better way to protect the safety and quality

of water supply in the lower mainland?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

That has been discussed. That information, of course, has been looked

at by the B.C. Utilities Commission, which the Leader of the Opposition

should be aware of. The best advice we have at this point is to proceed

the way we are proceeding, with those concerns I have just spoken about

in mind. But don't lose sight of the fact, Mr. Member, that there has

been continued activity in that area for some time. For example, there

are logging roads in that watershed. Industrial activity happens there

now. I know you see this as some sort of a problem, and I guess the

mayors have spoken to you, but I can assure you that considerable

investigation has gone on with respect to this pipeline, its routing

and methods of construction, and that all safety and health concerns

will be addressed.

MR. HARCOURT : Can you explain,

Mr. Minister of the Environment, why your ministry is not even

represented on the project monitoring committee, as recommended by the

Utilities Commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That's a

surprising question coming from someone who was supposedly the mayor of

Vancouver at one time. In the GVRD, Mr. Member, air quality emissions

and environmental standards are managed by GVRD staff. That's an

arrangement we have with them. As a matter of fact, it is mentioned in

section 19 of the Waste Management Act. I am surprised you weren't

aware of that.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Minister, are the

economics of this project so precarious and so frail that you can't

reroute it around the water supply for the vast majority of people in

greater Vancouver?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I have been

asked by my colleagues to read this again. But I think three times

would clearly be tedious and repetitious, and obviously it's not

sinking in. Perhaps if I send a copy over afterwards, someone will read

it to the Leader of the Opposition so he can understand it.

In answer to his question, I am the Minister of Environment, and I am really not responsible for economic questions.

MR. HARCOURT :

The last time this government fast-tracked a project, it cost us half a

billion dollars. What's the price of this Coquihalla environmental

disaster: the clean water of the lower mainland?

[ Page

6131 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : There wasn't a question there, Mr. Speaker, and if there was, the previous answers apply.

POWDER MOUNTAIN RESORTS LTD.

MR. SIHOTA :

On July 2, 1985, Powder Mountain Resorts was the successful bidder with

respect to a proposal to develop a ski facility in British Columbia.

Suddenly, in February 1987, on the eve of concluding an agreement with

the company, the company was advised that the government was going to

seek fresh proposals from other bidders and therefore lost out on the

bid. Could the Premier explain why the sudden decision was made in 1987

to terminate discussions with Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd.?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't have the dates, but I can tell you that any proposal for Powder Mountain — or any other mountain —

must be for the good of the province, and unless there is a benefit to

all of the people, it will not proceed. Whether the decision is made

within a week, within a month or within a year, if the proposal is such

that it is not deemed to be in the best interests of all citizens, it

will not proceed.

MR. SIHOTA : The issue here is

whether it is for the good of the province or the good of the Premier's

friends. Could the Premier advise whether he ordered the then Minister

of Forests and Lands to cease and desist proceeding with the Powder

Mountain Resorts proposal so that an acquaintance of the Premier's

could submit a fresh proposal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't know the status of a proposal made by another group nor do I

know who is involved in that particular proposal. I've certainly become

aware of at least one person involved, but I don't know that person as

well as I know the member opposite. I wish I didn't know you as well;

perhaps I would like to know the other person a lot more, but that's

the situation.

MR. SIHOTA : A question to the

Premier. I have a letter here from the then Minister of Forests and

Lands, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). The letter ultimately went

to the ombudsman. The letter says, and I quote: "In a memo dated in

early 1987, Mr. Flitton informed me — I do not remember the exact wording —

that I was to cease and desist seeking a resolution to the Powder

Mountain proposal, as the Premier wished to give an acquaintance of his

an opportunity to submit a proposal." Is the Premier, in his response

to my earlier question, accusing the former minister of not telling the

truth?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I can't speak for what somebody else may have written, particularly since I haven't seen the memo.

MR. SIHOTA : Is it the Premier's position that the Premier did not

intervene and ask the minister at that time to cease and desist from entertaining

the proposal that was before the government, in order to give an advantage —

or an opportunity, should I say — to an acquaintance of the Premier's?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I would like as many people as possible to have an opportunity, but

certainly no advantage, and I never suggested that someone else be

denied an opportunity in order than another might be given that

opportunity. If there are people wanting to make proposals, by all

means they ought to be given that opportunity. We live in a democratic

society where we have a free enterprise government and where we want to

give as many people as possible the chance to be involved with the

challenges and opportunities as they exist in the province. Unlike the

socialists, we're not so narrow-minded as not to allow expansion or

opportunities to as many people as possible.

TRANSIT FARES FOR

POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS

MR. ROSE :

I have a question for the minister in charge of transit. Since 1984,

university and college students have had to pay between 180 percent and

320 percent more to get to school. Fares in B.C. are now higher than in

any other provincial jurisdiction. Has the minister decided to grant

post-secondary students the same level of concessionary fares that

seniors and high-school children enjoy?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The setting of the fares is the responsibility of the Vancouver

Regional Transit Commission and the local authorities. I would suggest

that you refer your question directly to them. The ministry does not

become involved in fare structuring.

MR. ROSE : The

local transit authority is interested in doing this on behalf of the

students, except they need to replace some $3 million or $4 million in

order to make this concession. If it is not forthcoming from the

government, then they are not going to do it.

I wonder if I

could ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Advanced

Education. Last year his ministry underspent student aid by some $18

million. Has the minister considered making up the $3 million or $4

million transit subsidy in order to improve access for post-secondary

students through cheaper bus fares?

HON. S. HAGEN :

First of all, my ministry did not under spend in that particular area

of the budget. Every student who applied and who qualified received the

financial assistance that he needed. The fact was that it was not drawn

down because it was not requested. I have left in place the advisory

committee that deals with the student financial assistance program, and

I'm sure the member is aware that just two or three weeks ago we

announced significant improvements to that program which will be good

for all students of the province. If the member wishes, he can address

a letter to me, and I will forward it to the committee that deals with

that.

[ Page 6132 ]

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister of Environment. Devastating evidence came

out during a December 1988 hearing that for at least six years Doman

Industries was burning anti-sapstain sludge containing PCPs rather than

properly storing it. Your ministry has been aware of these practices

since 1982 and on several occasions asked Doman to stop, but these

requests were ignored. Why was Doman never charged with any pollution

violations over this incident?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Good question. I will take it as notice and provide the member with an answer.

RURAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS

AND TIMBER VALUES

MR. LONG :

To the Minister of Finance. Changes in the method of assessing rural

property values have apparently resulted in a situation where the

merchantable value of living trees is included in a property's assessed

value; that is, the assessed value takes into account what these trees

would be worth if they were cut and sold as timber.

you're no doubt aware, concerns have been expressed, particularly by

residents of Lasqueti Island, that this method of assessment of land

value actually encourages people to cut down trees to lower their

property taxes. Can the minister advise the House if he feels that the

current assessment technique poses a problem in this regard and, if so,

what might be done to correct it for the sake of both property owners

and the trees they cut?

[2:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

We are, of course, very interested in this issue, and I'm indebted to

the hon. member for raising it. It's certainly timely, urgent and

appropriate during this question period. The issue really comes down to

whether the assessment practices are an incentive to clearcut timber. I

suspect all members of this House would agree that this would not be a

desirable outcome, and therefore it is something that the ministry and

the Assessment Authority must look at very critically.

would just point out that taxation is a function not only of assessed

value but also of tax rate. As the hon. member knows, the rate has not

been set for Lasqueti. It is therefore uncertain whether there would be

any financial incentive to clearcut, although I have no trouble

agreeing with the hon. member that on the basis of assessed values it

would appear to have that effect. But clearly it does depend on the tax

rate, and that's something that will unfold.

Furthermore,

It is my understanding that the Assessment Authority will be holding a

public meeting in Lasqueti to deal with citizens' concerns on that

subject. I am looking forward to that meeting so that we can get a

better level of guidance from the citizens affected. This government,

above all things, wants to remain sensitive and responsive to the needs

of our people.

Ministerial Statement

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WEEK

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would like to make a statement on the essential importance of local

government in British Columbia. I am sure that the members of this

Legislature, particularly those who, like myself, have served at the

local level, will join me in saluting this week, April 17 to 21, as

Local Government Awareness Week. In doing so, we focus public attention

on the role of local governments and the importance of participation.

In this way, the province joins the Union of B.C. Municipalities in its

efforts to improve public awareness of local government and increase

participation in local democracy.

Generally speaking, in

British Columbia, fresh water keeps pouring from the taps, municipal

roads are maintained, trash is removed and recreation centres are built

and operated effectively by local governments which are often taken for

granted. This lack of awareness could be seen as an indication of how

well local governments function, because if they didn't, people would

probably become more involved. Local governments, whether municipal,

regional district, school board or other, are the way that British

Columbia's communities maintain or improve their standard of living.

Not

only do local governments provide a critical array of services, but

they guide and direct the social, cultural and economic development of

B.C.'s communities. This includes the citizens' influence, which is

first manifested at the polls and then in participation on committees,

boards and councils. Participation is essential if local government is

to meet their needs.

The sound functioning of democracy at

the local level is a measure of the extent to which the democratic

ideal is operative in the lives of the province's citizens. We must do

all we can at the provincial level to generate greater popular

awareness and involvement. This will lead to local governments which

are in close harmony with the desires of the people we all serve. We

must affirm that if citizens are really concerned, they can take part

and make a difference.

Many of us have spent several years

in municipal politics and know that involvement is the only way to get

things done, no matter what the issue. I therefore ask the House to

lend me their support in recognizing the role of local government as we

salute April 17 to April 21 as Local Government Awareness Week.

MR. BLENCOE :

Unfortunately, I wasn't aware the minister was going to make a

statement today. However, it's not a problem. We on this side of the

House join with the minister in applauding local government and

recognizing Local Government Awareness Week.

[ Page 6133 ]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : The Premier seems to be very sensitive today. Did we get to you in question period, Mr. Premier?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR BLENCOE : I just got up to talk about Local Government Awareness Week....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE :

Obviously this government doesn't want to hear the opposition talk

about how important we feel local government is in the province of

British Columbia. For many years we on this side of the House have

tabled and suggested all sorts of viable alternatives for local

government. We've talked about infrastructure programs and rebuilding

municipalities in the province. This government mouthed its acceptance

of them, but there were no dollars behind those programs. We're waiting

for a decent, fair tax system in the province, and we still don't see

it. We now have before us a capping program on assessments, and we have

begun to realize it's going to create all sorts of problems in the

province.

