1979 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

833 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

The Truth in Metric Act (Bill M 206). Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 833

Groundwater Licensing Act, 1979 (Bill M 207). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 833

Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act (Bill 33). H — , Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading –– 833

Oral questions.

Government policy on nuclear power. Mr. Barrett –– 834

Appointment of S. Douglas Smith. Mr. Barrett –– 834

Sale of Crown land through realtors. Hon. Mr. Chabot replies –– 836

Legal Services Society Act (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 836

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates.

On the amendment to vote 128.

Mr. Cocke –– 836

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 838

Mr. Cocke –– 839

Mr. Barnes –– 840

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 842

Mr. Lea –– 845

Mr. Barnes –– 847

Mr. Brummet –– 848

Mrs. Wallace –– 849

Mr. King –– 851

Mr. Hall –– 853

Mr. Mitchell –– 855

Mrs. Jordan –– 856

Presenting Reports

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services annual report for the year ending December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 858

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am very

pleased to see with us today, for a while at least, Mrs. Vi Jones, of

Surrey. Vi's husband is Alderman Dalton Jones of Surrey. With her is

her daughter Sandra. Also, Mrs. Mills and Mrs. Brass, Vi's sisters, are

here from Surrey, and Molly MacDonald and her daughter Marlene are

visiting from Northern Ireland. I would ask the House to bid them

welcome.

MR. BARNES: I would like to have the House

join us in congratulating the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell),

whose son was in attendance this morning when we had our pictures

taken. He's Alan Passarell — "Landslide Junior." I would like the House

to welcome the young man to the Legislature.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

There are two visitors to the House today from the constituency of

Central Fraser Valley: from the town of Abbotsford, the wife of our

member for that constituency, Maude Ritchie, and her daughter, Laura

Harrington. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We have in the members' gallery today a founding member of the CCF and

NDP Club in Powell River, and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Bob MacPherson

from Powell River. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MRS. JORDAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to assure you first that this is

not assumption No. 7, but I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that in

the members' gallery today we have Mr. Dave Morris, who is municipal

clerk for the municipality of Coldstream. He's a very fine and

brilliant young man. I don't know his politics, but I know that as a

representative he's excellent for the people and the member to work

with. I ask you to give him a warm welcome.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like the House to join me in welcoming three constituents who

are in the Speaker's gallery today. They are here from Mill Bay

visiting various ministries on a matter of very important local

concern. They are Mr. and Mrs. Thurber and Mr. Beech.

MR. SEGARTY:

In the members' gallery this afternoon is a constituent of Kootenay,

Dave Mutch. Dave is manager of the Woodlands operation for Crows Nest

Industries and Alco British Columbia. I'd like the House to welcome him.

Introduction of Bills

THE TRUTH IN METRIC ACT

a motion by Mr. Smith, Bill M206, The Truth in Metric Act, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

GROUNDWATER LICENSING ACT, 1979

a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M207, Groundwater Licensing Act, 1979,

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

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act.

Bill

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

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

On a point of order, yesterday I asked a question of the Premier in

question period, which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled out of order. In

perusing Beauchesne, May, et cetera, I find that the question may well

have been in order, and I seek a ruling.

The question I

asked of the Premier yesterday was: does the Minister of Environment's

(Hon. Mr. Mair'

s) decision to keep secret reports on the proposed

500-kilovolt Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line to Vancouver Island

reflect government policy on reports affecting the public of British

Columbia? On Monday. February 28, 1977, according to Votes and Proceedings ,

the Speaker ruled on a supplementary — referring to the sixteenth

edition of May, on page 356, relating to questions in general and to

item No. 9 on the list of supplementary questions that are in order: "A

question to the Prime Minister or the Premier as to whether a statement

made by a minister represents the policy of the government is in fact

in order."

Mr. Speaker, could you rule on that before

question period, so that I may pose the question again to the Premier,

now that he's in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member,

I appreciate you raising the matter. I have a couple of immediate

comments. I do not presume to take the time of the House to teach the

rules of the House, but since the member asked the question, first of

all, a matter of order must be raised immediately, or it is lost upon

the House. The matter to which the gentleman refers, namely subsection

9 of the second main section, "Regulations by Which Questions Shall Be

Determined in and out of Order." I read again for the member:

"A question to the Prime Minister or Premier, whether a

statement made by a minister represents the policy, is in order: but the basis

upon which questions are ruled out of order is whether or not a question plies

into the future policy of the government."

We'll review the particular question which this gentleman has raised and

seek to bring a ruling on it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if you'd heard my question, you would

find that I'm not seeking future policy of the government. What I was

seeking to establish is whether this government is going to continue to

keep secret these many reports that they're sitting on at the moment.

This is what I'm trying to find out.

[ Page 834 ]

I would like this government to release some of those reports that they've been sitting on for three and a half solid years.

MR. SPEAKER: Without a question being before the House at this time, I might just suggest that question would be out of order.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON NUCLEAR POWER

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Could the Premier

inform this House whether or not continued advocacy of nuclear power

for British Columbia by the head of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Robert Bonner, is

in accordance with statements made by this government and its current

position on nuclear power?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr.

Speaker, to make it clear once more to the Leader of the Opposition and

the members of this House, the question of what energy alternatives are

developed will be a decision of the government. I don't think it's

inconsistent for members of Hydro, or those charged with providing

energy in this province, to point out the options and those decisions

that may have to be made in the future — perhaps by future governments

— and to point out that if you have governments that don't act, or if

you have leaders who said in the election campaign there are going to

be no more hydroelectric development in this province, to find out what

the province would be forced to accept.... I've said that our

government is prepared to develop those acceptable energy sources. I do

not see, either in our term or in our mandate or in future mandates,

the need for us to have to use nuclear power. I stay with that

statement.

I do say, though, that this government, as part

of its energy policy, will be making major announcements on those forms

of energy development that are acceptable and which we will be carrying

out during our mandate as government. We will announce the policy which

will be the cornerstone of our economic development policy that will

lead this province in the 1980s.

Mr. Speaker, that statement

has been said before, and it's perfectly clear. Those who would try and

find some division in what I have said and what this government said

would be hard-pressed to find any inconsistency in our policy. But

perhaps some of those who have asked the questions and who have said

there will be no more hydroelectric development and no more development

of other acceptable energy options will say how they're going to power

this province in the future. Perhaps by candles, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, since this is question period, I will refrain from

entering into debate. I ask a supplementary question of the Premier.

Does the Premier distinguish between advocacy of a position — such as

Mr. Bonner's advocacy for nuclear power — and a discussion of options?

Mr. Bonner is a supporter of nuclear power. He is not discussing

options but pushing or advocating that option. The question I ask the

Premier is whether he distinguishes between advocacy and a discussion

of options.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the first

member for Vancouver East is referring to recent speeches of the

chairman of Hydro. I have copies of those speeches in which the

chairman of Hydro spoke to energy conferences. He said that Canada will

be faced with using nuclear power. He has pointed out that if British

Columbia does not develop more acceptable energy options by the year

2000, in his judgment we would be faced with the utilization of nuclear

power. That is not advocacy. That is pointing out the facts. If you

have political parties or politicians who deny all the other options,

that's what our province would be faced with. As long as we were

government, they will not be faced with nuclear power, because we are

taking measures to make sure that we develop those more acceptable

options.

APPOINTMENT OF S. DOUGLAS SMITH

MR. BARRETT:

My next question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. I'd

like to ask the Minister of Human Resources, who was the presiding

member of the executive council on June 28, 1979, if she signed

order-in-council No. 1796 appointing Mr. S. Douglas Smith of 147 St.

Paul Street, Kamloops, as a director of the British Columbia

Development Corporation. When the minister signed that

order-in-council, was she aware that Mr. Smith was the former campaign

manager for the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair)?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, all orders that I sign on behalf of the executive council

come before me with the direction of the executive council. Such things

as appointments are made by the executive council on the basis of

ability and service to the province of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT:

The question is: was the minister aware that the order-in-council

designatee was the campaign manager for the member for Kamloops? That

was the question. Were you aware that Mr. Smith was the campaign

manager for the member for Kamloops?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I do not know when I was made aware, other than through

newspaper reports that I understand are erroneous, of charges that were

made against my colleague, the Minister of Environment, in terms of a

gentleman named Smith. That's my knowledge of what the Leader of the

Opposition is trying to get at. That's my only knowledge.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question. When was the minister aware that

Mr. Smith was the campaign manager for the member for Kamloops?

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, when an allegation has been made in the newspaper, and as

you have so well directed us, the information obtained from the

newspaper does not form the basis for questions in this House. But

that's the answer. It was brought to my attention through an

allegation, which I would suggest should be put to my colleague, the

Minister of Environment.

[ Page 835 ]

MR. BARRETT: That is coming, Madam Minister.

have a supplementary. It is a fact undenied by the member for Kamloops

(Hon. Mr. Mair) that Mr. Smith was his former campaign manager. I am

asking the minister if she was aware, when she signed the

order-in-council, that Mr. Smith was the campaign manager for the

member for Kamloops.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I've answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT:

I have another question now, to the member for Kamloops. I would ask

the member for Kamloops if he was present at the cabinet meeting when

the order-in-council was signed appointing Mr. Smith, and was aware

that, as the minister has said, it was an executive decision. Was he

present at the executive council meeting, and was he part and parcel of

the executive council decision to agree to Mr. Smith's appointment?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I didn't hear the first part of the question.

MR. COCKE: I expect the Premier was busy instructing you on how to answer the question.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, I'll just sit down and let it be asked again, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker — if we could hold everybody in the House in order — I

would appreciate the opportunity of quietly explaining my question to

the minister — including the Premier's attention, which is of short

span; nonetheless, I appeal to it.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the

minister if he was present at the cabinet meeting when order-in-council

No. 1796 was signed, appointing his former campaign manager as a

director of the Development Corporation of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me make it clear that, as did all

members of the executive council, I have taken an oath to keep secret

proceedings within the bounds of that room. But let me also say, in

answer to the first member for Vancouver East, that Mr. Smith's

relationship to me in the past two elections has never been kept secret

by me from my colleagues. I'm very proud that my colleagues saw fit to

place a man of his great ability on the board of the B.C. Development

Corporation.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. Since the minister has now informed us that his colleagues

knew that Mr. Smith was his campaign manager, and the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) said she didn't know, are we to

understand that the Minister of Human Resources is not a colleague of

the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he was present at the cabinet meeting when the order-in-council was signed.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my previous statement that I took an

oath of office to keep unto myself that which goes on inside the

cabinet room. But let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that I've made it a

habit not to go around making malicious false statements to the press

about the relationship between one person and another. And I take this

opportunity to deny the allegation made by the first member for

Vancouver East that Mr. Smith is now or ever was a law partner of mine.

