[ Page 4519 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act (Bill 173).

Hon. Mrs. Dailly. Introduction and first reading — 4519

Oral Questions

Dunhill Development Corp. Involvement in Seattle project.

Mr. Bennett — 4519

Payments from the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund.

Mr. Gardom — 4519

Proposed commission on electoral boundaries. Mr. Wallace — 4520

Gulf Island-Mainland Remembrance Day sailings.

Mr. McClelland — 4520

Interest demands on unpaid government bills. Mr. Morrison — 4520

Land Commission involvement in Richmond zoning hearing.

Mrs. Jordan — 4520

Results of grass-fed beef sale. Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4521

Trans-Canada Highway closure. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4521

Need for companion legislation to Bill 147. Mr. Curtis — 4521

Review of big game limits. Mr. Smith — 4521

B.C. Inflation-fighting measures. Mr. Gibson — 4521

Advertising of Premier's tour. Mr. Phillips — 4522

BCR work stoppage. Mr. Fraser — 4522

Prosecution of drivers without renewal certificates.

Mr. Gardom — 4522

Department of Health Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 166)

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 4522

Mr. McClelland — 4524

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4528

Mr. Wallace — 4531

Mr., Rolston — 4533

Mrs. Jordan — 4536

Mrs. Webster — 4542

Mr. Curtis — 4544

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 4545

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 169).

Second reading Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4548

Mr. Bennett — 4550

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery today, from Duncan, we have Mayor and Mrs. Paskin. I urge this assembly to bid them welcome.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): I would like the assembly to join me in welcoming the mayor, the town clerk, and Alderman Araki from Hope.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, and also later on this afternoon, there will be students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary School in North Burnaby. I'd like the House to welcome them with me.

Hon. P.F. Young (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, we will have with us today at 3 o'clock the grade 10 class of the Eric Hamber Secondary School. Mr. Roxborough-Smith, their teacher, is accompanying them, and I would ask the House to give them a welcome now, please.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon we have a journalist from Fort St. John, the editor of the Alaska Highway News. I hope you will welcome him to these precincts.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery with us today two very fine people from Sparwood, Mr. and Mrs. Ezner DeAnna. Also Mr. Frank Nolan.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTERIM
ARBITRATION PROCEDURE ACT

Hon. Mrs. Dailly presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act.

Bill 173 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.

Oral questions.

DUNHILL DEVELOPMENT CORP.
INVOLVEMENT IN SEATTLE PROJECT

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing: I notice in an article in the Seattle Times that Dunhill Development is doing a $5 million project in Seattle. While I know it isn't the government-owned project, it has the same in management that the Woodbridge Development…the team that the government was so eager to hire when they bought the original company. I wonder how they allocate their time between the $5 million Seattle project and our own B.C. corporation when they are on contract.

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): I would like to know which particular principals you're referring to before giving you a detailed answer.

Mr. Bennett: Well, the principals of the company, Mr. Paulis and Mr. Dalberg. This was the management team that you bought a company to acquire — a team which has cost British Columbia a lot of money. I notice that they are busy in financial activities in Seattle, and I wondered, when we paid them such an expensive contract, how they allocate their time between $5 million projects in Seattle and the business they were hired to do for you in B.C.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): The government makes them millionaires then they go to the States and build houses.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: They have a full-time administrator in Seattle. They spend considerably more than 40 hours a week on the job in Vancouver.

Mr. Phillips: And there's a shortage of housing in British Columbia, so a B.C. government-owned corporation goes to Seattle to build houses.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

PAYMENTS FROM THE TRAFFIC
VICTIMS INDEMNITY FUND

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Is the Hon. Attorney-General prepared to inform this House of the existing financial arrangements and agreements between his department, himself, and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund concerning payment of hit-and-run and insured motorists' victims?

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gardom: As a supplemental, Mr. Speaker: is the Hon. Attorney-General aware that since the first of this year about 125 such claims have been referred from the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund to the Insurance Corporation of B.C.? And they've denied recovery. Is he aware of that fact?

[ Page 4520 ]

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I'm aware of a number of claims, undoubtedly. The exact number, I don't know. There's a dispute, which is a valid dispute, as to whether or not the private companies should not have picked up claims which they have since refused to pick up. In view of the fact that that dispute may even have to be adjudicated upon, I am not prepared to say more at this time.

Mr. Gardom: Are you proposing action against the private companies?