We believe local government has a far greater

role to play in decision-making in the province than it has today.

Despite what this government says about the minister-of-state system....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I might remind the member that in answering a

ministerial statement, there is no debate or argument. He is to answer

the topics raised by the minister.

MR. BLENCOE :

We're answering the topics by suggesting that local government, despite

what this government says, have a greater role to play in

decision-making in the province. In the next six to nine months we

intend to work with local government to bring a government to British

Columbia that will recognize local government's importance in the

decision-making of the province.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled the 1987-88 annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have often said in this House that Esquimalt Senior Secondary is the

greatest school in the universe. I am pleased to bring to the attention

of members of this House that shortly after question period, 21 grade

12 students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary came to visit us in the

gallery, along with their teacher, David McCarthy. I would ask members

to pay tribute to them, along with their special guests from

Macdonald-Cartier High School of Montreal. There are 22 grade 11

students, accompanied by their teachers, Ms. Christina Esson and Ben

Simo. Would the members make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 35: minister's office, $333,960 (continued).

MR. ROSE :

I enter this debate because I want to talk about poverty. Poverty

applies mainly to seniors — although it exists elsewhere; among

our native population — and women. I make this intervention

because one of the problems with poor seniors — I'll give you the

stats in a minute, although they don't describe the suffering or the

indignity —

is the fact that we have a rotten pension system in this country. The

public pension system had gone through all kinds of false starts before

we got anything resembling the CPP or the OAS or the supplement. We

know that unless you own your own home, the $850 you get out of CPP

plus your OAS is not really enough to get by on. That's why we have a

provincial program called GAIN.

AN HON. MEMBER : And SAFER.

MR. ROSE :

And SAFER. That is one of the major problems. Many women, especially

elderly women, never collect CPP, which amounts to about $530 at the

top level, because they didn't work in the workforce. And we have no

homemaker's pensions, so therefore it's almost a catch-22.

The

fewer private and publicly funded pension plans that we have

available — and I'll give you the stats on those in a moment as

well —

then the more the public is asked to submit, through social welfare

measures such as GAIN and SAFER and others, to make up for this

difference. What I'm asserting is that what we need is a publicly

funded public pension plan for every British Columbian, whether they

work or not, or whether they work full time or only part time. If we

had that contributory compulsory plan, it is my view and the view of

many others that we could quite easily cut the costs to health and

welfare immeasurably.

Let me give you some of the stats. Of

the 2,700,000 people in Canada who get the old age security at roughly

$320 a month, 1,300,000, or roughly 50 percent of those, get the

supplement. Do you know how you acquire the eligibility for the

supplement? In order to receive the supplement, if you're over 65 in

most cases, you've got to be broke. You have to have no other income.

So we have the universal OAS and a means-tested or needs-tested or

income-tested supplement. But because they're broke, 50 percent of

those over 65 receive the supplement; and I don't know how many receive

SAFER in this country.

[ Page 6134 ]

That's

a pretty damning piece of evidence. Precisely because that's the

situation is why we have to take millions of dollars out of provincial

welfare money and health budgets in order that these people can live in

some measure of dignity — even if it isn't a great measure of

dignity, especially if they're alone, unmarried, do not own a home and

are in urban settings. It's not an insignificant problem. One elderly

Canadian in five lived below the poverty line in 1986. The risk of

poverty in old age is significantly higher for women: 23.5 percent of

women were poor; 12.5 percent of men. Over 70 percent of aged poor are

women. And get this: B.C. has 50 percent more people living in poverty,

based per capita, than does Ontario. So if this is a rich, bountiful

province and one that has been well managed, then this is a shameful

statistic and an intolerable statistic. I look to the government, which

attempts to provide some sort of leadership in this field, to do

something about it.

[2:45]

At the same time, in our public pensions, we must realize that the

birth rate is falling, and if present trends continue, fewer and fewer

people working will be left to pay to support more and more retired

people. We know also that the Canada Pension Plan has markedly

increased its premiums over the years. We know that fewer and fewer

people in the future, according to demographics, are going to be

contributing to it. We also know that when interest rates are at 23

percent, the provinces are continually scalping off that fund of the

Canada Pension Plan to borrow at cheap rates, and most of it will never

be paid back. So that's why that public pension plan is in trouble.

Poverty,

then, is likely to increase unless we do something about it. The point

I would like to underline is that poverty is preventable. One weapon

against poverty in old age is having a self-funding pension scheme for

all British Columbians not participating in a private scheme. In case

anybody is lulled into the belief that if you're participating in a

private scheme somehow you're safe, think about it again, because most

of those private schemes are not even indexed. Companies such as Canada

Dry and Conrad Black's companies and Dominion Stores have been caught,

and the courts have prevented them from skimming off huge surpluses

from those funds, up to $60 million, mainly because of an ancient

attitude in which somehow contributing or shared pension plans are some

gift of the great corporate elite rather than deferred earnings. They

should be deferred earnings, and therefore the employees should have a

right to see how these investment policies are operating.

Never

in this country or any other country should companies be allowed to

skim off the surface or, worse, stop contributing for a while because

the fund is in surplus. Have you ever heard of an employee allowed the

opportunity to stop contributing for a while? But companies are, and

they are a lot of the time. Do you know why? This is one of two

provinces in Canada, B.C. and P.E.I., with no pension benefits

standards act. As far as we know, companies can do pretty well anything

they want with the contributory scheme, and I would love to be

corrected if I'm wrong on that score.

We have an ethical

obligation, I think, to do all we can from a government's point of

view, from an economic point of view, and from the point of view of

seniors and younger working people who are going to face increasing

premiums as fewer and fewer contribute and the benefits, tied to

inflation in the case of the public plans and not tied to inflation in

the case of most private plans, increase.

have OAS here, we've got the CPP and we've got private arrangements. If

you work at a job long enough — in most cases ten years, although

in Manitoba, I think, vesting now starts after one year —

you might have sufficient income to put a little by to participate in.

That's what the RRSPs were designed for, but most people who really

need these pension plans do not have money enough to set aside to put

in the RRSP, so that's no help to them.

Private plans —

making regular RRSP contributions is likely to drop, because the

incomes of working people have dropped from 72 percent in 1970 to 67

percent in 1987. Over 20 years the share of national income has dropped

by about 5 to 6 percent. Labour's real income has not increased since

1982, according to Doug Peters, chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion

Bank. Across our country less than half of Canadian workers, 46

percent, were covered by employer-sponsored pension plans at the

beginning of '86, with sharply higher participation by men than women:

only 30 percent of women, 52 percent for men.

Unless the

overall participation rate is increased, unless the proportion of women

covered by a pension plan is increased, poverty will remain

unacceptably high, especially for women. First of all, they probably

are more employed in service jobs; because they are having families

they interrupt their work cycle and come back later; and they just

generally work at lower wages. Therefore their income, as derived from

CPP, is bound to be lower. Women are under-enrolled because they work

in the home, they work in service industries — they have the McDonald's hamburger type of job.

Yet

there is a strong trend in the private sector to provide

non-contributory pensions for significant shareholders and senior

executives. We've heard about one recently in the case of Mr. David

Poole: a non-contributory pension contributed entirely by the public.

If you are an average working person, when do you get a break like

that? You don't. But the chief executive officers of many large

corporations are able to cream off huge non-contributory pension plans

while they skim the surpluses out of the employee contribution plans.

It's just not acceptable. It's a crime, and it costs all of us money to

protect the insurance industry and other big industries from raids on

the employees' pension plans.

Strong trend. The number of

non-contributory plans grew 46 percent, but mainly at the higher level,

between 1980 and '86. For working British Columbians, the picture is

less rosy: 64 percent of British Columbians weren't covered by any plan

at all, and

[ Page 6135 ]

certainly not as a freebie, as a significant shareholder or a well-paid executive receives.

would like to turn to eligibility for membership in a pension plan. For

middle-income working British Columbians, eligibility to participate in

a pension plan has traditionally been restricted to full-time and

long-time employees, mainly male employees. But increasingly this is an

era of part-time work. People aren't sticking to one job for their

whole lifetimes. They get the golden handshake quite early sometimes;

they move from job to job. I moved from job to job, from federal to

provincial. My plan wasn't portable; the federal pension plan wasn't

portable to this plan in British Columbia. I know the Speaker is in the

same position, with nearly six years in Ottawa. I shouldn't raise his

name here, but he's been here six years. He has built up no vesting

here. And we've got a much greater and richer pension plan than is

available to many people.

Increasingly, this is an era of

part-time work and frequent job changes. A family with both partners

working faces an increasing probability of reaching retirement age

without adequate savings. Necessities such as housing are taking a

larger chunk of workers' wage packets, and as the Bank of Canada

reports, workers' share of national income is shrinking.

Other

provinces are moving to make participation in an employer's pension

plan compulsory for all full-time employees. Why aren't we? If other

provinces can work towards a scheme in which an employer and an

employee pension plan is compulsory, then why isn't British Columbia?

Are we content always just to let the insurance industry or some other

corporation skim off all the surplus while we are left to pick up the

debts? We as a province are left to pick up, through our health and

welfare schemes, those people who are not covered, while somebody else

laughs all the way to the bank with the surpluses.

Part-time

employees, full-time employees who work for two years and earn at least

25 percent of the CPP maximum earnings...should be the floor. What are

the types of retirement benefits? Canada provides benefits based on one

or two considerations if it's private. Defined contribution where the

employers and employees are committed to a specified contribution

rate.... That usually is compulsory; it is part of the job.

worker who works for a company with a pension plan cannot decide he is

not going to participate; he has to participate. So he has to

participate, but the company, if there is a surplus, doesn't have to

participate, because you've got a defined contribution plan but you

don't even know what the rates and the payouts are going to be. Then

there is the defined benefit, where the contributions are fixed, the

benefits are fixed but inflation is not even considered.

you retire on what might be an adequate pension at your retirement age,

what happens ten years down the line when you lose half of it— and you

can by simply 5 percent inflation? Instead of getting $1,000 a month,

you only get $500 a month. Thousands of people are caught in the bind

where they thought they had a decent pension setup and then find, to

their astonishment, that it is nibbled away, as someone said, "like a

rock disappearing in still water." Sinking. That's not a sinking fund,

too.