MR. BARRETT ': I ask the minister — and this is public information

— whether or not he was present at the cabinet meeting when this order-in-council

was signed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

HON. MR. MAIR: I've answered that question.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a ruling. Is it not public information...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking the minister if he was there. Is that in order?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, it is not in order to rephrase a question — regardless of

how slightly — and ask the same question in another way.

MR. BARRETT:

My question is now directed to the Minister of Economic Development.

The Minister of Economic Development is the co-signator of

order-in-council No. 1796 of June 28, 1979, in which the said S.

Douglas Smith was appointed to the Development Corporation of British

Columbia. When the minister affixed his name to the order-in-council,

was he aware that Mr. Smith was the former campaign manager of the

member for Kamloops?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to

inform the first member for Vancouver East that we have been very

fortunate in appointing a very good and independent board of directors

to the British Columbia Development Corporation. Under their great

guidance the corporation made $1 million last year — the largest sum

that it has ever made. The rest of the question I will take as notice.

[Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the minister has been trying for several minutes to gain the floor.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, but I have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that is to be determined by the Chair. Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT:

I have a supplementary to the Minister of Economic Development. Was he

aware, when he signed the order-in-council, that he was signing an

order-in-council appointing the former campaign manager of the member

for Kamloops to the board of the Development Corporation of British

Columbia?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I said,

we've been very fortunate, and I feel that Mr. Smith fits into the

qualifications of being a great contribution to the board of

[ Page 836 ]

directors of the Development Corporation. I'I take the rest of the question as notice.

SALE OF CROWN LAND THROUGH REALTORS

HON. MR. CHABOT: On July 3, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing a question. He said:

The

minister went to great lengths to say that when we were in government

we had also utilized real estate agents to sell land on a commission

basis. Is the minister now saying that we allowed real estate firms to

buy land for speculative purposes? Is the minister saying we did that

when we were in government?

The minister responded: "The answer is yes."

The member for Prince Rupert said: "Would the minister then be willing to tell me now exactly where that took place?"

Mr.

Speaker, in October, 1975, the former government, through its agencies,

listed with Multiple Listings Service a property at 1160 Riverside

Drive in North Vancouver. It was a multiple listing, and the selling

broker was Habitat Realty. The property was purchased by a licensed

real estate agent with Habitat Realty.

In June, 1975, there

was another listing with Multiple Listing Service. The property was at

Fourth and Clarkson in New Westminster. The selling broker was Brimco

Realty, and the property was sold subject to a financing and

development permit. It subsequently collapsed because of the lack of a

down payment, but has since been resold to a developer.

Another

example, Mr. Speaker, of the sale was in September, 1975. There was a

sale to a developer in Fort St. James, B.C. Lots were sold to Tricon

Development Ltd. They were sold by public auction in Fort St. James.

Some of the correspondence directed to the Ministry of Housing at the

time said: "Excluding village staff, there were seven people present.

Unfortunately, only the Tricon Development Ltd. representative was

interested in purchasing the R-2 lots. Consequently they sold for the

upset price. Each lot was auctioned individually. "

These

five lots in Fort St. James were sold to a developer for $4,050 each,

and the government of the day, because of the lack of interest in the

properties, was not prepared to cancel the auction sale. It was

prepared to sell these properties to a developer at the upset price of

$4,050 per residential lot. Mr. Speaker, there are many other examples,

but these are three examples that I bring to you to respond to the

member who made the suggestion that at no time had their government

ever been involved in releasing Crown land to developers, or to real

estate agents, or to real estate salesmen, or through multiple listing

of real estate farms.

Introduction of Bills

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Legal Services Society Act.

Bill

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 128; minister's office, $144, 082 — continued.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday we heard quite a blast from the minister. He

did a little tub-thumping yesterday evening, and among other things he

said he denied the fact that there is ministerial priority for the

utilization of aircraft, and said that ambulance service gets full

priority for the utilization of government aircraft. If there is such a

thing as an enterprising reporter in the province, I would like him to

check the aircraft logs during the last election. You'll recall that

government ministers were told that they may not use the aircraft

during the election, and there was a surprising increase during that

period of time — and I'm not talking about just a small increase; I'm

talking about a very significant increase — in the utilization of the

government aircraft for air ambulances during the time that the

ministers were not allowed to use the aircraft.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come out and say it.

MR. COCKE:

What do you mean, come out and say it? I said it yesterday, and the

minister denied it. The fact of the matter is, it is factual.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage-mouth!

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I've taken enough from that woodsman over there, and I'd

like him to withdraw "garbage-mouth." He never stands on his feet in

this House to make any kind of comment like that. He sits in his chair,

really a disgrace to this House. I'd like him to withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the member for Omineca to stand in his place and withdraw the remarks.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, if the member for New Westminster dislikes the phrase

"garbage-mouth," I'll leave it to the people of British Columbia when

reading Hansard to decide what it is. I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must ask for an unequivocal withdrawal, please.

MR. KEMPF: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. COCKE:

I guess, Mr. Chairman, what happens when they're playing cabinet

sweepstakes over there is that everybody gets a little petulant.

[ Page 837 ]

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that somebody checks out some of those suggestions.

Another

reason that I was pleased to move the motion of a lack of confidence

was because of the minister's lack of priority in terms of what

deserves a high priority. He has no understanding of the areas that

really deserve priority. He is working aggressively; he's working hard

to try to put together an absolute loser, and the loser is the Heroin

Treatment Program. At the same time as he's spending all that money on

that loser, the waiting lists for elective surgery, the hospital people

indicate, keep growing and growing. The chaos and the morale within the

hospitals is a sign of our times, Mr. Chairman, and it's common

knowledge to all the people in the province that there is a real bad

situation there.

While that situation is there, let's take a

look, for moment or two, at his marvellous Heroin Treatment Program.

First and foremost, he has an approval — listen to this — for 350 staff

for that drug and alcohol program. Right now he actually has 320 on

full-time staff. Ask him, if you will, how many new patients he has.

They're scratching around the province trying to find people hooked on

heroin. His own report told him three years ago that there is hardly

any of the stuff on the street, and what there is so weak that there's

hardly anybody hooked. They're trying to move now, Mr. Chairman, into

other areas of drug abuse with this loser program. I'm told that they

have 104 new patients. That's a fairly significant staff ratio.

Wouldn't the hospitals love to have a situation like that? At the same

time, the addicts come and go at will, apparently, while this case goes

through the courts. There is going to be a great deal of problem in

that situation. We all read the headlines the other day about Brannan

Lake.

When we finally get down to it, what have they got for

a program? Let me use their own words. I happen to have run into some

of the material from the drug and alcohol program, and I see here a

flow chart of behavioural assessment and modification sequence. My

erudite friends over there who know something about behaviour

modification and the fact that it is not a proven way of dealing with

human behaviour could maybe give us some judgment as to whether or not

we should be wasting $12 million on that particular program. Let me

read something that might be interesting to you on urge control — this

is part of the core program at the alcohol and drug treatment for the

heroin addicts. Let me tell you what it says here on the front page:

"Caution:

it should be understood that the treatment procedures advocated herein

were developed and evaluated using members of the general public as

clinical subjects. It is not known how well these procedures will

generalize in their clinical efficacy to the subset of the general

population which has been involved in drug abuse. To this extent, their

application to this population should be considered experimental "

$12 million dollar experiment! Experimental in their own core program!

They cut back on hospitals so that we can have an experimental program.

For those of you who know something about experimental programs, this is a behavioural modification program.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

Do you remember the rats at the university? You studied them, and they

went through the maze, and so on. Here's the maze. Doctor McGeer has

done so many experiments himself over the years. He had real difficulty

sexing a whale one time, as I recall.

Mr. Chairman, let me

talk about this behavioural modification sequence. The first thing we

do here is establish treatment contact with the client — very good —

then we list all the client's problems, and select one problem for

immediate attention. Aha! I can just see how the addicts are going to

be very impressed with the material obtained.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Give me a problem, any problem.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps if you addressed the Chair, it would be easier for Hansard to follow you.

MR. COCKE:

I hate to be joking about something, but it's a joke when you consider

that they're pouring $12 million down the drain on an experimental

program. Is it any wonder the opposition has to move a resolution of

non-confidence in this minister?

Last night I watched the

member for Vancouver South get up and give us the Senator Fogbound

trip. What's he going to say today? How is he going to go back to

Vancouver South and report that his minister is a spendthrift in areas

of absolute experimentation and a skinflint when it comes to dealing

with people's real needs?

HON. MR. MAIR: I've been

invited by the member for New Westminster to point out to him that to

call a member a skinflint is no different that somebody else calling

him a garbage-mouth. It seems to me that namecalling begets namecalling.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, at a previous time, in order to try and find some harmony

in the House, I suggested that members might consider using the mirror

technique on their language: they might consider how language they use

reflects on themselves before they use it to describe others. Perhaps

if all members would consider that when they choose to admonish members

across the floor, the House could proceed in a more orderly fashion.

MR. COCKE:

Certainly I don't want to upset the Minister of Environment: I'll leave

that to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who

certainly did it the other night.

I just want to give you a couple more suggestions from this maze we have here as to how they treat these patients:

"Obtain

concrete examples of the problem, specify target responses, controlling

antecedents, negative response consequences, response strength

frequency, intensity, duration and latency."

I wonder if

it's a good idea to vote for his office vote, or any other vote. I

would suggest that the minister is probably on his way out. His long

association with the group who have been advocating this loser has

really cost this province

[ Page 838 ]

plenty. I think it is about time you backed off, Mr. Minister through you, Mr. Chairman.

Let

me read you one other delightful little item out of this core program.

The heading is: "On Coercion and Motivation." No wonder they are being

attacked in the courts. Even in their own material they are talking

about coercion and motivation. Well, motivation is one thing, but

coercion is something else. This is what they say.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Listen, Mr. Minister, maybe you haven't even read this material:

"Those

who have worked in the field of narcotic dependency for any period of

time are fully aware of the lack of normal civil liberties to which the

narcotic dependent people have access. In point of fact, the health

entry plan is designed to help these individuals reachieve a state

where they have the same access to such freedom that most people

ordinarily enjoy."

Any lawyer listening to that kind of

rationalization for using coercion must surely feel his flesh crawling.

In other words, we can rationalize by saying they're prisoners of their

drugs, or whatever, and so therefore we can make them a prisoner in

order to somehow or other cure them with an experimental program that

nobody knows will work. Well, as a matter of fact, we know it won't

work. It didn't work in Lexington, Kentucky; it didn't work in

California or New York. After billions of dollars have been spent on

these kinds of programs, none of them work. Here we are doing it in a

Mickey Mouse way. Just because! In 1968 and '69 they were having a lot

of trouble down at the Narcotics Addiction Foundation — a great deal of

trouble. I've got the history of it here, and I don't want to go

through it again.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

That's right, and up to '72, that's when they got into trouble over the

LeDain situation. But it's an old-boy thing, and that's where this

minister has gone for his help — his dear old friends, his old Social

Credit Party buddies. It is not good enough. We've got a loser here and

that's part of the reason that I've moved a motion of non-confidence.

anybody wants to acquaint themselves with what's going on in that

program, I would be only too happy to lend them some of this material.