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister has answered the question.

PROPOSED COMMISSION ON
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Premier with respect to the Premier's statement in June that a commission to review provincial electoral boundaries would be set up before the end of the year: has such a commission been set up, and who are the commissioners?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Not yet set up, Mr. Member. We hope that things settle down in the House a bit, in terms of location, so they can get on with their work without interruptions. (Laughter.)

Mr. Wallace: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier any particular date by which time the commission will be set up?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, before the next election.

Mr. Wallace: Just a quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Premier confirm that the terms of reference will ensure that the recommendations of the commission will be implemented without any alterations by the government?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, the terms will be defined publicly. We will not go through the same charade as some of us experienced before.

GULF ISLANDS-MAINLAND
REMEMBRANCE DAY SAILINGS

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Speaker. A question to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. I wonder if the Minister could help the people of British Columbia to define the terms laid down in an advertisement in the paper regarding Remembrance Day sailings on the Gulf Islands-Mainland ferries. As I read the terms and all of the errors which are in here, it looks very much like it says that you start at Galiano Island; you do not pass Go; you follow thy arrows, or else you go directly to jail; unless you roll a double 4, then you go to Tsawwassen and start all over again.

They are very difficult, and you need an IQ of about 300 to find out where you are going and when you are going and why you are going. I wonder if the Minister would straighten us out and tell us whether or not the ferries are even sailing on the Remembrance Day weekend, because it is very confusing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order!

An Hon. Member: Take it as notice.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transportation and Communications): No, I won't take it as notice. I don't want to cast any reflections of any kind on the intelligence of the Member who asked the question.

An Hon. Member: Right, right.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: But I want to point out that the people of the islands have no difficulty at all in following that procedure.

INTEREST DEMANDS ON
UNPAID GOVERNMENT BILLS

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): My question is directed to the Premier as Minister of Finance. Is it not a fact that accounts have been submitted to the province for interest on the bills that have remained unpaid for quite some time, and is it the government's policy to pay that interest? Have you received any bills for interest on the outstanding accounts?

LAND COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT
IN RICHMOND ZONING HEARING

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): I'd like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, who we haven't heard from for some time.

In view of the fact that Mr. W.P. Lane, present chairman of the B.C. Land Commission, was the chief municipal solicitor for Richmond, and who by order-in-council has had his zoning decision overruled, will he be invited to the public hearing to 'give reason for the original order of the Land Commission? I understand he was counsel for 15 years.

[ Page 4521 ]

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): No decision, Mr. Speaker, has been made with respect to when or who will conduct the public hearing.

Mrs. Jordan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister tell us whether Mr. Lane has submitted his resignation to the government on the grounds of political interference?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: No.

Mrs. Jordan: Not yet.

RESULTS OF GRASS-FED BEEF SALE

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer Services, Mr. Speaker, if her staff monitoring the grass-fed beef sale on the mainland bears out the reports that were in the press today as to its acceptance.

Hon. Ms. Young: Mr. Speaker, I'm only aware through the media of the experiment that the store in question is conducting. In my view, I think that the success of this experiment certainly proves something that a great many of us have said for a long time.

Frequently we've been told that the fancy packaging we get in grocery products is because of consumer demand. I think that this amply demonstrates that consumer demand has nothing to do with these decisions. When given the opportunity between fancy packaging or marbled beef and a very good price, the consumer will pick a good product for a good price every time.

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY CLOSURE

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): To the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received representation by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) from businessmen in Boston Bar urging compensation or other assistance for those adversely affected by the continuing daily closure of the Trans-Canada Highway through the Fraser Canyon?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: May I ask the Minister a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: I don't think you can if he's going to answer later. You ask your supplementary then.

NEED FOR COMPANION
LEGISLATION TO BILL 147

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): To the Minister of Finance. In view of the introduction of Bill 170 earlier this week, the Assessment Amendment Act, does the Minister recognize the need for companion legislation to amend Bill 147, the Assessment Authority Act, in order to adjust the operating revenues which will be made available to the authority to carry out its activities during 1975?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, Mr. Member, we are aware of that, and we will make the necessary amendments available to the House in the spring. As you know, this legislation is a response to the excellent committee work done by all Members of the House. I might say, as I was going to announce during the introduction of second reading, that I'd welcome any input on this particular bill. We are prepared to amend this with any positive suggestions after second reading if the House Members want to add anything to it.