Here are some levels of employee contributions. In

1986, nearly half the members of contributory plans contributed between

7 percent and 9 percent of their salaries. In other words, they are

paying their own way here. That represents a major shift. In 1970,

two-thirds of the people participating in pension schemes contributed 5

percent to 6 percent of their salaries. When the CPP came in, it was

3.6 percent — 1.88 each. That's got to go up. It can't because

provinces are taking the funds out at an alarming rate for their own

purposes, without any assurance that a certain, at least minimum,

measure of interest would be paid. As a matter of fact, they probably

will never even pay these loans back at all.

Sixty-five

used to be the normal retirement age. Eighty-eight percent of the plans

covering 63 percent of the members provide for a normal retirement age

at 65.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Sorry, hon. member. The time under standing orders has expired.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The subject that the member has raised regarding pensions is one that

needs to be thoroughly discussed, and I am looking forward to the

member continuing his comments.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Does he want to get away? I want to put this in one package if I can. It's not a pension plan.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It's good, it's good. I am enjoying this.

MR. ROSE : Well, you might need it. I mean, we wouldn't want you to go on welfare or anything.

Let

me get back to where I was, and I do apologize to the former

Attorney-General. I'd love to let him on, but I want to put this in a

package — without having to use a cut-and-paste job on this in Hansard —

if I could. If you have to go somewhere in a hurry, then send me a

note. I will get on with it; I will try and finish this up. It might

seem long, but I won't take long.

Eighty-eight percent of

the plans covering 60 percent of the members provided for a normal

retirement age of 65, but listen to this: 90 percent of members had 60

as the normal retirement age. Twenty-five percent of members were in

plans that had some other condition of retirement, such as years of

service, or age plus years of service. That's not an uncommon thing.

Some

plans have special events where you can retire before 65. We had an

early-retirement arrangement in the last two or three years for our own

people in government service. When employees leave, they usually have

the opportunity to take out their pension contributions. Get that: they

can take

[ Page 6136 ]

out their pension contributions, not the government's or their employer's contributions.

That

has a name, and this pension stuff is just full of jargon. If you can

wade your way through the jargon, you might have some opportunity of

understanding a little bit about pensions, but vesting means that they

have no right to that other than what they put in, plus interest. Guess

who determines the interest in most cases? The company. The company

takes these plans and sometimes they don't put in any money; all they

are responsible for is the ultimate benefits, and they forfeit the

employer's share at an interest rate set by the employer.

All

provinces except P.E.I. and B.C. require plans for the vesting of

employers' contributions. Why can't we as a province require certain

vesting provisions? The B.C. superannuation fund is a good fund; it's

been there for a long time, since about 1965, that I know about. It

might have been in there before that. But anyway, we provide that. We

have ten-year vesting. I think it's too long; I think it should be

five-year vesting. But we've got that.

Why don't private

employers have the same obligations? The reason they don't have the

same obligations is because we're one of the two provinces that has no

pension benefits standards act. There is a federal one, and most

provinces have copied it to a better or lesser extent, but we didn't

and neither did P.E.I., that backwater on the Atlantic coast where all

the Roses came from.

The most common standard for vesting is ten years, age 45 —

Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the federal.

Manitoba's legislation, even under a Tory government, has always been

stronger and required vesting after ten years of service or

participation with no age requirement. Effective 1985, vesting was

compulsory in Manitoba after five years of service, and in 1990 after

two.

In Saskatchewan since 1981, vesting has been compulsory after one year continuous

service and the attainment of age 45. There is a great deal of difference across

this country, and I don't think there should be indexing. Traditionally,

relatively few plans have provided for indexing: less than 5 percent covering

30 percent of the total employees. Five percent of private plans call for indexing.

Guess who benefits from that? You pay in with expensive dollars, and they pay

you out at the end — when your work's all done — in cheap dollars. That's

what's wrong with most of these plans.

I said, 93 percent of the private sector plans contain no indexing,

although some made some ad hoc adjustments because they're embarrassed

about the size of inflation in the last ten years, which has created

huge increases in the plans. If you could take that money in the plan,

invest it at anywhere from 15 percent to 25 percent interest and then

pay it out at some other minor figure, you're making lots of money.

That's how we create surpluses. In 1975-86, inflation was 110 percent.

Some companies paid out an extra 29 percent only, so they gained about

75 percent.

Portability.

Workers change jobs, and pension

benefits don't go with them in too many cases. Multiemployer pension

plans covering more than one employer — about 25 percent of all

members in the private sector — provide some solution to this, if

employees stay in the same sector. That doesn't always happen either.

[3:00]

In 1985, $12.5 billion was invested in Canadian pension plans. B.C.

shares amounted to approximately $1 billion. I'd like the Premier to

listen to this. If that money was invested soundly here instead of

somewhere else, it could be a generator of jobs in our community and a

source of capital. I guess my last words were all lost. This money is

not invested in British Columbia, by and large, but there's a big

ticket there. Across Canada it's $12 billion. If just our $1 billion

were managed for investments in this province, it would be a major

creator of jobs besides — as I mentioned earlier — saving the public purse millions of dollars every year.

These

funds are deferred wages for working people, and it seems only rational

that workers — since the funds are theirs principally —

should control the plan. They don't. There are very few pension plans

in which the working people sit on the boards and make the investment

decisions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Who should?

MR. ROSE :

I think the people whose money is used to contribute to the plan should

be on the board. The public plan is quite different. You have that in

the B.C. superannuation to a limited extent, but I don't know of any

plan — except maybe some union plans — where this occurs in

B.C. If this money is the contributors' money, then why shouldn't they

have a say in how it is invested? I think they should have a share in

it. If half the money is employers' money and half is employees' money,

wouldn't it seem reasonable to have an outside chairman and board

members comprising equal representation of the employer and employees?

I think it's right and proper, but it doesn't happen that way, and

that's wrong.

The law is very clear. To find out the truth,

though, you have to jump around. Consider the Pension (Public Service)

Act, for example. "The Minister of Finance may, at his discretion,

invest the funds allowed under

section 36 (2) of the Financial

Administration Act." In other words, the Minister of Finance can invest

the funds of the public service here. That

section of the Financial

Administration Act lists a lot of things like government securities and

then allows, subject to regulations — and there aren't many —

the minister to put funds into anything that is allowed by

section 15

of the Trustee Act. The Trustee Act allows, among other things, the

Minister of Finance to invest in common shares of any company

incorporated in Canada that has paid a dividend of 4 percent over the

last seven years. What company couldn't qualify for that? I'd be

interested to know how many companies there are in the Toronto Stock

Exchange who could not meet this test.

[ Page 6137 ]

there are number of issues here. 1. The public sector.... The Minister

of Finance has too much power and not enough accountability for his

actions. He has, by law, unfettered discretion to place the deferred

earnings — not a gift of ordinary British Columbians —

wherever he wishes. And while there's informal consultation process

through the superannuation commissioner, there's nothing to require

radical extreme government from honouring the result.

2. In

the private sector a similar situation applies where the employer has

enormous disproportionate power to divert allegedly surplus cash for

company operations. The attempt by Conrad Black, as I mentioned

earlier, on behalf of Dominion Stores to steal the surpluses without

notifying former employees is well known. A growing trend to withdraw

surplus cash to provide for company operations is found by the

auditor-general federally. The department of insurance does not require

the submission of complete financial statements. The department relies

almost entirely on management representation with few field

examinations and no independent review of the underlying value of

investments by pension plans in such areas as real estate and mortgages.

Fairness requires that working people should have control over how

their funds are invested. This will ensure that the broader interests

of working people will be protected and there will be an optimum return

on the funds invested.

4. At present, many workers through

the unions have adopted positions in opposition to such things as

increased militarism and investing in South Africa But it is quite

possible under the existing framework for their pension to be generated

from investments in companies that are directly in opposition to the

ethical positions expressed by the contributors to the fund. I may not

like what is going on in South Africa. I am a worker and I'm in a

contributory plan, but I have no say in whether my money goes to

investment in South Africa. This is unfair, and it should be stopped.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Or corporations either, because over half the corporations in the

United States are owned by unions. There is more union fund investment

in the corporations of the United States than there is in Cuba.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Well, you squawk about them. That's your job.

In the period between 1984 and 1986, the department of insurance

allowed the withdrawal of $110 million by the employer from pension

funds. Three hundred million dollars went to companies that were

allowed to keep their identity a secret. What on earth is the point of

having a pension board to protect it if these things are kept in secret?

We need a clear policy. We want all British Columbians to be covered by a pension

plan to prevent poverty in their old age. It must be self-funding so younger

workers entering the workforce are not left to carry the cost. For British Columbians

already in a plan, there should be a policy that gives workers effective control

over the way the funds are used. Portability of pensions — jobs are no longer

for life; a worker is just as likely to have several careers in unrelated fields

before retirement. There must be an end to the diversion of funds, which present

federal practice allows. Finally, we need inflation protection.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you for being so patient here, and thanks to the former

Attorney-General. May I end by a cyclic reference to where I began. We

wouldn't need the budget for these supplementary things through the

ministry responsible for seniors if we had a decent contributory

pension plan for all British Columbians.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I believe I should respond to the member's statement. He made some good

points. As you well realize, it crosses many ministries; it is not just

in my ministry. We find, though, that more and more senior citizens

coming into retirement age, where perhaps they are seeking residential

care, come from the workforce and have private pensions. So the scene

is changing somewhat. There are more with pensions now, so a lot of

them no longer rely strictly on the Canada Pension Plan and the old age

pension. There are quite a number now coming into retirement age with

private pensions.

I think you made a good point. If we

could have everyone on a pension rather than coming onto welfare at a

later date, it might even save some money in the overall picture. It

could be self-financing.