I was thinking of going over it a great deal, and I just thought,

what's the point. The minister hasn't tried to understand to date, and

I suggest that he will not try to understand in the future.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, these are the easy days of summer; it is an afternoon of

brotherly love. Here we are discussing the estimates of the Minister of

Health. Of all things, we have a vote of non-confidence in that

minister, and, Mr. Chairman, to make the irony complete, we have that

motion being put forward by the former Minister of Health. Members of

the assembly who have any memory at all will have an opportunity to

compare the performance of this minister in office with his predecessor

— the one who wishes to put forward the motion of non-confidence. I

think the House can be reminded that the member who moves the

non-confidence motion entered into government when the treasury was

groaning, due to the prudence of those who held office before that

little socialist movement....

AN HON. MEMBER: What about your old speeches?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I make no apologies for the fact that some of that money, in fact a

good deal of it, could have been well spent. Never ever did I stand up

in the House, Mr. Chairman, and advocate that the money be wasted —

poured down the drain — on senseless planning, silly schemes and inept

management. After all, that's what we had for three years.

I'm

just prefacing my remarks and contrasting the performance of the

present minister and his predecessor who moved the motion of

non-confidence. This minister had to work under the worst handicap that

any Minister of Health, in the last two or three generations, has had

to work under.

Whereas the former minister who spoiled, as did many of

his colleagues, the golden opportunity they had to manage and plan well

to improve the services had yet to see the way in which they squandered

the public's money and their own opportunity.

I can remember

the early days when that member was the Minister of Health. He really

wasn't too sure what to do, so he hired one of his friends, a physician

named Foulkes. How many remember the Foulkes report? It cost perhaps $1

million, was a tome that thick and contained perhaps 1,000

recommendations — at least several hundred. Don't you wish you had

never made it public? When nothing was happening in that Ministry of

Health, we heard day after day after day that this great plan was

coming forward, as Foulkes put it forward — a massive $1 million total

of wasted money. Then when it finally came in, Mr. Chairman, after we

waited for all these months for something to be done, the minister said

that he wasn't going to follow the recommendations. At least he showed

a little wisdom there, even if he showed no wisdom with the $1 million

that was wasted on that plan.

Then, Mr. Chairman, what did

we have after that? We had the B.C. Medical Centre. Do you remember

that? Not many people remember, Mr. Chairman, that during the whole

period that they were in office and hiring people at high prices, all

they did was plan and plan and plan. So there was another $10 million

wasted on planning. There was no performance at all during that period

of office. All we did was raise the costs of running those hospitals

enormously, getting no extra service, no planning for better training,

no improvement in programs and no increase in the numbers of hospitals.

They couldn't do it. All they were doing was hiring so-called experts

to plan, and then when they got the plans, they threw them away. That's

why they couldn't do anything constructive. All they did was take the

money and shovel it out there without bringing services, without

bringing education, without bringing planning of any kind.

what happened, Mr. Chairman, when this government came into office with

the treasury empty, with the bills arriving every day? I can remember

those early days on Treasury Board. Just when you thought you had a

budget planned, a new stack of NDP bills and unpaid promises

[ Page 839 ]

arrived.

So we had to make up a completely new budget until we could finally

make some sense out of all the expenditures and all the obligations

that were coming in, and put together a hospital budget.

But

notwithstanding those enormous handicaps, Mr. Chairman, that minister

began to go to work and plan for health services that no government

previously had been able to provide. Do you realize that we have put —

after years and years of promises, including three years of promises

under the NDP — a chronic-care program into effect?

I want

the new member for Coquitlam to listen very carefully, because you

moved in with a group of people and you weren't responsible for the way

they squandered money, their lack of planning, their lack of

imagination, their lack of introduction of solid programs during the

whole term that they were in government. But you're associating

yourself with them and you might as well learn what their record is. I

hope to heaven that you will be able, in the time you're here, at least

to plan sensible debate. One way will be to understand the record of

your own members so that when they come in here, as that member did,

putting forward a vote of non-confidence, you could think a little bit,

ruminate on his record during office, versus the man who presently is

the incumbent, and who he has the gall to vote non-confidence in.

Some

of us were here when he was performing, and we've been here while the

present minister has been performing. I tell you that here we've

brought in for the first time in the history of British Columbia

something that nobody has asked for more than the NDP in all their

years in opposition — namely a chronic-care program. Yet when they had

the opportunity, the obligation and the money, did they produce that

program? No, Mr. Chairman. Yet this minister has been able to do it

while the social services tax in this province is first of all cut from

7 percent to 5 percent, and then 5 percent to 4 percent. Still those

extra services have been provided. The reason that these things can be

done is because we have a minister and a ministry and a government that

does not squander money. When you spend your money well, then you can

bring these extra services and cut taxes.

I would like to

ask the member opposite who moved that motion of non-confidence to

answer this question. As a citizen of British Columbia, where else in

the world would he prefer to be if he's sick or if his family is sick?

For whose services would he trade in British Columbia the services

provided by that minister? Don't tell me the United States. Don't tell

me Great Britain. Don't tell me the other provinces in Canada, who have

been unable to bring forward the depth and the breadth....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

All right, let the member for Coquitlam-Moody stand up and tell us

where he would rather be if he were sick. He sat in the national

parliament. He knows the agreements that were established by the

there, Mr. Chairman, when the federal government terminated those

open-ended programs and left a number of provinces in Canada unable to

meet their hospital bills. He was there when those actions took place,

and he knows what the consequences of this action are going to be in

some of the less affluent provinces in Canada. He knows the

restrictions that are now being placed in Ontario and in Quebec and in

the Maritimes. And he knows that those restrictions are not appearing

here in British Columbia, nor will they appear. Why? Because we've got

a government that's prudent financially and has a social conscience.

These are the things that need to be remembered in debate. What we also

need to remember is the performance of that government and that

minister when he was in charge of this important portfolio.

No,

Mr. Chairman, what we've got is a stunning record from that minister.

There is $500 million now being spent, not on planning, not on useless

reports, but on building hospital beds. What have we got? Now, for the

second year, we have a complete comprehensive chronic-care program in

British Columbia — something that no government, no matter how good

their will and intentions, has been able to produce before. All these

things are happening while taxes in British Columbia are being cut and

while we have every confidence in this province that we will be able to

meet all the obligations to the people of British Columbia for their

health care, despite the actions of the federal government, and despite

the terror that lies in the hearts of Ministries of Health in less

affluent provinces in this country.

I ask again — indeed, I

challenge the member who brought forward that non-confidence motion —

to stand up in this House and say which province he would rather be in,

which country he would rather be in, where he could go that he

genuinely believes he could get better health care than under that

minister, and in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, estimates do not afford the opportunity for members to

question those people whose estimates are not being discussed. It's my

recollection that only members of the executive council have estimates

to pass through Committee of Supply.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to deal for a moment with the last speaker's

advice to the House. He impresses some of his own colleagues, and he

might impress somebody out there — if they're not informed. I would

like to inform the people of British Columbia, who are interested, on

two things that member discussed.

The first was the Medical

Centre. The B.C. Medical Centre concept, Mr. Chairman, was the concept

that led us to where we are now. Actually, the government tried to

reverse everything, but they couldn't manage it. They're still winding

up with a Children's Hospital on the Shaughnessy site. They're still

winding up with the high-risk maternity on the Shaughnessy site, et

cetera. Sure, they destroyed millions of dollars worth of planning and

organization, not because of the Minister of Health but because of this

minister, the Minister of Education, who wanted to build a monument to

himself out at UBC. It's called the UBC Hospital. That hospital is

going to cost the people in this province an absolute arm and a leg. I

want to hear the Minister of Health stand up today and tell us he's

going to be able to run that hospital for less than $400 a day. It's

going to cost him more than $400 a day to run that hospital, and that's

what the Minister of Education costs this province. Sure, they're

throwing down the barrel and throwing down the tube all those plans,

the best concepts we could have come up with, and the concept that is

working so well now in Quebec city.

[ Page 840 ]

Mr.

Chairman, we had Sherbrooke as an example — a university hospital. They

couldn't attract the patients, and it's a white elephant. Then we went

to Hamilton, just to prove it to ourselves, where they built another

one. One of the reasons they've had to close so many beds in Ontario is

to force the people to get into that hospital.

Mr. Chairman,

one of the best pieces of advice I ever got was from one of the best

Ministers of Health I've ever met in this country. Yes, he had the

unfortunate experience of being a Liberal, and he had to quit. His name

was Claude Castonguay. He also wrote a report, and one of the pieces of

advice I sought from him was: "What would you do? Would you take the

Laval system, where you incorporate the hospitals and the teaching

centres, or would you just go for a university hospital?" He said:

"Stay away from a university hospital. They'll kill you." True.

That's

what that one is going to do to us. That monument to the Minister of

Education.... And he stands up and talks about waste. I can't believe

it. He's the mastermind of waste.

Mr. Chairman, I have no

excuses. I'm not the least bit ashamed about the Medical Centre. I'm

not ashamed of a lot of the things we did. I'm not ashamed of the

ambulance service this government boasts about as though they invented

it. We brought it in. They know it.

That minister was the

guy, when he brought in the new rates for car insurance, who said: "If

they can't afford insurance, let them sell their cars." He's saying

now: "If they can't afford health care, let them get sick," and

whatever. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of approach we

don't need. The one thing I say to that Minister of Education is he

would be better off if he would get back to the university, do his

research and quit costing the people of this province an absolute arm

and a leg. Because he's sure done it in health care.

MR. BARNES: I have a couple of questions for the minister.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We're on a motion.

MR. BARNES: I know there is a motion, but I think, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What's the motion'?

MR. BARNES:

This is what I mean. Before I get out my first statement the minister's

expressing his arrogance. The reason there is a non-confidence motion

before the House right now is because of the minister's attitude.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I wish I could put that in words — look at him over there, moaning and groaning.

I'm not in the mood for acrimony, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to communicate

to the minister some of the concerns that we have on this side of the House,

and why we're expressing our dissatisfaction with the minister's performance.

I'm trying to deal in specific examples. I just want to indicate two examples

of why I, at least, for one, do not have confidence in the minister's sincerity,

integrity and commitment to serving not only constituents in his own constituency

and the province but in the constituency of Vancouver Centre, where a number

of appeals have been made to his office asking for assistance.