Mr. Curtis: A supplemental. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance. Is the spring session not too late for this amendment, in terms of the fact that the assessment authority operations has been predicated upon a budget which in fact is reduced considerably as the result of the intent of Bill 170?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: My information is that it is not too late.

REVIEW OF BIG GAME LIMITS

Mr. Smith: My question is directed to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. The last report, Mr. Minister, from your department concerning game limits, bag limits, this year indicates a very great reduction in most major big game species. In view of the fact that the take or the bag limit is down so drastically, has the Minister directed his staff to review the bag limits and open seasons for next year with a view to reducing them or perhaps even eliminating them in some areas?

Hon. J. Radford (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): No review will be considered until the end of the current season.

B.C. INFLATION-FIGHTING MEASURES

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): To the Premier and Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In the wake of the federal-provincial conference between the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier on inflation, the conclusion of which I believe the Premier broadly agreed with, and pursuant to an announcement by Premier Schreyer the other day of a cancellation of $40 million in capital

[ Page 4522 ]

projects in Manitoba to fight inflation, has the Government of British Columbia any plans along this line?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, no, Mr. Member, we are committed to capital projects on schools and hospitals that have been made desperate on the basis of priority because of previous neglect. That was not the situation in Manitoba, where fortunately they did not….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, they're so confused from yesterday's question period that they are trying to put themselves together again. I'm trying to answer the Member's question.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, please don't be rude.

Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to tell you is that there will be no slowdown in terms of schools and hospitals, as we have a great deal to catch up.

ADVERTISING OF PREMIER'S TOUR

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I have before me a picture of the smiling Premier that says: "Premier David Barrett wants to hear from you and your community" — regarding the Premier's 1974 autumn tour. It is signed: "The Government of the Province of British Columbia." It was in the Terrace Herald on October 9, 1974.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what department of his government paid for this blatant government advertising to sponsor his tour?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I know the Member is too modest to ask for an autograph. But if he quietly sends it over, I'll autograph it for him.

Secondly, it is the custom of the office of the Premier, established by the former government, to have these ads paid for. Rather than destroy everything the former government did, I decided that that was one tradition we would continue.

Mr. Phillips: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has shown that he has made another about-face. In the Victoria Times on Tuesday, March 21, this very same Premier condemned this policy and takes the government to task for this spending. So am I to take from you, Mr. Minister of Finance, that you have made another about-face?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Come to the meeting and I'll explain it to you in public.

BCR WORK STOPPAGE

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): My question is to the Minister of Labour and vice-president of the BCR. What are you doing to resolve a serious work stoppage on the BCR?

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Well, the problem of the labour dispute on the railway is before the Labour Relations Board — at least, part of it is. Under those circumstances, since bargaining is continuing, I really do not feel it is appropriate for me to make any comment at this time.

PROSECUTION OF DRIVERS
WITHOUT RENEWED CERTIFICATES

Mr. Gardom: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of people, Mr. Attorney-General, who have not received from ICBC notification of request for renewals of their drivers' certificates; yet these people are being prosecuted. They can face fines up to $250 and 10 demerit points. I understand that the reason they have not received these renewals is as a result of a breakdown in procedure in ICBC. Under these circumstances, Mr. Attorney-General, are you prepared to agree to a stay of proceedings against these kinds of cases?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I'll take the matter under advisement.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Second reading of Bill 166.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, early last spring we announced the setting up of a committee charged with the responsibility of looking into the feasibility of reorganizing the Health department of this province.

As you know, early in October of this year, we released the general thrust of the report of that committee. It was an in-house committee; it was a committee that responded to a crying need, a desperate need that had been indicated for a number of years. We in opposition had discussed the

[ Page 4523 ]

fragmentation of the health delivery system by virtue of the fact that we did have a number of separate departments.

So after having put together this report, we organized a meeting of the department which was held at Riverview in the educational centre. We had 150 senior staff there — we didn't miss the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey — and those people spent two days of intensive study and discussion around the whole question. After all, their future and the futures of the people with whom they work are greatly dependent upon the outcome of the implementation of this particular report.

The report, as you know, is a report on the reorganization and it was endorsed generally by that large group. It was established that the department should set up a way to better co-ordinate its activities, to provide a vehicle for better distribution of health care in the Province of B.C. These are all areas that people really recognize need a great deal of work.