I should also mention that in the

very near future we are going to have a seniors' task force called

"Towards a Better Age." It will be meeting in 21 communities. One of

the concerns raised may well be pensions for all. It will be

interesting to see what comes back from the seniors when this item is

discussed.

You make good points, and they're well taken.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

I want to speak on something that is directly relevant to these

estimates, which will be a change. I want to ask for justice for a

group of parents who put up with their daily lot in a silent way. They

don't wave placards, they don't demonstrate, and they don't come to

Victoria. They work within the system. These are the parents — there are about 200 of them in this province —

who have severely and multi-disabled children. They are the parents of

children who would qualify for pediatric extended care. Each of these

parents could take their children and put them into an extended-care

institution. Their children could go into Sunny Hill, Queen Alexandra

Hospital or other institutions that qualify.

These children

have disabilities that we can't imagine. We can't imagine the kind of

effort, care, work and anguish that these parents go through. They

don't beat a drum, they don't go around and tell sob stories, and they

don't rent space in newspapers. The

[ Page 6138 ]

kind of disabilities they have to cope with.... Just let me describe a few of these children.

Laura

is five. She is totally dependent. She has cerebral palsy. She is

mentally retarded. She has epilepsy. She has lost 90% of her sight, and

she has a feeding disorder. Until very recently, her parents have kept

her at home and looked after her. They could put the child into care,

or they could take advantage of the associate family program, an

excellent Health ministry program, whereby we have something like 22

children — maybe it's a little more, but 22 was the last count I had —

who are multi-disabled and are looked after by special foster parents

known as associate family parents. They receive about $60 a day for

this, and the costs are all paid. But nobody pays the natural parents

for looking after their children. As a matter of fact, I am not an

advocate of that, and neither are they. None of these parents' groups

that I know of have come forward to the government and said: "Please

pay us so that we can keep our children at home." What they have said

is: "Please give us some resources so we can help keep our children at

home and not institutionalize them."

[3:15]

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'm

talking about this kind of expense. These children need many expensive

medications: anticonvulsants to control seizures; antibiotics because

many of them are prone to lung infections. They need costly equipment:

wheelchairs, special beds, bathtub aids, physiotherapy devices,

standing frames, rolls, special chairs. They need orthotic seating

without which a child could not sit or would have progressive problems

if it did. They need communication aids and so on. They need special

forms of transportation. Much money is spent as well on diapers, on

special diets, on vitamins.

Then of course there are

homemakers and respite, because it is not possible to look after a

severely disabled child 24 hours a day, 30 days a month, without some

respite from that. Associate family parents receive respite.

The

associate family parents receive those expenses, which are paid for,

and in addition they get about $60 a day. But natural parents who keep

these children at home with the family are out of pocket somewhere

between $19,000 and $36,000 per year. That's a lot of money if there is

one breadwinner, and there usually is only one in a family like this,

because the other parent is a full-time giver of care. The parents that

I have met and interviewed all have one or two other young children. So

the mother is a fulltime nurse and attender to the severely disabled

child.

These parents are not saying: "Pay us for doing

this." They are saying: "Please, will you pick up these extra expenses

that we have, provided that we meet the requirements of a new program;

provided also they are needed and that they are assessed to be needed."

know from my discussions with the Health minister and people in his

ministry that the ministry has been moving light-years in the direction

of providing services for severely disabled persons. I also know that

that ministry and the Ministry of Social Services have moved very

boldly into the field of deinstitutionalization. But you see, Mr.

Chairman, the irony of it is that at the very moment we are doing that,

we are creating institutionalization. What's going to happen is that

more and more of these parents.... We are talking about 200 or 250

severely multiply disabled children who would qualify for such a

program in the whole province. More and more parents, with one

breadwinner only, are going to have to put their children into care,

which is not deinstitutionalization but institutionalization. Then

those children will go into care, and instead of paying out maybe

around $24,000 on an average for the cost of keeping them at home, if

they are in a hospital the cost could easily be in excess of $90,000 a

year; or if they go out of the hospital and go back into the community

in an associate family program, that's going to cost at least $60 a day

plus the expenses I mentioned. What I'm saying is, a little bit of

preventive money now given to that Health budget — I know the

minister fought for it too — would save a lot of money down the

line and would ensure that we don't have to institutionalize these

children.

The

parents I introduced in the gallery today have been fighting this cause

in a responsible way for some two years. Of those four families that I

introduced, three of them now have had to put their children into care

because they simply can't pay the staggering burden. I'm saying that

that is not wise budgeting. I wish the Finance minister was listening,

because he's the culprit here; he is the one we have to persuade to

have a special warrant on this. I really believe that this budget

cannot go by with this matter unaddressed.

Of these

families, three of the four have had to put their children into care.

Two of those families are now considering having the children go out

from the institutions they are in, to the associate family plan. They

are doing that not because they want to do it but because they are

forced by financial circumstances. They want to look after their own

children. There are others in every part of this province who are in

the same pickle.

Mr. Chairman, if we believe in the human

dignity of children with multiple disabilities.... These children have

very definite personalities, consciousness, psyche and so on. They

understand what's going on. They relate. They communicate. They are

entitled to be with their parents. They should not have to go into

institutional care, and they should not have to be looked after in very

dedicated associate family foster parent situations when their natural

parents want to look after them.

I'm not in any way being

critical of the associate parent program. When you think of the kind of

work that's required to look after one of these severely disabled

children, anyone who volunteers to do that, I can tell you, doesn't do

it because they're in the busi-

[ Page 6139 ]

ness

or because they want to make money; they do it because they care for

these children themselves and have a tremendous commitment. But it's

not the same as the natural parent, and if we as a government believe

in support for the family — as we do — and if our programs

are geared to support the family — as they are — then it's

high time we found some money in a warrant to get this program launched.

we are a compassionate government, if we believe in helping people like

these severely disabled children who can't help themselves, if we

believe in keeping families together, we have got to make that

commitment. We have to launch this program, and it has to be done in

this budget year and not next budget year. We've got to get behind the

Health minister and get that money out of treasury.

HON. MR. DUECK : I want to thank the member for that very good delivery. I think I'll take you along to treasury next time.

agree with most of what you've said. We are pressing in the direction

that you're mentioning, although I believe not fast enough. We have

been able to help some of these children. I know these children would

rather be looked after in their own homes as long as some of the

expenses are defrayed for the parents or the people who are looking

after them.

If I can just go back to the associate family

program, I know you weren't critical of that, Mr. Member. It has been

working very well. I believe we have 25 or 27 — whatever it is —

children in associate family situations. There are also children in

associate family situations who could not be looked after by the

natural parent. So the associate family is working out well. However, I

do agree that when we have children who could be looked after by the

natural parent, and they could be assisted at least in the area of

expenses when it comes to equipment and respite.... I should mention

that this year my budget is $1,068,000 for nursing respite, and it will

alleviate at least some of what you've just mentioned. From time to

time the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

supplies equipment from his budget. We should not neglect to mention

the service clubs that have always come on board in partnership with

the ministers, whether it's my ministry or Social Services, to help in

that area.

All I can say is that I agree with what the

member has mentioned, and I will continue to press for that type of

relief for these people who need that assistance.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Last week when we were discussing the services for seniors under the

Minister of Health's estimates I made reference to a document prepared

for cabinet submission by the continuing care division of the ministry

which stated that the government needed $117 million to bring long-term

care facilities and home support care up to health and safety standards

and to a stable staffing situation with skilled workers.

want to take a few moments this afternoon to ask the minister some

further questions in regard to these needs. First I'd like to refer to

the situation of extended-care clients who are in intermediate-care

facilities. The continuing care division noted that $11 million would

be required to ensure that the staffing levels for extended-care

patients in intermediate-care facilities are at government staffing

guidelines. Under this budget for continuing care, will extendedcare

clients in intermediate-care facilities receive the government staffing

guideline care that is his ministry standard?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I believe I did say last week when we discussed this that I have money

in the budget to look into exactly the area of your concern, that we

will be staffing to the ministry's guidelines. I hope there is enough

money to look after that deficiency.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Do I understand the minister to say that a year later this matter is

still under review; that there is no committed money at this stage of

the game, but a goal to staff to those guidelines?

HON. MR. DUECK :

No, I said there was money in the budget. At this moment I haven't got

the figures before me of exactly how many dollars and whether it will

be for all facilities. I believe it will be, and we've got, I believe,

$11 million to be phased in over a period of two years to bring it

right up to standard.

MS. A. HAGEN : I think I hear

the minister saying that this particular matter around staffing for

intermediate-care facilities for extended-care patients will be

addressed over a two-year period.

HON. MR. DUECK : Phased in over two years.

MS. A. HAGEN : Phased in over two years.

want to then move to a larger issue in respect to staffing needs in

intermediate-care facilities. The document that I referred to has noted

that the provision of care is tied directly to financial resourcing. If

a facility is underfunded, it is highly probable that the care is

substandard. I think it goes without saying, as we've noted, that care

is provided by people, and the level of staffing has a great deal to do

with health and safety and the quality of care.

At the

present time, for a variety of reasons, many intermediate-care

facilities are not able to staff to ministry guidelines. Will this

budget enable facilities to staff to current facility guidelines?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I have money in the budget to look after the inequities, and I believe

that we will be able to come up to the current staffing guidelines.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The document prepared by the ministry's staff says that a total of $28

million will be required for long-term-care facilities to be staffed at

100 percent of guidelines. Is the minister saying that he has $28

million in his budget for that amount? If not, could he tell us, as he

did with the previous question, what number of dollars will be

available to

[ Page 6140 ]

those facilities so that they may be staffed at 100 percent of guidelines?

HON. MR. DUECK : The document that the member refers to from time to

time is not a document that we use as our guidelines. It was a document prepared

by an individual and then, of course— at least, I suppose — for some reason

or another.... We receive many documents; many things cross my desk. We don't

accept the document as the figures that we need to bring those standards up

to the guidelines.

MS. A. HAGEN :

If the minister doesn't accept that particular document and that

particular costing, could he advise this House what number of dollars

he anticipates having available in his budget in order to bring that

staffing up to guidelines?

HON. MR. DUECK : I think I

mentioned just a few minutes ago that I have $74 million, and that is

being allocated. We try to put it where it is essentially needed at

this time. We haven't yet got to the point of allocation. I believe it

will bring those inequities up to standard, phased in over a two-year

period.