Efforts

have been made to communicate concerns, especially in the downtown area

of Vancouver and Chinatown. I'm sure the minister will recall

delegations that have attempted to have an audience with him to discuss

the industry of barbecued pork in the Chinatown area. It's a

2,000-year-old-custom, a 2,000-year-old method that has been successful

in storing meats for public consumption without incident, only

accusations. Despite the things that have been said by the former

Ministry of Health official in the city of Vancouver, Mr. Gerald

Bonham, who is now one of your field inspectors, I believe.... These

people have been persecuted, prosecuted and threatened, and are

presently being taken to court by city inspectors because they insist

on practising a tradition for which there is no evidence to suggest

that they should do otherwise, other than health regulations which say

that meats have to be kept at -40 degrees Celsius or above 140 degrees

Celsius.

For no other reason than regulations, we have an

example of indifference and bureaucratic stubbornness by a government

that refuses to negotiate or sit down and discuss the hard facts of an

industry that is vital to a community that we benefit from in terms of

promoting tourism in this province. It's an industry that hundreds of

families depend upon, and that has been successful without incident,

generating some $20,000 a day in that sector alone. It's one which I

would think — especially when you have a government that is bereft of

any kind of initiative of its own in terms of economic development or

industrial growth — a government would want to encourage.

here we have a very small operation in terms of the provincial gross

product, I'm sure, but nonetheless vital in that area. It is

attractive, and is very successful, and I'm sure the minister himself

has benefited on many occasions when he has attended banquets in that

area and enjoyed the foods there. I'm sure he suffered from no

salmonella or any other kinds of poisoning. There just isn't any

evidence, only innuendo, and suggestion, and the possibility and the

probability kinds of projections that people have been suggesting may

happen, could happen, or might happen. But in 2,000 years not one

single case has been proven against the method.

I think that

the minister has a duty to take a look at traditional values, as well

as those that we concoct in the Legislature and in the councils of this

province, when trying to impose upon people without any attempt to

communicate with them or understand the daily practical realities that

they have to deal with. Instead of the indifference that has existed,

I'm sure that even if the minister had shown some concern and care, and

attempted to debate some of the problems that his ministry felt were

out of his jurisdiction — just had gone and sat and listened, been

concerned, made recommendations, had a few pilot projects, to attempt

to try and find a solution on an amicable basis there would be no need

for the attitude that this side of the House has had to develop in

expressing non-confidence. That's an example.

In the whole

field of health care, I think the minister has an abominable record in

terms of his attitude and concept of where values lie in this province.

As the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) pointed out last evening,

the minister is not committed to resolving the health-care problems;

he's committed to balancing his budget, and he's very stringent in

pushing the different health-care units in the province to

[ Page

841 ]

hold the line at 5 percent and 7 percent on their costs. There is no question

that there is a very rigid attitude about people and about the things that really

matter on a daily basis.

Sure,

we all have to pay taxes, but, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I'm very

much concerned about people who expend these taxes, having no time, no

ear for listening and no willingness to be flexible in extenuating

circumstances. One of the difficulties in any administration is trying

to draw across-the-board policy statements and making decisions that

are indiscriminate in terms of the realities that exist in different

situations. It's sort of similar to the attitude of the former Minister

of Human Resources who decided that democracy was too cumbersome, and

therefore we should get rid of the Vancouver Resources Board. He felt

that it was much easier to operate in the domain of his ministry than

to work with elected representatives in the various communities. This

is another example of endorsing the rhetoric of a democratic society

but, in fact, not being willing to participate in the practical

day-to-day basis.

This leads me, Mr. Chairman, to the other

point that I wanted to raise. I want to give an example of how this

minister's attitude is one that does not instil confidence in terms of

his image with the public. The situation deals with the detoxification

centre in the city of Vancouver. The North Mount Pleasant community

council attempted to consult with his ministry and other officials,

including the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, Mr. Bert

Hoskin, who was responsible for consulting in the development of that

program. They felt — just as the people feel right now with the

multiplex proposal in Vancouver — that they would like to have some

input before a decision was made. They attempted to go to the city

council to make their representations. Because there is a long-standing

problem with detoxification, everyone was in a hurry to get the project

underway. Certainly that is with some validity, because it has been a

number of years and many aldermen in the city of Vancouver have been

frustrated in attempting to resolve the problem.

In this particular case North Mount Pleasant community planners were not opposed

to the site which was eventually decided upon in the Great Northern Way in the

city of Vancouver. They were not opposed to the site; they merely asked your

ministry to give them an opportunity for some assurances that this plan to finally

resolve the need for a more acceptable detoxification centre would, in fact,

achieve the goals that it was intended to. In other words, those persons who

were going to be coming on their 72-hour day would not find themselves in residence,

which is a reasonable question. But there were no assurances that it was not

going to be a residential treatment centre, but just a centre for 72 hours or

less to deal with an immediate problem of drying out. There were no assurances

that there wouldn't be other programs associated with detoxification that

would spill over into the community, which would have a new impact on the community.

It could be like creating a new satellite of a downtown area. I think that the

community had a valid right to inquire, without undermining the efforts of well-meaning

people who wanted to resolve a serious problem. But my point here is that there

was a lack of interest on behalf of your ministry to say: "Look, we don't

want to go beyond these people's desires to have dialogue. After we've

permitted some time for that, perhaps then we can make a decision agreeable to

everyone."

But,

Mr. Chairman, the minister threatened city council; he used

heavy-handed power and threatened to withdraw the funds if they didn't

proceed, notwithstanding the fact that there had been attempts by a

local community citizens' organization to have dialogue. That's where

the attitude that I'm talking about comes in. The minister said: "Well,

if you're not prepared to move, we're not prepared to wait any longer,

and we'll spend the money elsewhere. We're not permitting any further

opportunity for dialogue or debate. There has been too much delay

already."

Was very similar to the mayor standing up in the

city and saying he wants to go ahead with the multiplex. "The heck with

the dialogue: the heck with the people in the east side of town and all

of these problems like traffic and so forth; we want action."

one, I think, with any experience would suggest that a democratic

process is a simple, efficient process. It's a cumbersome,

time-consuming process, but if it's going to have any value, then we're

going to have to be tolerant and permit it to take its course. When you

start circumventing it, as your ministry is doing in attempting to try

and get the political kudos that you would like before the next

election so you can say you have done this and you have done the other,

then you're going to undermine the system that we rely upon, Mr.

Chairman. It ensures that everyone has an opportunity for input,

dialogue and feedback.

I think you may feel that these are

not important considerations when you have, as you pointed out, well

over a billion dollars to spend on health care on behalf of the people.

You seem to be frustrated by the onerous task that you have before you,

and you don't have time for ordinary day-to-day problems that people

feel are important. I sympathize with you, but you have the job.

You

joined the Social Credit Party because you felt you couldn't wait until

the Progressive Conservatives made it, and now that you are in that

position.... I don't think you are a true Socred, are you? Very few of

your colleagues are. I thought you must have belonged to some other

party, but maybe I'm wrong. You'll explain that when you stand up, will

you?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. BARNES: You'll get your time in a minute.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, you told me you wanted an explanation.

MR. BARNES: Sure, in due course.

MR. LEA: He's got a gold Social Credit card.

MR. BARNES: He's got a gold one?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Right on.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister's motivation may have been well

intentioned in his desire to assist in the field of health care, but I

think he has some private, personal ambitions which make it difficult

for him to do the job properly. In that respect, I think he could do

with a course in human relations and maybe understand how important it

is to go at the pace of the people that he is affecting.

[ Page 842 ]

can assure you that we are not trying to stall for time by saying that

we have no confidence in you, because I believe that the job you have

is a very big job administratively, and is very complex. The extra

challenge you have to face is the fact that ordinary people do have

something to say and they should be listened to. When you don't have

time to listen to them, you're going down the wrong course, Mr.

Chairman, and that's exactly why I decided to stand up and make these

representations.

As far as the Chinese merchants who depend

on the sale of barbequed pork for their livelihood in their community

are concerned, they've lost confidence in you simply because you are

not listening. You've turned a deaf ear. You are not prepared to

resolve a serious problem. These people are being prosecuted daily for

violations of the health bylaws in the city of Vancouver, bylaws which

shouldn't even be on the books. Even the federal government recognizes

that, and you should recognize it, but you're being superbureaucratic

and superstubborn, and appearing to be indifferent when you know that

there is a wrong being perpetrated on that community.

I'm

saying that you should go down and listen, and you should say: "Look,

let's resolve this problem in the best interests of the local

merchants, the province and the Ministry of Tourism." People don't want

to buy bark; they don't want to buy pork that has been under 140

degrees all day long — it's going to dry out. They have a system that

has worked for 2,000 years, Mr. Chairman. Why is it that we can't

recognize this as a custom, as a tradition that has proven itself to be

far greater than some of our scientists think the solutions they have,

in the customary sense in other markets, are?

There are

other things that can be done. Biochemical improvements in standards

could perhaps resolve some of the problems in terms of the bacteria, if

that's a concern. There are other ways of coping with the problem

besides forcing them to turn their barbequed pork into bark.

The

question of communicating with the residents in the North Mount

Pleasant area is a similar problem. It's not that anything is perhaps

going to change in terms of the plans to construct that detoxification

centre on the Great Northern Way, but I think there should be some

assurances to that community that the detoxification centre will be

within the limits of the design, that it will not be something else. In

other words, you get one foot in and you bring the whole horse in:

you've got a whole, big master plan that they had no knowledge of, and

there's the impact on the community. Give them the assurance that the

specifications will be rigidly followed, that the scope of this complex

will be no greater than what has been required or specified. These are

assurances that I think they have a right to. Unfortunately they don't

have any other course, other than to consult an opposition member and

ask him to try and intervene or make some representations in the

Legislature, which means very little when the minister, as you have

demonstrated in the past, is not prepared to respond.

would say that these people's voices should be heard, and they should

be seriously listened to. We could make a very serious mistake in that

instance, even though it is a vital and very important facility you are

intending to construct.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would say to the minister: get a clue from what

is happening with the multiplex on the PNE site right now, or at least the proposed

multiplex. There is an example of some forces pushing for what they feel will

be a boon to the sports field and to the different spinoff effects in terms

of sales and promotions. I think the example we should get from that is that

the people in the community had no idea, until after commitments had been made

and we'd brought in the stadium fund Act, and the thing was almost....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The stadium fund Act?

MR. BARNES:

Well, sure, and a convention centre as well. You know, there's a

relationship, because after we create a white elephant and we have the

taxpayers' money committed and we find out it isn't resolving a

problem, that it is not meeting the needs and we have to do a lot of

second-guessing, it's too late. That's why we have the democratic

process, Mr. Chairman. That's why we need the time.

Surely

you can remember that with your Heroin Treatment Program you've got the

same thing. You started off with a program that was going to be

comprehensive. You had a $16 million or $18 million commitment. You

found out you only needed $8 million, and then you found out all the

people in your facility were counsellors. You don't even have any

patients, and you're too afraid to enforce the compulsory phase. It's

an example of an ambitious idea without much thought, without any

communication, without any relationship to the realities of what a

program such as that will have on the community.