MS. A. HAGEN : The minister noted in the

dollars available to deal with inequities, shortfalls in longterm care

and the improvement of wages for home support workers, a broader

agenda, a total of $28 million for all of that task. I would appreciate

it if the minister could give us some idea of the dollars he

anticipates being available for the figure for 100 percent of

guidelines.

HON. MR. DUECK : I have not yet got that figure in detail, so I cannot

give you that. In a few weeks' time we'll be able to supply that.

MS. A. HAGEN :

A number of groups — the ministry people, the Continuing Care

Employee Relations Association, the B.C. Health Association —

have made reference to goals for non-union staff in longterm care

facilities, stating that the goals should be that these staff people

receive 85 percent of the salaries and benefits of unionized workers.

The cost for improving that particular situation and dealing with the

inequity in wages in long-term-care facilities is stated by the

continuing care staff to be $24 million.

Is it the

minister's goal to, indeed, raise salaries of non-unionized workers in

long-term-care facilities, and can he give us some indication of the

percentage level he would like to see those salaries rise to, as a goal

of his ministry?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I can't give you the exact figure,

but that is our goal, yes.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Could the minister give us, then, some indication of whether he intends

to work on that goal on a one-year phase-in or over a longer period of

time?

HON. MR. DUECK : I haven't got the figures in

front of me right now. There will be a substantial amount immediately

and, hopefully, phased in over a two-year period.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Just to confirm, I understand the minister to say that it is the goal

of the ministry to raise non-union wages to 80 percent of the union

level and that it's his intent to phase that in over a two-year period.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I did not use the percentage. It may well be; it may well be even a little more.

[3:30]

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'm trying to establish a goal, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that the

minister may be working within a ballpark. Would it be fair to say that

the percentage range for non-unionized employees would not be less than

80 percent?

HON. MR. DUECK : Of course that's speculation at this time, but I certainly hope so.

MS. A. HAGEN :

A further question to the minister regarding the full funding of wages

and benefits. In a very significant number of facilities, this document

and others that I have reviewed state that the ministry doesn't fully

fund the facilities for wages and benefits paid by that facility, and

that the disparity may be from 10 to 20 percent. Fully half of the

facilities are underfunded to some extent, and 36 percent of the cases

are funded at between 10 percent and over 20 percent less than the

actual cost of their salaries. Is it the minister's intent to deal with

this issue and fully fund the wages and benefits negotiated either

through union negotiation or in a fair, working relationship between

the employers and employees in non-union facilities?

HON. MR. DUECK :

From time to time the facilities enter into negotiations and, without

regard of resources available, we then have demands that we cannot

always meet with the resources allocated to the ministry. In most cases

and whenever possible, we do try and meet the negotiated settlements,

and this year, I believe, we will come closer to doing that than we've

done in the past. But you must realize that just because one facility

settles for a number that is perhaps much greater than another

facility, I do not necessarily have the moneys in my budget to

accommodate it. Yes, there have been at times facilities that have

settled with their people on a greater amount than resources were

available in my budget.

MS. A. HAGEN : Would the

minister agree that it was reasonable for facilities to provide such

things as sick pay, some coverage for medicare and a basic benefit

package to all employees, whether they are in unionized or

non-unionized facilities, and that this would be a reasonable

employment standard that we would want all employers in long-term care

and home support areas to provide their workers in this day and age?

[ Page 6141 ]

HON. MR. DUECK :

We are moving more and more to a global budget, and we expect

facilities to operate within that budget, similar to hospitals. We try

to be reasonable. There is much contracting, negotiations and

consultation with facilities and, by and large, we came out not too

badly last year. Hopefully we can improve this year from the last few

years.

MS. A. HAGEN : I didn't hear an answer to my

question in that response, I don't think, Mr. Chairman, about standards

that would guide the minister in setting a global budget. I would

appreciate his response to the question: does he believe that employers

in long-term-care facilities and home support agencies should be able

to negotiate, either through collective agreement or whatever staff

association arrangements are made, basic benefits for all employees who

work in the continuing-care industry?

HON. MR. DUECK :

True, but not beyond the ability to pay. We couldn't just give carte

blanche to whatever any facility agrees upon, and say the money's

there; that's impossible. I also have a global budget; I must live

within it. So there is restraint in that area.

I believe we

have worked well with the facilities, whether union or non-union,

private or for-profit. As a matter of fact, when they heard about the

amount in my budget.... I have been in touch with a number of them.

From the feedback I get, they are quite enthused about it, and I think

we will have a good year.

MS. A. HAGEN : I won't

pursue the issue. I am disappointed that the minister has not been

prepared to make a clear and direct answer around the kind of standards

that would guide his ministry in funding facilities and home support

workers. It may be implicit — I hope not — in some of the

minister's comments that the operators of long-term-care facilities and

home support agencies are not careful, responsible stewards of their

budgets, and that they are, as they say, giving away the store.

think what I am talking about are the basic benefits that most of us in

our workplaces anticipate would be a part of a government's standard. I

would certainly like to have that assurance from the minister about

contracts and funding available for this very important industry.

Let

me now move very specifically to the home support area, in which people

receive the lowest level of pay. We still have people in that industry

who are earning, for a starting wage, between $6.20 and $6.50 an hour,

in spite of some improvements that have come over the last couple of

years. I want to acknowledge those improvements, which came after a

very long period with no increases. If we look at the period from 1984

to 1987, we find that had these employees been covered under the

government's own compensation stabilization program, their wages would

have increased 19.8 percent over that time, just with the very modest

increases that came under that stabilization program.

In order to bring these people — the home support workers, the homemakers of our province —

up to a reasonable standard, the industry has indicated from a number

of sources that an amount of $16 million to $17 million, or up to even

$21 million, will be required. That is within the same kind of

goal-setting: bringing those workers up to between 80 and 87 percent of

the unionized workers and closer to the wages offered in long-term-care

facilities.

Could the minister please advise us of the goal

of his ministry in respect of home support workers and improving their

level of salary over the next year? If that is to be phased in, over

what period will it take place?

HON. MR. DUECK : We certainly want to bring the homemakers' wages

up to a reasonable standard. That is my intention, and I have money in the budget

for home support. I have a figure of $20.5 million, making a total for home

support for this coming year — and this is correct, I hope — of $102.8 million.

I should mention that that is up from $82.3 million last year.

MS. A. HAGEN :

What the minister has just mentioned, as I understand it, is the total

amount available for home support agencies in the coming year. It has

gone from $82 million up to $102 million, which would appear to be

about a 20 percent increase. We note in that regard that about $7

million or $7.5 million of that amount was actually paid last year; you

will recall that from when we discussed the warrants. So the amount

available is in the order of $14 million.

Let me just raise

one other issue from the submission I have been dealing with today; I

want to be sure that I speak on behalf of all people working in this

industry. Management salaries and benefits have, as is often the case,

fallen behind. I understand that in some instances people who are

either executive directors of organizations or directors of nursing may

be earning less than regular staff workers. Could the minister let us

know whether there are any dollars in his budget to deal with

maintaining a reasonable range of salaries and remunerating senior

positions in line with other increases that are taking place in the

industry?

HON. MR. DUECK : I believe the member knows well that we don't pay

those wages. Out of that global budget they must allocate how many staff, what

kind of staff, whether it's supervisory, whether it is a facility where

perhaps the owner-operator does a lot of that work himself. There will be money,

as I've quoted, and they will have to allocate those funds out of the global

budget they will be getting. We don't go around and say: "You have

a supervisor; we'll give that supervisor a raise, " It's part of

the negotiations they do with the facility. Hopefully with the global budget

they receive they will be able to adequately meet that demand.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'd like to ask the minister if, as one might expect, in his budget for

this year for continuing care facilities and home support there are in-

[ Page 6142 ]

creases

for inflation, for increased salaries for workers and for increased

service. To save him an answer to a question, I believe when we

addressed this issue the other day the minister did state that built

into the overall budget was a 5 percent lift for wages for '89 and '90.

If the minister could confirm that, it would be helpful. Then, are

there other inflationary amounts that are built in and are there

increased levels of service that are going to be offered in the money

the government is making available to continuing care?

HON. MR. DUECK : For the utilization and population growth, I've got $1,795,000 and some-odd.

MS. A. HAGEN :

So there's a very small amount in your budget for increased service.

The total amount for continuing care, long-term-care facilities and

home support is something in the order of $400 million, and we're

looking at less than $2 million for increased utilization.

noted when we began these estimates that I didn't want to get into a

very detailed look at dollars and cents, but I want to draw some

conclusions from the debate and discussion we've had, and I thank the

minister for the answers he's been able to provide.

I have

gone over the minister's statement at the start of the Health

estimates, and I have also carefully gone over the discussion we had

last week when I first raised some concerns about the necessary level

of increased funding to deal with services for older people. I am still

not satisfied that we have, in the minister's answers, the dollars that

will address the real health and safety and staffing concerns expressed

in the cabinet document that triggered our discussion and provided us

with some benchmarks for discussion.

[3:45]

Let me just go back over some of the minister's statements in his own comments and in his answers to my questions.

noted that there was $28 million for inequities and shortfalls in

long-term care and to improve the wages of home support workers. He

indicated that there was an unspecified amount for improving the hours

available for extended-care patients living in intermediate-care

facilities, and I heard him say today that that amount is very

consistent with the suggested amount: around $11 million. He also said

there was some money to help private facilities with capital funding,

and didn't give an amount. Let's assume that the amounts here are

similar to the document, and we're looking at something in the order of

$45 million out of $170 million.

He then noted that there

was about $26.5 million for new wage settlements. That's not catch-up;

that's not dealing with some of the inequities we've been talking

about. It was also for the inflation that organizations would have on

non-salary items and for population utilization increases. He said that

altogether there was about $55 million for upgrading. But about half of

that is really to look at this year's costs, not catch-up costs. He

also stated that within the $97 million he has said is available

altogether there is a lot of new stuff.

I would maintain

that although he may not have accepted the document that came to him

from his own continuing care division and may not have accepted some of

the presentations not only from within the ministry but from the

technicians — the researchers who are able to put these figures together —

it appears that the ministry has not addressed the basic issues of

health and safety and staffing that we need to know is in place to

secure the industry. I know the minister has been working to make

improvements, but in this particular industry I think the neglect of

years, which has been well documented, is now such that we can't wait

for the additional dollars. I really am very concerned that although

the minister is putting a good face on what he has available to him in

his budget, when we look at the figures and at the well-researched

need, the disparity between what is proposed as necessary and what the

minister has is at least $40 million, and it could be as much as $60

million to $65 million.

Those

are serious disparities in

terms of dealing with an industry that is very much affected by the

dollars available for its staffing. When we look at the turnover of up

to 50 percent with home support workers, when we look at people trained

to go into that work who leave it because the wages are inadequate,

then standards of safety, health, quality of care — issues that

were also raised by the auditor-general in his review of continuing

care — are not being met. It is regrettable that the people who

are bearing that burden are the poorest workers in the province —

home support workers particularly — and the elderly, who may be

deprived of the standards of care that we should offer without question

as a priority.

want to thank the minister for his comments. I look forward to further

figures, but they just aren't there to do the job that needs to be done.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I believe the document that the member refers to again and again is out

of date. We don't use that document; it's not our reference point. We

have some $74 million in the budget. We believe that is adequate. The

safety and health of seniors will be addressed, will be looked after. I

was fortunate enough to get some of that money last year, as you well

know. It's never enough. I can assure you that I am pressing on

continually to look after some of the disparities, but this year I am

more confident than last year. I feel better about the funding

situation in the whole area of home support and seniors' facilities.

Having

said that, I don't accept the figures you quote from that document. We

have our own reference point. Senior citizens will be adequately looked

after, as they were last year. There were some concerns, but by and

large our system is a model for the rest of Canada. When they come here

from other provinces.... Our central registry and various things that

we have in our system today for senior citizens are to be commended,

not criticized. Although we are always looking for more resources, and

could use

[ Page 6143 ]

more resources, I must tell you that I am quite happy. The safety and health of senior citizens will be adequately looked after.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Are the quick response teams that the minister has referred to funded

out of the home support budget, the facilities budget or some other

section of his budget?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, could I have leave for an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I am pleased today to introduce a group of 20 grade 9 students from

Polyvalente Bernard Garipy in Tracy, Quebec, who are visiting our

constituency and have taken the opportunity to come over and watch the

Legislature in session and the debate going on in Health. Would this

assembly please make them welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the minister please send the spelling of the school's name to Hansard .

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to welcome the students from this side of the

House as well. J'aimerais leur dire quelques mots en franais pour la

bienvenue dans notre belle province.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just for the point of protocol, you are supposed to ask leave.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether he said something bad about me or whether this was welcoming the students.

MR. CHAIRMAN : No, he did not, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. DUECK : Thank you.

the last question from the member, I believe it was where the funding

came from for the response teams. It comes out of the continuing care

budget, but we find that because we are sponsoring these quick response

teams, in fact, we are saving money and FTEs. It is working very well.

I believe it was in my estimates speech that we are endeavouring to get

a couple more off the ground in a lower mainland community and, I

believe, in Kelowna and perhaps one in another part of the lower

mainland.

MS. A. HAGEN : Could the minister advise us

whence the funding for the Victoria Health Project comes? Does it come

under his ministry budget, or is it in a special vote?

HON. MR. DUECK : Last year it was from a special vote; this year it's out of the budget.

MS. A. HAGEN :

One final question for this particular time. Could I ask the minister

if it is his intent to reduce the caseloads of nurse-assessors in

long-term care? I know that those nurse-assessor workloads are 400

clients and up. The auditor-general notes that between 400 and 800

clients may be the responsibility of a long-term-care assessor-nurse

within the ministry's health units. Is it his intent to reduce that

workload?

HON. MR. DUECK : It is certainly not our

intention to reduce, but it's continually reviewed. We may have to

increase. It's certainly not being reduced.

MR. JONES :

I had intended to rise on Friday and make a few remarks on behalf of my

constituents with respect to health care, but time did not permit on

that day. I sat through a session on Friday, as part of the minister's

estimates, and was a little discouraged because part of that exchange

occurred between the minister and the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood).

While the

minister recognizes what an important portfolio he has, it seems to me

that at that point in time in the House we slipped into a period of

debate that is not usual for the Minister of Health, and one that I was

moved to want to comment on on that day. I'm still in that frame of

mind today.

I think the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Perry) began this debate in a very gracious way. I think he

complimented the minister, recognizing the difficulty, the enormity and

the complexity of the task of that minister. I think he complimented

the minister on many of the fine decisions that he'd made and, of

course, pointed out that there were some he would take issue with. I

think the tone set at that time was a very gracious one, one that I

think did this House justice and did the opposition justice.

Unfortunately, I don't think that carried on.

It seems to

me that ministers of the Crown have to recognize the very precious gift

given them by the people of this province. That precious gift is a gift

of power. It's a gift to use creative opportunities as ministers to

govern in the best interests of the people; to raise taxes and to spend

those taxes wisely and well; and, particularly for the Minister of

Health in such an important area of jurisdiction in this province in

terms of real issues that are important to people, this minister has

the portfolio that is of highest importance to British Columbians.

think we all want the kind of quality health care that we're proud of

in this province. We want it to continue. We want it to improve. While

I recognize that the minister has gone about his job with real

dedication and care, there are probably many areas where I would also

wish to disagree with the minister. I don't know if time will permit to

get into any of these. I think in terms of increases, user fees,

privatization of our health care system or erosion of universality of

our health care system, the minister and I would find strong

disagreement in those areas.

I would like the minister to

understand that while the people have given that minister the creative

opportunity and the power, that power can only be exercised under the

scrutiny of people on this side of the House. We have in our British

parliamentary system the necessity of a vigorous and determined

opposition. It is not our job to make the life of the minister

comfortable. By raising concerns and questions and pointing out the

shortcomings of government opera-

[ Page 6144 ]

tions

we fulfill the responsibilities of our democratic, parliamentary system

of government. We do make the life of the minister uncomfortable and

unpleasant. That minister has to face the music every day when this

House is in session; he has to be accountable every day, and it comes

into focus most when this House is in session. It's only through this

system of checks and balances that the minister has the right to

exercise that power. It's only through the exercise of our obligations

on this side of the House that we have limitations to the power of

government so that the minister has an opportunity.... We on this side

of the House are providing the minister with an opportunity to take a

second, third or fourth look, to examine and re-examine the kinds of

activities that he is engaged in.

[4:00]

So I was most disappointed in the exchange between the Health minister and

the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, particularly when he accused the member

of being an instant expert. Certainly that was a pejorative point the minister

was making, and I think an unfair one. We on this side of the House are doing

our best to raise the concerns of the people of British Columbia, and I think

the minister on his side is doing his best to ensure.... But I don't think

that when we stoop to name-calling, the minister does any service to his government

or himself.

Certainly

the minister himself is no expert in health, although he has gained

expertise in the last couple of years. I understand that he may have

expertise in car sales or insurance or real estate, but the minister

came new to this job two and a half years ago and, quite rightly so, he

has experts with him today who I hope and assume are experts in the

health care field.

I hope in my remarks today the minister

doesn't accuse me of being some sort of instant expert. I bring no

expertise. I bring some concerns; I bring some questions; I bring some

difficulties that I see people in my riding having with the health care

system. I hope the minister will respond to those in good kind. I don't

think that name-calling happens often in this House, but when it

happens in a serious and accusatory way, it does this House a

disservice.

There is a second area of concern I had from

Friday that I would like to point out to the minister, and I think it

is really an important one. We welcomed a new member to this House a

couple of weeks ago and welcomed him graciously. Yet what we see now

from some members of the government side, in dealing with the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey, is that sort of name-calling again

There is a very thinly veiled attempt — to quote the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) —

to accuse that member of being a "shill for the BCMA." I think that is

shocking, first of all in the sense that it is not true. That member

sits as an independent member of the Legislature, as independent as any

MLA. Secondly, it is very clear that those kinds of accusations will

not stick. I am sure by now you have noticed the straightforward nature

of that member and his principled and ethical positions on matters that

come before this

Legislature. I am sure that members on the

government side hastened to look up the blue book of doctors' salaries

in this province and were very disappointed to see that the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey did not receive any great amount of

money from the Medical Services Plan.

Although I haven't

seen in today's discussions the matter I was concerned with on Friday,

I am hopeful that the Minister of Health, whom I have respect for as

doing a good job, does not stoop to that level of name-calling again.

am sure there is one thing the minister and I agree on: there are good

people in this House and good people in the health care system. One of

the points I want to raise — and I think the minister will agree —

is that there are just not enough of those good people. I raised this

issue with the minister in my first remarks in the House. I pointed out

two areas: serious staff shortages in Burnaby Hospital; and a lack of

some of the basic necessities of operation in that hospital.

pointed out to that minister some two and a half years ago that

although we received a new CT scanner in the Burnaby Hospital, at the

point of purchase there was no new staff hired to operate that piece of

equipment. I pointed out to the minister the serious nursing shortage

at that hospital and the fact that five head nurses had quit their work

at the Burnaby general hospital. I'm sure we've discussed in this House

the serious demands on nurses in our hospitals in this province. It

doesn't surprise anybody, I'm sure, to see nurses quit. I think it was

a little shocking, at one point two and a half years ago, to see five

head nurses quit.

I also pointed out in those remarks a

serious consequence of the nursing shortage. I pointed out to the

minister at that time that there had been documented cases of

dispensing errors that were attributed to a nursing shortage. I think

that's a serious charge from a member of the opposition, on behalf of

my constituents who reported that to me.

In addition to the

staff shortages, I pointed out a shortage of equipment and even of some

basic necessities in the hospital. I pointed out at that time that a

couple of those necessities were even in the areas of pillows and

pajama bottoms — which may seem humorous from this vantage point,

but I can assure the minister that the shortage was no joke in the

Burnaby Hospital.

Those remarks were made a couple of years

ago, and yet the kinds of problems we saw in Burnaby Hospital are still

extant today. I am wondering if the minister is aware how long the

waiting-list is for the use of the CT scanner in that hospital, because

of staff shortages, how many people are on that waiting-list or how

long the bookings for the use of that scanner go into the future. To my

knowledge there are over 300 on that waiting-list. Bookings are being

made well into July and August for the use of that piece of equipment.