I suggest

to you that there's every reason to question your ability to

communicate with the community, as well as to question your

administrative ability. I think the two are separate. Perhaps you have

overemphasized one without recognizing the importance of the other. I

say this not from a political opponent's standpoint, but from one of

interest and concern for you, Mr. Minister, and the success of your

ministry. I would like to see you do a good job, because we're paying

you to do a good job. The public needs to have a good job done in your

ministry. Unless you do a good job, then you are going to be

criticized. But I don't think it's to my advantage to see you fail —

from a non-political standpoint, that is.

The main concern

right now, in this time of strained dollars and hard times and

unemployment and the frustrations the people have because of the heavy

hand of commercialism and the high pressures of tax collectors and bill

collectors and the rising costs of everything you conceivably need, is

that we need integrity at least in people in your position. We need

compassion, understanding, cooperation, a willingness to be flexible

and a desire to appear to be doing a good job. In other words, take the

patience to talk to people.

I will be voting in favour of

this motion, because I haven't as yet heard anything from the minister

indicating that it should be otherwise.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

First of all, I suppose, I should acknowledge, apologize and plead

guilty to one of the charges the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Barnes) made: I have some ambition; that's true. I know that

member wouldn't understand anyone having any kind of personal ambition.

That member is incredible. I don't believe what I've just heard here; I

just simply don't believe it.

[ Page 843 ]

stands in here and talks about care and concern and understanding — all

those great and humanitarian principles — and about the barbequed-pork

merchants. You're a year late. Where were you a year ago when this

debate was going on? Where were you when those people were in my office

talking to me? The door has not been closed on any of those people.

They have met with me, but I sure didn't hear from their MLA. When was

the last time you contacted my office about this, Mr. Member? Tell me.

When was the last time you ever contacted my office on behalf of any

one of your constituents? You've never done it; never once. Now all of

a sudden, Mr. Member, you looked back into one of your old files and

you recognized one that said "barbequed meat." You came out of hiding

on Vancouver Island, and you thought: "I'd better say something about

Vancouver Centre, or they're going to get after me." So you said

something about Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: What are you getting so frantic about? Deal with the facts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

What an incredible member! I'm glad, though, that member and the

previous member talked about the alcohol programs and the Heroin

Treatment Program of the ministry, because it gives me the opportunity

to give a short report to the Legislature about those programs. I take

a great deal of pride in the achievements we've made in a very short

time, in the consistency of growth of the programs dealing with

alcoholism and in the increasing capacity to provide support to the

individual caught up in an alcohol or other drug dependency. This

progress has been achieved in large part because of the dedication of

the direct service units of the ministry and the many funded agencies,

about 45 of them throughout the province, that are operated by

community boards under the direction, financial support and guidance of

the ministry and the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

In the

field of alcoholism, by the end of fiscal year 1978-79 the Alcohol and

Drug Commission had increased its intensive residential treatment beds

in the province to 93; supportive home beds to 215; detoxification

centre beds to a total of 108; and now has outpatient counselling

services operating in 35 communities of this province.

One

of the highlights of the year's activities, perhaps of the three years'

activities and this year's expansion, was the development of the first

native Indian residential treatment centre at Round Lake, with a 24-bed

capacity, which I had the pleasure of officially opening on May 25,

1979. This project was achieved though the efforts of the federal and

provincial governments, and the Interior Native Alcohol Abuse Society.

Hopefully we will be able to increase our facilities for our native

people in recognition of their special cultural and other lifestyles.

Also, another unique eight-bed residential facility was opened in the

Queen Charlotte Islands to serve as a holding unit for assessment

purposes and a short-term intervention program.

Two other

highlights, Mr. Chairman, are in the field of industrial alcoholism,

where the cooperation between management, labour and the ministry —

through its professional development division of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission — has increasingly provided help to the problem-drinker

employee through the employee assistance program, and in the field of

preventive education.

The other "first" was in the

proclamation of Provincial Alcohol Awareness Week, October 16 to 20. I

am proud to say that the Alcohol and Drug Commission's information

services promoted an effective awareness week, which will be continued

this year. The consultant-designer for the commission won a bronze

award from the Graphic Designers of Canada for his creative and very

telling alcohol posters during that campaign.

I am pleased

to report that the Heroin Treatment Program has been developing quite

favourably throughout the province. To date, some 306 individuals have

indicated an interest in treatment in this new program. Evaluation

panels have been set up all over the province. The recruitment of

members for our evaluation panels under the Act has been most

encouraging. These panels have been recruited and operate in Kelowna,

Victoria, Nanaimo and Vancouver. They are composed of individuals who

are highly respected in their professions and in the community. To date

there have been 26 physicians, 4 lawyers, 4 psychologists, 12 lay

persons and 1 nurse. They also include a hospital board chairman,

several ex-school board chairmen, an ex-chairman of the Associated

Boards of Health in the province, one ex-Deputy Minister of Health for

British Columbia, and, I think, Mr. Chairman, one past-president of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons, and possibly two past-presidents of

the British Columbia Medical Association. I am quite proud of the

calibre of people who have come to those assessment panels, and who

have came also to serve us in the Ministry of Health through the

Alcohol and Drug Commission in the Heroin Treatment Program itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many are being treated in the program?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just gave you that information. Unfortunately that member was not listening.

Out

of some 352 inquiries by potential patients, we have had some 97

assessments of the kind that were necessary; 118 have commenced

treatment to this point. We have 219 in treatment as special-status

treatment programs. So that's just under 350 people in treatment at

this time.

MR. COCKE: Oh, come on! You've got the old methadone program thrown in there.

MS. BROWN: You have just more than 100 patients.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That is the total number of people in treatment at this point.

am quite proud of the way things have been going, and I must say the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has talked about addicts coming

and going at will at Brannan Lake Centre. Yes, the compulsory aspect of

the program is not in place. We would be foolish, to say the least, and

somewhat presumptuous, to attempt to introduce that aspect of the

program until the constitutional challenge, which is before the courts,

is fully discharged. We expect that will be within a matter of days,

and certainly within a matter of weeks. We will then be able to

continue with the rest of the program.

But, Mr. Chairman, I don't think any thinking person in British Columbia wants us to delay this program or to delay

[ Page 844 ]

treatment

of those people who are coming forward to us more and more on their

own. The courts are finding increasing favour with the program. The

word on the street, among the addicts, is changing considerably about

the nature of our program. Many of them have seen Brannan Lake; they

know what we have in Brannan Lake. I'd like to invite some of the

members of the opposition to show their concern and understanding, and

find out. I'd like also to invite some of the members of the opposition

— and, in fact, all members of this House, someday — to a seminar in

which we can go over our treatment programs in detail. I think the

members should meet the people involved in our programs, anyway. I'm

sure that, as responsible members of the community and MLAs, they'd be

happy to do that. I'd be happy to set it up some time in the future.

hear a great deal of rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, from that side of the

House about the government's Heroin Treatment Program. But, you know,

the one thing we still don't hear, and we have never heard in all the

years we've discussed this problem, is any kind of suggestion of a

positive nature from those humanitarians on the other side of the House

about a viable alternative to what we are doing. We've heard not a

word, unless you call the Leader of the Opposition's benign neglect

some kind of a positive solution to this problem. That's what he says:

"Forget the addicts. Benign neglect is the best way to treat heroin

addicts." The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) expressed

his hope that the plan would backfire and fail.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's what you said, Mr. Member, and that's what you want to happen.

Mr.

Chairman, maybe that opposition does have a proposal. But we sure

haven't heard about it, my staff has never heard about it, the people

of British Columbia have never heard about it — unless it's benign

neglect. They don't have a proposal to develop their obligations to

resolve the misery and degradation of the user, or the medical, social

and financial burden that we all bear as citizens of this province.

And,

you know, $12 million.... Well, it isn't going to be $12 million for

this year; it'll be about $9 million perhaps. But even if it were $12

million or $20 million, would that be too much to pay for a program

which is going to alleviate the costs of crime, and the fifth largest

industry in this province?

Mr. Chairman, where are the

alternatives from that opposition? I don't intend to get into the same

debate that we got into when this bill was before the House. The bill

has been debated, and that debate is over. The program is continuing

and will continue. I make no apologies at all for the fact that this

government is doing everything it possibly can to give the individual

caught up in chemical dependency, for the first time in his or her

life, a real opportunity to achieve a meaningful and rewarding

lifestyle, and to be part of the same kind of lifestyle that you and I

have.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't believe that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I believe that and yes, it will happen.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, you know, the members opposite can say and do what they want

but the general public of this province is with us in this program. I

wonder how many of those humanitarians over there ever bothered to

think about the anguish of the hundreds of parents and husbands and

wives and children who for years have been crying out for help, with

nowhere to go.

We've had 50 years of benign neglect in this

province, and of philosophical debate about heroin dependency, while

we've allowed the destructive force of that drug dependency to eat away

at the very fabric of our province. This is a five-year demonstration

project, which is the boldest approach ever taken in the world in this

regard, and it is an initiative that is unparalleled. Maybe it won't be

completely successful, but we think it will help.

I would

like to share with the members of this House some indication that maybe

it is in fact working. Maybe there's a chance that some people will be

helped because of this program. We have had the very first patient to

go through detoxification and withdrawal and begin the treatment

program at the Brannan Lake intensive-care unit.

MR. LEA: What is the treatment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I've offered to put on a seminar for those members who

have not had the interest, and I would be happy to do that at any time

they wish. The treatment program is public, it is available for

scrutiny and, if that member had wanted, he could have read about it;

but I will be happy to put on a seminar for him at any time.

have one person that I just want to tell this House about. I think it's

important that you hear about this person, who has been through detox

and is in treatment at the present time and will be back in his own

community and back at work by the end of July. We'll call him Gerry for

the purposes of this debate. We can't use his real name, of course. But

he says: "For the first time in more than 12 years, I will be

completely drug-free and I intend to stay that way." Gerry started

using illicit drugs in 1969, and graduated to heroin at the age of 15.

He was a volunteer for treatment at Brannan Lake. He had been on the

methadone maintenance program but he had found both his life and his

health deteriorating from the constant need to rely on that heroin

substitute in order to keep working and stay self-supporting.

And,

I suppose, the government had in fact contributed in a large way to

making him a methadone addict rather than a heroin addict. Employed at

a MacMillan-Bloedel pulp mill, Gerry went to his boss and told the boss

his problems.

"The boss was great. I told him

I wanted to become completely drug-free, and the only way to do it was

to volunteer for the three-year Heroin Treatment Program and go to

Brannan Lake to withdraw from methadone. He not only gave me the time

off, but I've been drawing my pay, under sick leave, during the whole

time I was in the residential treatment centre. " Gerry says the fact

that MacMillan Bloedel imposed no time limit on his withdrawal and

recovery time eased the pressure.