The staff, I think, are trying their best, but they feel they are on a

treadmill there; that they will never get caught up with these long

waiting lists.

[ Page 6145 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

They

question the concept of using this expensive piece of equipment for

only 11 hours a day. I know the minister is extremely concerned with

the effective, efficient and economical operation of our health care

system. Yet we have these long waiting-lists, and we have this

expensive piece of equipment sitting idle for several hours during the

day and on weekends. It would seem reasonable to take advantage of some

of the staff there or bring in some new staff to at least catch up by

working evenings and weekends to solve the problem of the long waiting

list for the CT scanner at Burnaby Hospital. It seems to me, and I hope

to the minister, to make economic sense— I know the minister is very

concerned about that — to staff that operation so that the

waiting-list could be caught up.

think my comments about the CT scanner were indicative of staff

shortages. The other area that I mentioned in my maiden speech two and

a half years ago and that is still apparent today is the shortage of

equipment and replacement of equipment. While we have high-profile and

high-tech equipment like the CT scanner, some of the fundamental

equipment for the effective and efficient operation of our hospitals,

at least in Burnaby, is not in place.

I'm sure the

minister, if he has appliances like a dishwasher in his own home,

figures the dishwasher has a ten-year life, so after ten years he is

going to have to replace it. If he had in his house thousands of

dishwashers — which I know doesn't make any sense, but in an operation like a hospital it does —

he would find out the useful life of those things and figure out how

many he would have to replace each year, and he would budget

accordingly.

From my information, however, at Burnaby

Hospital that fundamental equipment seems to be lacking. I spoke

recently to a member of staff at the hospital who commented that the

chair she was sitting on while she was talking to me on the telephone

was virtually falling apart. They had put in some 70 requisitions of

minor capital requests and had received approval for only four. Some of

the basic equipment, right down to basic....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. PERRY : I'm finding the hon. member's comments sufficiently interesting. I'd feel privileged to hear him continue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JONES :

I was commenting earlier that there are two major areas that were a

problem two and a half years ago in Burnaby Hospital, and those

problems continue today. I was listing some examples not just in terms

of staff shortages but also in terms of replacement of equipment. I

think there are some false economies being practised. We're all

interested in getting the most out of the people's investment, through

our hospitals, in our medical service.

For

example, does it

make any sense to have an old piece of x-ray equipment that cannot

guarantee true radiation levels because of its age? I'm not suggesting

that there's any health hazard as a result of that, but in terms of the

effective and efficient operation of that x-ray machine, which, as a

result of its age, cannot be calibrated as effectively as when it was

new and produces poor x-ray photographs.... As a result of not being

able to guarantee radiation levels, does it make sense to have the

staff take extra photographs, and use extra film, extra chemicals and

extra staff time, to produce a good x-ray photograph — to get a

decent result, which should have been available in the first place?

me it only makes sense to replace it, to use it at its optimum level,

and not to allow these old pieces of equipment that need replacing to

continue to be used or to continue to eat away at staff time and to

cause unnecessary and excess equipment and materials because of their

operation.

The minister not only has Burnaby Hospital to

consider, but all the hospitals in the province. The points that I

raise here about staff shortages and about the lack of replacement of

basic equipment don't just exist in that hospital, but in hospitals

around the province. Although I said that the points I wanted to raise

with the minister were small ones, I think they are important, because

the people of this province consider health care to be such an

important issue, and because they want their hospitals to provide the

highest-quality service possible. They can only do that if the minister

will seriously address the problems I raised two and a half years ago;

namely, staff shortages and replacement of basic equipment. I anxiously

await the minister's response.

[4:15]

HON. MR. DUECK :

I think I should make some remark for the record as to the member's

statement about name-calling and there not being proper decorum in the

House. I agree with him wholeheartedly. It was not proper for either of

us to get into that kind of dialogue. I have to tell the member that at

one of the first meetings I had with my senior staff, I told them that

if any decisions were made in the Ministry of Health that tended to be

political, I would be the first to tell them so. I did not want any

political decisions made in Health that affected people in a certain

area. I meant that very sincerely.

When we look at

hospitals, be they extended-care or intermediate-care, or home support

services.... I think I've lived up to that as best I could. I've been

accused by both sides of not doing it properly. I've been accused by

people who say they are onside.... They say that I'm favouring them.

I've been accused by the other side of favouring the opposition because

I want to gain some popularity.

I have to tell you that

that's not true. I've truly tried to do it on the basis of health,

never mind who the people are or how they voted. I didn't even want to

know. I truly think I did that. I do not use my power as minister in a

frivolous way. I don't think I do; at least I try not to. I know a lot

of pressure is put on me from time to time from both sides. I try to be

upfront and to exercise my power in such a way that

[ Page 6146 ]

is the position, rather than me trying to do something for somebody to

make them happy. I truly try to do it from the point of view of

exercising my responsibility in the areas where it's needed.

I was going to say more about that. I think that's sufficient.

When we talk about a scanner — I think that was one of the questions you asked —

I have to tell you that whenever we put in equipment that impacts on

operations, we do not give authority for its purchase unless we also

have funding for its operation. The CT scanner that went into Burnaby

got full operational money. When you suggest that perhaps there wasn't

enough funding, I would have to tell you that the allocation of time

and how often they use it is for the management of the hospital. We do

not go in there and manage that hospital. They get a global dollar.

They get X number of dollars for the CT scanner, and it is up to them

how they choose to use that or anything else in the hospital.

the present time we are doing a complete review of Burnaby, and when

the results are in we will, of course, let the hospital know first, and

it will be known to the people most affected.

At this time

I can tell you that as of April 1 there will be a base funding

increase, which we've recognized. If there is any other area we have to

recognize as to the deficits, whether it's overpopulation or an

increase in population, it will be looked at when that review is

completed.

You mentioned something about insignificant

things, and I can't help but respond to it. You talk about pillows,

sheets and things like that. You know, a hospital couldn't get

accreditation unless that was all in place; it has to be. It may be

that they were short of something at one time or another; I'm not sure.

They must have those things in place and have proper staffing to get

accreditation, and they have had accreditation for a number of years.

Perhaps they're telling you something that is not quite the way it is.

Hospitals

are under pressure, no question about it. I'm not going to stand here

and say that everything is rosy and if they want extra money, here it

is. They are under pressure, and it takes an administrator with real

initiative to be able to balance the need with the dollars, with the

resources that he's got. It's not easy, and I really have to commend

administrators who do a fine job. And Burnaby is doing a good job;

they're a good hospital. But there are times when they haven't looked

after management perhaps in the way they should, and in retrospect the

review will probably indicate some areas where they can improve. It's

not a matter of us telling them what to do; it's a matter of assisting.

We try and assist hospitals to meet that pressure they're under.

Equipment

costs are, of course, shared mostly on a 50-50 basis, some on a 75-25

basis, and that is done from time to time. They cannot purchase

anything they desire or everything they desire, but by and large they

get the equipment they need.

I think you also mentioned

some equipment completely broken down, perhaps not even safe to

operate. If the equipment is not safe, we would then find the dollars

to replace it. I don't think we'd want a hospital to operate equipment

that isn't safe, and I hope I'm correct and you're wrong. But these are

areas I will have to look at.

Waiting-lists. It is not the

number of people that are waiting; it is really the length of the wait.

You may have a figure of how many people are on the wait-list for

elective, but it's really how long they've waited. It's perhaps a

little bit longer than I would like to see. We're addressing that from

time to time. Hopefully we can bring that down.

MR. JONES :

I want to thank the minister for the concern he shares with me as far

as decorum in the House goes. I'd like to let him know that I very much

respect what he described as a non-political approach to the

administration of his office. But I do get a little frustrated in this

process, and it's not necessarily the minister's fault. In this method

of communication we have there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding

and need for clarification, so I'm going to go back and try and clarify

some of the points I made earlier.

First of all, I was contrasting concerns that I had —

and the pajama bottoms were in that category that I raised in this

House two and a half years ago. They were of a general nature of

shortages, and I'm sure the accreditation process solves some of those

kinds of things. What I'm saying to the minister is that those

equipment shortages may be different than they were two years ago; they

were pillows and pajama bottoms two and a half years ago, but there are

still basic equipment shortages in our hospitals and in Burnaby

Hospital in particular. It may be typewriters, office equipment and

some of those things now. Two and a half years ago it was one category

of basic equipment; now, although the needs have changed, they're still

there. I think it's symptomatic of a number of years of serious

underfunding that probably preceded this minister. It may take a change

in government or much more time to resolve some of these shortages.

did not, at any point in time, say equipment was unsafe, and I'm sure

the minister would respond more promptly if I had indicated that,

although he seemed to be suggesting that was what I said. No, I was

suggesting to the minister the inefficiencies in having outdated

equipment, and I used the example of an x-ray machine. If an x-ray

machine cannot be calibrated properly as to the amount of radiation it

gives off, then rather than being unsafe, it's going to produce

ineffective x-ray photographs. So extra staff time, extra chemicals and

extra materials are going to be used in the process of compensating for

an outdated piece of equipment that perhaps, if replaced, would in the

long term result in a cost saving to the ministry and the people of

this province.

I suggested to the minister that the

waiting-lists were long, and I suggested a number of something like 300

for the CT scanner. The minister seemed to indicate that it's not the

number on the waiting-list but actually how long they were waiting. I

indicated to the minister that there are people asking to be

[ Page 6147 ]

booked

for that CT scanner who are being booked well into the summer. I'm sure

they use a triage system, where the most serious cases are dealt with

first, but I think that virtually any case that requires the use of a

CT scanner must be a fairly serious case, for the physician to request

that kind of technical aid for the diagnosis. So if the waiting-list

goes into the summer and there is a waiting-list of 300, I think that

is serious.