"If they had

told me, 'Okay, we'll give you three weeks or a month to get it right,'

I would probably have blown it under the pressure to meet

[ Page 845 ]

that deadline. But they told me to take all the time I needed.

Under

the Heroin Treatment Program regulations patients may remain in Brannan

Lake for up to six months. Gerry, one of the first patients admitted to

the centre, has been there just over three months. On release he will

continue to attend the nearest community clinic available, and he will

be subject to the treatment rules for the balance of the three-year

program. Gerry goes on to say:

"I've already

been out several times, making arrangements for a return to work, and

for my sessions at the community clinic. I found you have to make a

real effort to resist the temptation to return to old hangouts and old

friends. You've got to realize you can't afford to allow yourself to

slip into your old habits. "

Gerry attributes his rapid progress through the residential treatment centre's program to three things:

"My own desire to be completely drug-free; the tremendous

help and attitude of the treatment staff; and the great support I get from my

employer. "

A spokesman for MacMillan Bloedel, incidentally — and I think this is important

to say as well — says that the attitude displayed by Gerry's boss is not

unusual. In fact, it is official company policy. It's a good corporate citizen

at work, I would say. They have an in-service alcohol and drug counselling program

designed to provide their employees not only with advice but support and guidance

as well. They should be congratulated for that.

The

point is, Mr. Chairman, without the Heroin Treatment Program in place,

Gerry would have been just another junkie looking for help when there

was no help available. If that program continues to work in that way,

if the success rate is 40 percent, or 30 percent, or 20 percent, over

the period of the program, then I'll consider it to have been a great

success.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, there have been

suggestions since this motion of non-confidence in the Minister of

Health that for some unknown reason the Minister of Health doesn't want

to give the hospitals enough money to operate in a healthy manner. On

the face of it that would have to seem ridiculous. What possible reason

could there be for the Minister of Health to have everyone who works in

the health industry angry at him? What possible reason could there be

that he would want to have the general public angry at him? What

possible reason could there be that the minister would want to come

into this Legislature and have the members of the opposition, and

probably some in the back bench, angry at him? It doesn't make sense.

Why would the minister go out of his way to starve the health-care

system in order to get himself into trouble? Can anybody think of a

reason why the minister would want to do that? The answer, of course,

is that there couldn't possibly be a reason why the minister would want

to do that. So then the question has to be: if it isn't the minister,

then who is it who wants to make that decision, and why? Obviously it's

happening. Obviously we have other areas of government getting gigantic

increases in the percentage basis on their budget. As somebody pointed

out the other day, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has had

up to a 60 percent increase in his budget in some areas. First of all

you have to say: "Here's a government that says, "We must put some sort

of austerity program together. either because we want and feel we need

it, or at least so the public out there think we're doing something

about keeping the cost of everything down, or that we're trying to be

responsible and bring austerity to government." Then you have to ask:

"If they're going to do that, why would they choose that sensitive area

of health care to be the area that they're going to show as an example

of a frugal government, by putting an austerity program into being?"

Again, it doesn't make sense on the face of it. Why would a government

give the Highways ministry a 60 percent increase and hold the

health-care system in the province down to 5 percent? Why? I want

everyone to think about that. Why would a government do that? Why would

they give the hardware departments of government gigantic percentage

increases and yet take social services, in terms of health, and impose

a 5 percent limitation? It's hard to think of a reason. I suggest to

you that, unless there is a political reason somewhere behind the door,

there is no reason at all. In fact there are many reasons not to do

that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

So, if we've

decided it's a political reason, we have to examine the evidence in

front of us and try to decide what that political reason could be that

the people receiving health care in this province are suffering, as are

the people working in health care, to a degree. They are suffering

because of the miserly amount of increase that the government and this

minister have put forward as a percentage increase allowed in health

care.

What we have to do is examine the man who is

responsible for it all, the Premier. The Premier is the man who has the

final say on what's going to be happening on the budgetary items of

this government. He's the person who had the final say in the Ministry

of Highways getting a 60 percent increase, and the Ministry of Health a

5 percent increase. Why? If there is no sensible reason that you can

see, then I suggest that it is politics, because oftentimes politics

doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense.

First, let's

cast our minds back to the nominating convention of the now Premier as

leader of the opposition Social Credit Party. We find that the Minister

of Health was one of the people who ran against him. We also find that

the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways was the

person who nominated the Minister of Health to run against the present

leader of the Social Credit Party. Who are the people within that

Social Credit Party that threaten the present Premier and his

leadership role? How have they been dealt with one at a time? The

Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) — was he a threat to the Premier'? What happened to him?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He didn't run.

MR. LEA:

Oh, but he was a political threat. He said he wanted to run, and that

his ambition was to be the Premier of this province, and he would do

anything for his personal ambition. The Minister of Health also says he

aspires to this. He says: "I have personal ambition, and I'm not

ashamed of that." Well, he's already in the cabinet. Where to now, Mr.

Minister'? Where does your personal ambition take you? How better to

get rid of a political threat to your backside than to take a minister

who may be capable of unseating you, and to do him in in his own

portfolio — to

[ Page 846 ]

make

that minister look bad, incompetent, cold-hearted and miserly. Let's

starve that ministry, and we don't care how it affects the people who

look for services in health care. We don't care how it affects the

people who are working in health care, as long as we don't have that

political threat on our backside called the Minister of Health.

One

by one you see them falling off. The former Minister of Human

Resources, who was a threat a scant three and a half years ago, is no

longer a threat after a couple of demotions and a shove sideways. Now

the people who have to go to the government to get services from Human

Resources have to deal with the present Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), whom I wouldn't want to go to if I needed help.

Would you? Is that the kind of person you'd want to go to and say:

"Look, I'm up against it in this system and I'd like a little help."

Would you go to that minister with that kind of plea? Isn't it nice

that they're all being sorted out?

What is the

responsibility of the Minister of Health? The responsibility of that

minister is to represent health care in the cabinet of British

Columbia, and then to deliver what he gets from cabinet to the people

of British Columbia. Non-confidence? How can people have confidence in

a Minister of Health who goes to the Treasury Board and cabinet and

comes back with an amount of money that means that we have to close

children's wards and general wards, and that we have to have

understaffed wards in this province. It also means that we have to cut

back on the whole health-care program because that minister cannot get

the right amount of money from the government.

The Minister

of Highways has no problem. He had no problem getting not only a bigger

percentage increase to his regular budget, but he had no problem going

back and getting special warrants to spend more money on highways — no

problem whatsoever. There was no problem in coming up with $50 million

to put a share program together that would give the people of British

Columbia something they already owned — no problem getting money for

that. There was no problem with money during the last election campaign

when you had the Premier even going to church on Sunday morning and

handing out a cheque — no problem getting money for that kind of

spending. There was no problem in getting a little more money from the

lottery fund to members of the Social Credit Party in Port Alberni just

prior to an election campaign. Why has there been no problem in every

area of government getting a few extra bucks, except where that

minister is concerned?

I believe that if the minister was

sincere about trying to deliver an adequate health-care system to this

province, and knowing the way the Premier feels about him, and knowing

that as long as the Premier feels that way, he'll never get any money,

because the object is to make that minister look bad to everyone so the

Premier gets the threat off his back.... That minister, if he had any

self-respect and wished for good health care in this province, would

resign so that some other person could go in and take over that

portfolio. He then would be the stepping-block out of the way so that

we could have an adequate health-care system in this province. That's

what would happen.

But that minister, because he is so

personally ambitious, doesn't care if people get bad health-care

service. He doesn't care as long as his personal ambitions have a

chance of being met. That's all it's about. "Why resign and let the

people in this province have some adequate health care when I might end

up some day having a stab at being the Premier? And my personal

ambitions have to be fulfilled; that's the kind of guy I am." Does it

matter that people out there are presently suffering under an

inadequate health care system because of a lack of funding, when every

hardware system in the government is getting 30, 40, 50, 60 percent

increases in their budget?

The minister stands up and talks

about the heroin addiction program that he has going, knowing full well

that there is no recognized treatment for heroin addiction. We've asked

the minister over and over again: tell us what the treatment is. You

backbenchers, why don't you ask him what the treatment is? He can't

tell you. There is no treatment for heroin addiction. There is no

recognized scientific treatment for heroin addiction. We know it; the

minister knows it. Mr. Chairman, this has to be the worst political

chicanery of all. Knowing the concern in the community, knowing the

concern of the people he pointed out — husbands worrying about wives

who are drug addicted, wives worrying about husbands who are drug

addicted, worrying about children who are drug addicted, an addiction

in this society of ours that we all abhor — there isn't one of us that

has the answer. Not one of us, Mr. Chairman, has the answer for drug

addiction when it comes to heroin, and that minister knows it. But to

play on that fear he's willing to spend, as he says, $9 million of the

taxpayers' money this year.

He knows that when you take a

drowning person, he'll grab at a straw. He knows that if you go into

death row and say, "Do you believe now, brother?" they're going to say:

"Yes, maybe I do." So what he's doing is taking something he knows full

well won't work and he puts it out into a bill through this House and

assigns it millions of dollars just so people will think that possibly

he and the government are doing something. Now if that isn't political

chicanery, I've never heard of political chicanery. To actually take

advantage of the fears in our society around drug addiction for

vote-getting has to be one of the worst acts that I've seen in this

House since I've been here — and it's nothing more than that, one of

the worst acts. It has to be the lowest of lows of political trickery

to do that. Then for the minister to stand up and read out, after three

months of the non-treatment plan, that it works! No treatment, three

months and the guy's going back home in July.

Interjection.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. LEA:

Yes, I hope he is, but it sure as heck won't have anything to do with

going to a jail, whether you can walk out at night or whether you don't

walk out at night. There are some jails where you have some of those

privileges. But for the minister to actually bring a nonsensical idea

like he's brought in for heroin addiction, and then for the member for

North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) to say, "You come forward with an

idea," when the whole health-care system and the whole scientific

community can't come forward with the idea.... They have no idea how to

cure heroin addiction.

Mr. Chairman, the backbenchers down there are saying: "You come forward

with an idea." You say, look, I don't know how to do it. They say:

"Oh, come forward with an idea. Come on, you, come forward with an idea."

Maybe

[ Page 847 ]

they

don't know that the scientific health-care community has no known

treatment that works for heroin addiction — none. What are you going to

do, bleed them?

Yet for the minister, taking advantage of

that fear in the community of the problems that we're having around

drug addiction, to do nothing more than play political games with it,

is unforgivable. That's why this motion of non-confidence should be

passed by every member of this House. A minister playing on the fears

of people facing a crisis area in our society to do nothing more than

get votes is political criminality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask you to withdraw the words "that is criminal."

MR. LEA: I said "political criminality."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to ask you to withdraw that comment. Please withdraw.

MR. LEA: I withdraw it. But it doesn't take away from the fact that is what this minister has done.

This

minister has gone out and purposefully held up a program that he knows

won't work, and for him to continue with this sham is more than the

people of this province should have to bear. A minister who is

undergunned by his Premier, who is having to face all sorts of

political crises in the health-care system around this province.... It

isn't doing him any political good, it isn't doing the government any

political good, and isn't doing the people of this province any good in

terms of health care. He stands up today and says: "It's all worth it

because I'm personally ambitious." And he asks the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes): "Why don't you be like I am?" Well, I'm

glad he's not.

Mr. Chairman, can you think of any reason why

there should be any confidence in a minister who obviously doesn't have

the confidence of his own leader, the Premier of this province, who

obviously doesn't have the confidence of the people who work in the

health-care system or of anybody who has had to be a recipient of the

health-care system in the last year? I really believe that this motion,

were it put to a referendum in this province, would pass with a large

majority. There are other ministers in that cabinet, who, if we put

this motion to a referendum, would be defeated with a large majority.

But, in this case, if it were possible to put this vote of

non-confidence in the form of a referendum to the people of this

province, that minister would be out of this House within a matter of

hours and back on the back bench — and the minister knows it. He knows

that he could not stand the test of a referendum in this province, that

he has been disgraced as the Minister of Health, and that the people in

this province who have to go to health care for service are the victims

of that disgrace — the disgrace of having no clout in his own cabinet

to get money for the sick. And he wants us not to vote for this motion

of non-confidence. Mr. Chairman, if all of us in this House didn't vote

a motion of non-confidence in this minister, the people in this

province would have every right to vote non-confidence in us as an

assembly. The health care in this province is a disgrace and the

minister responsible has to accept full responsibility, even though he

is the victim of political infighting within the party to which he

belongs.

Why doesn't the minister do the right thing and

resign? Ask for another portfolio, so that the people of this province

can get the kind of health care that they deserve and pay for. Why not

resign? The only reason is the one the minister stated himself today —

he is personally ambitions, and what's wrong with that? He's proud of

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pathetic.

MR. LEA:

Yes, it is pathetic, and I urge you, Mr. Minister, to plead with your

colleagues to be allowed to give up that portfolio, so that once again

we can have a health-care delivery system in this province that we can

stand up and be proud of.

Mr. Chairman, those backbenchers

know full well that the same health-care problems that we are being

told about, and that we know from personal experience, are happening in

their own communities. The members for Prince George (Messrs. Heinrich

and Strachan) know.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Oh, the member for the North Shore says he doesn't know. He says there

are no problems in his community. Boy, that really makes sense, because

the Premier himself had to go in there and try to straighten out that

mess. That's what happened in there because the minister wasn't

capable; the Premier had to go in and try to straighten it out. And now

the member says: "No problems in my riding."

I'I tell you,

when they finally choose who the new cabinet ministers are going to be,

I bet a few of you will find problems then. You would be doing your

duty if you were to join us in this motion of non-confidence and put

your concern for people in this province ahead of your own personal

ambitions. This is a party made up of segments of personal ambition,

that they believe, Mr. Chairman, is more holy than anything. To them

it's a little prayer. They say: "Please allow me to be personally

ambitious because it goes above everything else. It's a good old

competitive system where my urge to climb up that ladder of success one

rung at a time means more than the people of this province." That's

what we have — a minister, who through his own personal ambition, won't

give up his portfolio to help the people who need help.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to correct the records. The minister

suggested that I had made no representations on behalf of the Chinese

barbecue merchants in my constituency and indicated that the door was

not closed during that emergency when we were appealing to have the

regulations altered so that they could carry out their industry without

having to comply with the present health standards. But I would like to

correct the minister. He is incorrect and I would like to quote from

a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If I might draw

the member's attention to standing order 42, which is.... I think I'I

read the standing order, if you'I allow me. In fact, I'I read the

standing order anyway: "No member may speak twice to a question except

in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been

misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is then not to introduce any

new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation. "

[ Page 848 ]

Now,

since we're in committee and since the member has ample opportunity to

stand and speak again, please explain to me whether you feel you have

been misquoted or misunderstood. You're correcting the statements made

by the minister, if I'm not mistaken.

MR. BARNES: Mr.

Chairman, I don't intend to make a speech. I just wanted to clarify the

record. It's a sequential explanation. In other words, if I were to

stand at some later date, it would not be in relation to the most

immediate time I had available. Since the minister just spoke about an

hour ago, I thought it would be appropriate for me to correct the

records at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The most appropriate time would have been, if you had wanted to do that, after the minister....

MR. BARNES: I had to find the information. I didn't have it available.

The

minister has, by fabricating my remarks, indicated one of the reasons

why he is facing a non-confidence motion at this time. I quote from Victoria Times , January 15, 1979. This is a very short statement, Mr. Chairman:

"The

barbecued-meat merchants who have been battling the government for

months have been told their goose is cooked and they must comply with

government health regulations. Health Minister Bob McClelland told

Chinese Benevolent Association Leader Victor Lee that local meat

merchants will have to comply with government regulations if they want

to sell barbecued meat. 'We can't make any exceptions for one group.

You have to comply with the regulation,' Mr. McClelland told Lee at a

Social Credit Party mini-convention. Chinatown merchants have been

complaining that health regulations requiring them to store meat at

temperatures below minus 40 degrees centigrade or above 140 degrees

centigrade are unpractical and would both ruin their business and their

meats. Mr. Lee said: 'We are very frustrated. I don't know what we will

do'."

I won't continue that quote. I just wanted to point

out to the minister that when he suggests that I have been asleep in

not representing my constituents, that's incorrect. On November 23,

1978, despite what he said, I sent a press release to the minister's

office in which I stated that instead of keeping an open mind on the

question, Health Minister McClelland said he did not plan to get the

province involved. For a government unable to show economic initiatives

on its own, I suggested that it was discouraging to hear a minister of

the Crown state that the government would not get involved in a dispute

that threatened a multimillion dollar industry.

Further, I

went on to say that "the conflict is one the government should be most

anxious to take

part in because clearly there are options that could be

pursued."

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I

would just re-emphasize the reason why this minister is faced with a

vote of non-confidence. He has misled this House by misdirecting the

points that I attempted to make, and I have shown here in his own

words, as recently as January of this year, that those merchants were

faced with the doors being closed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, if the Chair might just be allowed, your debate is quite in

order, and you're quite in order to seek the floor, but hardly on a

point of order under standing order 42. Your debate would be quite in

order without limitation up to our standard 30-minute limitation.

MR. BRUMMET:

I naturally am speaking against the motion of non-confidence, as they

say. With reference to the previous speaker, the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea), who got up and accused the Minister of Health of

grabbing at straws.... Talk about grabbing at straws! That member stood

up and used one remark — "I have ambition" — to try and build a

critical speech against the Minister of Health. That seems to me to be

a rather striking example of grabbing at straws. That member said that

everyone who works in the health services is angry at the minister and

that everyone in the general public is angry at him. Where he draws

that conclusion from I'm not quite sure. He talked about what happened

in a referendum in this province. We just had a referendum fairly

recently. When you think of all the attempts by that opposition to use

criticism of the Ministry of Health in that election campaign, and

still the people of this province returned that minister and returned

this government, I think that referendum has already been held.

And

then to go on and illustrate the types of inconsistencies that we're

getting used to from that side of the House, he lumps the Minister of

Health and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) together as the

nominee and the nominator, and then says that the Minister of Highways

gets all the money he wants and the other minister does not get the

money he wants. I'm still trying to relate to how he can do that.

have a motion here of non-confidence based, presumably, on the

incompetence of the minister. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

stood up and said that the reason there are cutbacks is because of the

threatening confidence in that minister; there is another

inconsistency. I was really intrigued by how he tried to build a speech

around one remark, "ambition," through the use of emphasis and

histrionics; I marvel at his ability at that, but certainly not against

the content.

When this minister introduced the discussion on

his estimates, he described some of the health services, some of the

new programs, and he praised the people who were delivering those

health services to the people of British Columbia. He did mention that

the program was not perfect and that he was working on improvements. He

mentioned some of the problems that had come to his attention and were

being dealt with. Then, as I understand it, in moving this motion of

non-confidence, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned

that the reason he was doing it was because of all the questions that

had been asked but were not answered by that minister.

I've

been listening to most of this debate — as much of it as I could take

from that side. Somehow or other, these questions in this debate were

disguised by all the verbiage. What I recognized was a constant barrage

of criticism against the Ministry of Health. I did not detect very many

questions. Any questions asked were answered very capably by that

minister. But how do you answer a constant barrage of criticism based

on — whatever? They're certainly not based on factual information.

[ Page

849 ]

In the attempted condemnation of the minister, what I heard in this House was

a great condemnation of all the people who are delivering medical services

to the people of British Columbia. We were told that the people in the hospitals

are not doing anything for the sick — a lot of things of that nature. To me,

the people in the medical profession, the people who work in the hospitals,

certainly deserve better than the criticism they have been subjected to by members

of the opposition in this House.

The

statement was made by the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown): "They

can't even provide the basic services." Are you saying that they are

not providing even the basic services? I don't think there is any basis

to that statement whatsoever.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Rather

than prolong this debate, I would just like to mention that under this

minister this government has been constantly increasing health-care

services to the people of British Columbia. That member for Prince

Rupert said he defied the backbenchers to stand up and say that we

haven't had cutbacks and so on in our areas, and that we have no

problems there. Yes, there are problems. We've always had problems in

the north; I'm one of the first to mention them. The problems are not

the ones they are suggesting.

I checked with the Fort St.

John Hospital and they say that the staff rapport there is very good,

and that they are managing, despite higher freight costs, isolation and

all of these things. They are managing, thank you. They're managing

because.... I'll give you an example: in 1975 the operation allowance

to the Fort St. John Hospital was $1,980,689; in 1978 it was

$2,867,484, for an increase of 44.8 percent. In Fort Nelson, in 1975 it

was $723,540, as compared to $1,141,030 in 1978, an increase of 57.7

percent. Plus there have been additions and improvements to the

hospitals, to the facilities there, to the equipment.

Those

people somehow or other cannot accept the facts, and say that these

increases of 44.8 percent and 57.7 percent are cutbacks. How can they

possibly translate that into cutbacks? So they are managing, thank you.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET:

I was able, in the last couple of days, Mr. Chairman, to resist the

urge to listen to that very exciting debate from the other side of the

House. I was able to make some notes, so I wrote this speech, thank you.

Anyway, this government has been increasing health care — improving programs,

adding new programs and so on — to the people of British Columbia without financially

bankrupting this province, which that opposition is suggesting. Some of them

might take a quick read of an

article by Doug Collins in the Vancouver Courier

today, which is entitled: "Today's Promises, Tomorrow's Taxes."