Perhaps nothing can be done about Burnaby's

waiting-list, but if those waiting-lists exist all around the province,

perhaps some sort of emergency measures could be taken. Perhaps the

minister could view that as an emergency that may cause him to make a

visit to Treasury Board and to seek to resolve some of those problems

that are really a result of tremendous shortages in staff. Nurses, of

course, are another area, and we've mentioned that before.

would like to ask the minister how he feels about a waiting-list of 300

that goes into the summer. I'd like to know what the minister has done,

since I raised those concerns two and a half years ago, to address the

serious staffing shortages. Has the minister decided to do anything in

a major way to resolve those staff shortages between now and the time

that his mandate expires?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Chairman, I'm just looking at some graphs here about Burnaby Hospital's

surgical waiting-list, and it's very stable. It hasn't changed much

from 1984. I also should mention that we're talking about elective. If

it's emergency, then of course there isn't a waiting-period — in

some cases none and in some cases a very short period of time. I don't

see the problem in the same light. I think it's somewhat exaggerated by

the member. We'll always have some waiting-time for elective surgery,

because there's never enough money to do it all the day after you

require it.

As far as the scanner is concerned, adequate

funding was allowed for the scanner, and within that funding they

should be able to manage the people who the doctor refers to that

particular equipment. The scanners, too.... I'm not sure. This is

something I should perhaps looks at, though.

You were

talking about x-ray equipment. That equipment generally lasts 10 to 15

years. You're raising a point specifically about Burnaby Hospital, and

maybe I should, before I say it's still in good use or it isn't.... I

really don't know. This is something we would have to check out.

You

mentioned, too, that people are asking to be booked for the scanner.

You're not suggesting that people go to a doctor and request to have a

scan; you're suggesting that the physician in fact refers them. Okay. I

just thought perhaps you thought people were lining up saying: "Well,

maybe I should have a scan to see what my insides look like."

and large, Burnaby Hospital is adequately funded. We're doing a review.

I'll have my people look at the x-ray equipment. Maybe there's

something we're not aware of; maybe they haven't told us about it.

Concerns

about shortages. I think you can go to any hospital and speak to

individual physicians, and they'll cry that they haven't got the latest

toy, the latest equipment. They all want the latest. Even if it's three

years old and another hospital has something better, they want that

equipment. There's not enough money in the world to do that. We do the

best we can with the resources available. I think most hospitals

operate efficiently and look after the needs of the people in their

community, in their catchment area, quite well.

MR. R. FRASER :

I was in the debate earlier in the week. By the way, I'm glad to see

that the opposition critic is here, because I'm going to address some

remarks in his direction — through the minister, naturally.

It's

interesting to listen to the members of the opposition, who talk about

their own little hospital, their own town, in their own area. I have

yet to hear one of them talk about health care.... The former critic is

here. You were very good. I'm sorry that you're not there. In fact,

maybe you will be after today.

They

almost never talk about

the provincial health care system. They only talk about hospital by

hospital, and why can't "my" hospital — in quotation marks, with a

little possession there — have whatever it is that my friendly

doctor would like to have.

[4:30]

MR. GABELMANN : It's because you don't have a hospital.

MR. R. FRASER :

We have many hospitals in the city of Vancouver. There are many

hospitals around the province I would be very happy to go to, because I

know the kind of effort our doctors put into health care. Not that I

haven't said a word about them from time to time.

We have a

health care system here that is so incredibly good that it really is

nearly impossible to be critical. We talk about whether we are using an

old-fashioned x-ray machine. How is the minister supposed to know? He

doesn't pick that equipment; it's the doctors that pick it. I don't

think most doctors, unlike the opposition, would take all of last

year's x-ray equipment and throw it out because it might be doing

something that they don't think is right.

We talk about

health care; we talk about money. It's always money, because we have to

keep buying new equipment. I suppose, now that we have a new master

agreement with the doctors — worked out with great attention and great care by the minister — we're

going to be talking about fees. Indeed, I have had letters from doctors

saying: "I haven't had a raise, hon. MLA, for three whole years." I

know it's hard getting by on $300,000 a year. The man that wrote me

said, "I haven't had a raise in three years, " and he only makes

$320,000 — or whatever thousand it is. I know how tough it is for

him to get by. I am really sympathetic to him, but before I gave that

man a raise I think I would give a little money to the

[ Page 6148 ]

nurses.

I hope the doctors will be onside and will say: "We don't need any

money this year, Mr. Minister; we want it to go to the nurses in the

hospital." I think there are lots of things we can do about that, and I

want the doctors to be in on that. There's a doctor over there; you

know, the official critic. We were talking about that.

The

interesting thing about doctors.... There was a case in Quebec

recently. Some doctors came to Canada and they hadn't gone through the

immigration system yet. They hadn't managed to get past the Quebec

medical college yet, and they protested; they demanded that they be

permitted to practise in Canada. I thought that was really an amazing

thing for them to do: to come here and demand the right to practise.

Ask, maybe; beg, possibly; demand — unbelievable! I hope that's

not a characteristic of all doctors in Canada. In fact, it couldn't be.

It's obviously an unusual case.

We hear across the floor

about long waiting-lists. I heard about waiting-lists in 1983, 1984,

1985 and 1986. Every time I got a phone call from someone whose friend

or spouse was in the hospital, complaining about the waiting-list, it

seemed the doctor said it was the fault of the government. The amazing

part about that is, the government doesn't decide when some procedure

is going to take place; the doctors decide. I phoned the hospital and

talked to the chief there and said: "I had a call from Mr. or Mrs. X

about their spouse and they said it is our fault. I thought you were in

the medical business; I'm in public life. Who decides when the

procedure is going to take place?" He said: "The doctor decides. If

it's an emergency, the doctor decides."

We are also told from time to time that people on waiting-lists die. Tragic as that might be — and it is —

none of us knows when the moment is going to come. We all know people

who have died for reasons that are unimaginable, at an age that is

unrealistic You know, the fighter pilot, 29 or 30 years of age, a

picture of health, dies of a heart attack. For that reason, I don't

think it is reasonable to blame the government when somebody on a

waiting-list dies. It is tragic, but it's not the government's fault

and it's not the doctor's fault. Maybe nature is telling us something.

MR. PERRY : We should rejoice when somebody dies?

MR. R. FRASER : No, we shouldn't rejoice when someone dies — not

necessarily. There are times....

One

of the things I note about the opposition party.... I'm really glad

you're here, honestly. I really wanted the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) to be here today. I look at my friend

Jack Davis and I think, there is an engineer; he's in Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. That doesn't sound too bad. Then I look at the

hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), who happens to be a

forester. Well, that's funny; he's a Forests minister and he's a

forester, and he's in Energy and he's an engineer. And I think: the

critic is a doctor and he's a critic at the same time. But they're not

quite the same, because the forester and the engineer don't bargain for

fees or have a master agreement with the provincial government, but the

BCMA does. For that reason I am amazed that you are the critic. That

member over there is put in very tenuous circumstances, according to

me. For example, how is he, as a member of a group that bargains with

the government, going to make it completely conspicuous that his

defences of the public health care system are on behalf of the public,

when his friends and colleagues in the BCMA are negotiating for money?

That is a most unfair situation to put that member in; he's new.

MR. PERRY : Just watch me. Read my lips.

MR. R. FRASER :

I know he can talk; we all know that. He's certainly articulate. That's

a very difficult position for him to be in, and I would like to hear

him ask the minister how he can get out of that situation.

MR. MESSMER : Immunity of the House.

MR. R. FRASER :

Immunity of the House, I suppose. Mr. Minister, I ask you.... Whether

or not you want to answer that question, of course, is up to you. I

would like to hear about that possible potential conflict, because I

think some people think it will exist, and it will compromise your

production in the House. I don't want to have that. I want every member

who comes to this House to say what's on his or her mind, to do his or

her job, to defend the nurses, to defend the doctors and to make sure

that we have a provincial health care system — not every little

thing in every little hospital. Think big. Think positive. That's

what's being done, and that's why we have such a great health care

system.

HON. MR. DUECK : I'm not going to respond to

that, other than to say that the new member, my critic, has been a

gentleman. I hope that through the year we will be able to function in

such a way that our aims are the same; that is, to look after the

people of the province, rather than trying to criticize or find fault

with each other. Hopefully, the physicians that my hon. friend

mentioned.... Like any people in the workforce, you have the good and

the bad. I must say that when I've met the doctors around the province,

there are far more good than bad. Hopefully they themselves will weed

out the bad, and we'll have only good ones. That's all I'm going to say

in that regard.

I would like to respond to the equipment

question. I didn't have it in front of me at the time. If I may now,

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read this into the record. Burnaby Hospital:

received and approved 22 grant applications for a total of $285,000 in

1988-89. In addition, they received their secondary equipment

allocation of $121,000 in 1988-89. In addition, there was funding of

$9,500 for equipment for 35 discharge-planning units. Funding of

$742,000 is approved for two phases of nuclear medicine expansion this

fiscal year, 1989-90. Our staff met with Burnaby

[ Page 6149 ]

Hospital to acquire an additional 16 pieces of equipment, approximately another $370,000.

I'm

not trying to impress you with all these figures. What I'm trying to

say is that it's an ongoing thing. As they apply, it's looked at, and

hopefully we come to an agreement; then we fund it. Whenever necessary,

we do try to meet the demand — or the need rather than the demand —

or perhaps the request. There isn't an unlimited amount of money. So

when the request comes in, we meet with them, look at the equipment,

see whether it can be funded and whether they have the funds for their

share. When you see this for last year, there were a number of dollars

spent on equipment for Burnaby Hospital.

MR. PERRY : I don't want to impinge on my colleague's time. I

just wanted to comment briefly on the remarks from the first member for Vancouver

South (Mr. R. Fraser). I'm really delighted to see that my anticipation

that there would be some humour in the House was not completely in vain. I've

enjoyed his remarks a lot.

would urge him, if he finds time, to read some of my comments from last

Thursday's debate on the global issues of health care, since he began

his remarks by suggesting that we on this side think only in terms of

specific hospitals and not the global problems. I think one of the best

ways of understanding some failures in global planning is to look at

specific detailed examples. Therefore it's very interesting to hear the

situation of Burnaby or Surrey or wherever the case may be.

really wanted to make an offer based on my unique capabilities as a

physician, because I noticed that the response of my colleague from

Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) was so favourable. I'd like to extend

the same offer to the members on the government side, which is a small

pre