This government is conscious of it. That opposition, when they were in government,

were not conscious of it at all.

Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I might point out that what this government

is doing is increasing services, cutting taxes and recognizing that there is

not a bottomless pit of money available, unless it costs the people of this

province. That is long-range and responsible planning. The people understand

this. They have indicated that. The opposition cannot understand this. It is

such a basic concept, that long-range planning does pay off in the long run.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, I'm certainly going to support this amendment. My only concern is

that it doesn't go far enough. If I'd had my druthers, it would have

reduced the minister's salary to $1 rather than just reducing it by $1.

I feel we would be better off with no Minister of Health, really,

rather than to have this Minister of Health.

I must take

just a moment to register my disgust — and that's really the only word

for it — at the minister's derogatory remarks relative to the supposed

lack of ambition on the part of members on this side of the House. Let

me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the members on this side of the House

do have ambition. We have ambition to ensure that the people of this

province have an adequate health-care program. That's our ambition, and

that's what we're standing here debating today. For that minister to

get up and make that kind of a derogatory remark is certainly lowering

the standard of debate in this Legislature.

You can look at

nearly every sector of the health-care system and you find nothing but

problems. The doctors, for example, have been faced with such limited

incomes that on the eve of the election we found this minister running

out and saying: "Oh, we've settled with the doctors." We found out

after that wasn't quite right.

The problem is still not

solved, Mr. Chairman. I had a doctor from one of the local practices

come into my office. He happens to serve in a small community, a

three-person clinic, three doctors in that clinic. It used to be two;

then it was even worse. I am sure there are still some two-doctor

clinics in this province, but in this particular instance there are

three doctors. He brought figures which indicated the number of hours

he had been required to work, which included every third weekend, of

course, when he had to be on call. He had done a careful calculation of

the total number of hours. He brought his income tax receipts, which

show the amount of return he had received and the exemptions that he

had incurred.

His net income, Mr. Chairman, was much less,

say, than a person who was teaching school, who would have a much

shorter work year than he would have. He also pointed out the

inequalities in the fact that if a doctor were hired by this government

on salary, that doctor's salary would have been much higher than was

being paid to members of the medical profession who were working on a

fee-for-service basis in a small clinic. Those inequalities have not

been solved, and as long as we have that kind of situation, we're not

going to get qualified medical service in the outlying areas of this

province.

That's one of the areas that's a real concern.

That's an area that this minister has not resolved, has not even

devoted much time to, as far as I can see. That problem is still

existing and is one of the major causes for difficulties in getting

good medical care in the outlying areas of the province.

Another

area that I want to talk about is the extended care, the personal care.

Certainly that's an area that has been very well documented over the

last few months as to the problems that are occurring. The minister

keeps insisting there are no cutbacks. But, you know, when you don't

increase rates for a period of over a year and when inflation continues

to climb at something like 11 percent or 12 percent, that, in effect,

is a cutback. That's the kind of experience that has been facing the

operators of personal care homes and intermediate-care homes. Those

rates were set and it was agreed by the people that were negotiating for

[ Page 850 ]

the

minister and the people who were negotiating for the personal-care

homes and the intermediate-care homes that they were probably low. But

they agreed that they would accept those rates on the understanding

that they would be reviewed and upgraded.

That condition

existed for a period of 15 months and then they got the grand increase.

No consultation, no nothing, just simply a letter which said that if

you have a personal-care home, you can increase the rate by 50 cents a

day. That's something less than 4 percent after 15 months with no

increase and a rate negotiated in the original contract that was agreed

was low.

The minister his failed in providing adequate care

to the senior citizens of this province. Who is more deserving than

those people who have given their life and their work and their effort

to helping this province grow and become the kind of a province that it

is today if it isn't those senior citizens? Yet they are being faced

with dangers and hazards in those homes because of those very cutbacks

by this minister, because of those reductions. They are faced with

hazards. They are faced with malnutrition. The meals have been cut

back. You check with any dietitian in any personal-care home or any

manager of any personal-care home and that's what you'll find. They're

having to cut back on the very food that they're serving to those

people.

In addition to that — and I hate to refer to it — we

did have that situation at Oak Bay Manor where we found two people who

were strangled by their harnesses which were holding them in their

beds. Now that is only the result of insufficient staff. That's the

only reason for that. That has to be laid directly at the door of this

minister, Mr. Chairman. He has failed terribly in his responsibilities

to the senior citizens in this province in providing them with adequate

health care in their last years. That is the biggest disgrace of all,

Mr. Chairman.

He's failed to give any consideration to some

very reasoned presentation by the chiropractic association, who have

moved in an arena that is very difficult to work in. He seems to be

really prejudiced against their practising as fully qualified people

within this province. There has been a terrific amount of duplication

because of the regulation and the resulting extra cost, because what

happens is that the patient simply changes his family practitioner and

gets another recommendation. All that costs the government and the

taxpayers more. Yet this minister failed to take any recognition of

their request.

Getting a little closer to home, in my own constituency, every year since I've

stood up on the floor of this Legislature that minister has given all sorts

of assurances that he's looking into it, and at one point he said that he

appreciated my concern, but we have never yet gotten any action as far as a

speech therapist goes in the Cowichan Valley. Every year that continues

is an additional cost that the taxpayers of this province are going to have

to bear because of the lack of training in their early years. Every year that

goes up and up and up at a terrific rate, Mr. Chairman. Yet this minister will

take no action in providing that speech therapist, in spite of the pleas of

his own local people. The central Island health unit have made the plea. The

school board has made pleas. The Cowichan Valley children's committee have

written extensive letters to that minister. I have written to him. I have raised

it on the floor and he takes no action. That's another reason why that minister

is not doing his job, because if that's happening in Cowichan, I imagine

that is happening all over this province. Those children who need that kind

of specialized attention are being disallowed their birthright, really, in not

getting that kind of attention, because they are going to go through life handicapped

and unable to express themselves, unable to participate fully in the community.

That's an additional cost to the taxpayers, but it's a much greater

cost to those children and parents who that minister says he is so concerned

about when he talks about the parents of young people unfortunate enough to

become involved with heroin. If he is so concerned about those children, then

he should be a little bit concerned about the parents and the children who have

a speech impediment or are deaf and need that speech therapist. There is no

action in that area whatsoever.

want to talk about another item that is very much in the foreground in

my community and that is the Cowichan Lake Activity Centre. This is

only part of the file, and it goes much longer and deeper. I picked out

the relevant points to bring in here.

You may try to tell

me, Mr. Chairman, that I should be talking about this under Human

Resources, but the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has

indicated that there is no funding for those people who do not fall

into the category of needing social assistance, or getting some kind of

financial assistance from government. Because this particular activity

centre covers a greater area than that, she is not prepared to fund

those extra programs that were going on there. Those programs, Mr.

Chairman, were specifically related to mental health, and I'm sure that

this minister is responsible for mental health. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, I see you nodding your head.

This centre has been

operating for some length of time in the little village of Lake

Cowichan. Up to now it has been funded quite extensively by Human

Resources. That budget has been cut by 60 percent. On March 14 of this

year there was an

article carried in the local paper there regarding a

Canadian Mental Health Association meeting which was held in Banff. Do

you know what they were discussing and holding up as a prime example of

a job well done? The Cowichan Lake Activity Centre. They went into many

of the areas where that centre has been doing a good job. "A model of

what voluntary action can do for mental health in a small community" is

how the Canadian Mental Health Association branch in Lake Cowichan is

described by the mental health centres administrator in Duncan. It goes

on to talk about the programs; but the

part I particularly want to read

into the record is:

"Possibly the most

significant achievement of the CMHA branch in Lake Cowichan has been

the establishment and development of a community activity centre which

provides a broad range of services for young mothers, for people with

emotional problems, for shift workers, for pensioners, for the

physically handicapped, for the mentally retarded, and, in fact, for

citizens of all ages to socialize, make friends, learn new skills,

receive help, and help others.

"The centre is a major resource in the district for referrals

from the mental health centre, from the public health facilities, from the RCMP,

from the probation services and from the schools. The centre was started with

a LIP grant acquired by the CMHA branch, and has been perpetuated by successful

appeals for continuing funds from the Ministry of Human Resources. "

Now that grant is cut by 60 percent.

[ Page 851 ]

I've

raised this with the Premier, and I've raised it with the Minister of

Health — and he's now saying wrong minister. You, Mr. Minister, are

responsible for mental health. The Minister of Human Resources has

indicated that she is prepared to fund only those parts of that centre

that are involved with Human Resources, and she's cut those grants by

60 percent because of the other services that are provided. And you,

Mr. Minister, have written and told me exactly what you're saying now,

that because it's Human Resources you're not prepared to put any money

in there. If that's the kind of attitude you're going to take, Mr.

Minister, then you have no business being in charge of the health care

of this province.

That centre is closing its doors because

of you, Mr. Minister, and that service is being withdrawn from Cowichan

Lake. And that goes right across this province. You can look at the

Hazelton Children's Home, and you can look at institutions all around

this province where Human Resources have taken that new tack, and you

have refused to pick it up. The Premier is just as guilty, because the

interministerial committee has not acted on it. It doesn't change the

fact that those centres are being closed, that you are remiss in your

duties, Mr. Minister, and that this amendment is the only way we have

of saying to the people of British Columbia that you are not doing your

job.

MR. KING: I am not going to take too long. I

just want to make some comments about the motion of non-confidence in

the minister, and also about some of the comments which have gone back

and forth across the House during the debate this motion.

want to say, first of all, relating our motion of non-confidence to my

own area, that we have had a major problem in Revelstoke. The minister

is aware that during the election campaign he had to come into the city

of Revelstoke and meet with the hospital board and guarantee them that

they are going to be able to survive financially. He had to guarantee

that a deficit problem they were facing was going to be picked up and

guaranteed. I think it wasn't in their normal budget. I think it was in

respect to a program they had set up. I met with the board on this just

prior to the minister coming into the area.

My point is

simply this: it's very difficult for a public agency, a hospital board

or any other agency to budget in a sane and rational way when they

don't know where the goalposts are, when they don't know what the

guidelines are going to be. I'm not suggesting the guidelines of an

arbitrary figure set by the minister are at all appropriate. But it's

interesting that the minister, after having done that, then is prepared

to change the goalposts when the political heat on him and his

colleagues accelerates to the point where it's no longer tolerable in

terms of the government's political security.

During the

heat of an election campaign, special accommodations are made to

regional hospital boards to take off the heat. And, of course, since

the election, we have had almost daily tales — they're referred to in

the press as horror stories — from hospitals all over the lower

mainland and Vancouver Island. Surely one doesn't have to be an expert

in hospital administration or health care to understand that there is

something