We've also recognized that health care has to be streamlined, if for no other reason than the very cost of health care is escalating — both sides of the House will certainly agree to this — more quickly than we'd like to see. At the same time, we are dedicated to providing the best level of health care we can in this province.

So the committee looked carefully at the model for reorganization. We looked at the Foulkes report. It was found — and I concur with the committee in this — that it would have been impossible under the present circumstances to do that kind of wide-sweeping reorganization which was called for, not only within the department but also from the grassroots, given the time span that we're given.

Remember this: the report itself indicated that you have to be able to put the department together in a period of a year to 14 months; otherwise the thing breaks down as it has in other provinces where there's a tremendous amount of shock and feeling of, "I wonder where I'm going to be next." So therefore, we felt this kind of change is the kind of change that we should bring about.

We think we've done the right thing because we haven't closed off the ends. We recognize that it's been called for that we go the PPBS route in this province: Planned Programmed Budgeting System. But it's impossible in light of the fact that they're trying it in other jurisdictions — they're trying it in Ontario; they're trying it in Ottawa — and having a great deal of trouble with it. Why should we invite that kind of trouble at the present time? So Treasury Board indicates that this is the way they would best like us to go.

Decentralization is still a major objective, but you have to phase in decentralization. We want to organize in compatible regions; we don't think the regions are set up compatibly at this point. We want to think in terms of co-terminus boundaries; we want to think in terms of the size of regions where people can relate to one another. There's an awful lot that has to be done. I don't think it would be fair to ask any government department to reorganize in such a way that it would actually revolutionize itself into disarray. So that's why we went this direction.

Why reorganize? Well, we have four separate departments, each reporting without an organized input from the other departments, many overlaps and, of course, vacuums created as a result. So basically, Mr. Speaker, the need was for a vehicle to present that policy, to overcome the problems and to improve that co-ordination. So the programme is one Department of Health, a senior deputy and two branches.

There will be a branch dealing with community needs: community health service, public health, home care, community mental health, community health centres and community care licensing facilities. That's one side of the department, and that's a branch.

The other side will be the institutions: insurance services, hospital insurance, medicare. Government institutions, incidentally, will be brought into that. You'll find yourself now with Mental Health actually becoming a real part of the Department of Health, representing on one side in the community services and on the other side just exactly the same as the hospitals under the institution aspect of the department.

Also on that side, we'll have the emergency health services commission, we'll have the forensic psychiatric services commission and, eventually, a diagnostic services authority. B.C. Medical Centre, of course, will be very much inclined in the direction of the institutional side of the division of the department.

So the present Act does not permit the latitude needed. The change, I think, is well thought out by hard-working people. Under this new bill the reorganization process can take place.

You will notice in the bill that I can delegate duties. We couldn't possibly reorganize with people locked into certain jobs through legislation because you'd have to have any number of bills come before this House, minor housekeeping bills, which would really not generate any kind of controversy whatsoever. So therefore, this bill allows the kind of latitude that's necessary in order to properly implement our programme.

As reorganization takes place in an orderly way instead of spurts, I think everyone will agree with the delegation of authority. It means that the Minister of Health in the interim has to take the responsibility. And who better? The Minister of Health is the servant of the Legislature. So I think that's the kind of responsibility that should be taken at this time.

[ Page 4524 ]

You'll note that the schedule on the last few pages of the Act brings other Acts into line with the Department of Health Act. It merely makes minor amendments, giving us the latitude that I've just been describing. So generally speaking, all that work under the schedule is clearly a housekeeping process. There's no doubt that greater harmony can be brought about at all levels by virtue of an administrative structure such as we're implementing. This goes right to the delivery of health service at the grassroots level.

Just to give you an idea — nutrition. We've got hospital nutritionists and community nutritionists without very much contact until recently. Now they can share kinds of responsibilities that are shareable; they can work out a delivery of that kind of preventive service that I think is very, very necessary, and do it better.

Home care is another area. You've got your post-acute; you've got a home-care delivery to chronically ill people. It really becomes uncoordinated unless you have that close kind of contact that you'd have under one single department.

It's said the best in the latest edition of the Science Council of Canada's report: prevention has to begin and has to take place; you have to build vehicles for prevention.

I'm sorry she's not in the chamber right now, but the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) a couple of days ago said boycott sugar. Right on! Right on! There is some needed but we could sure cut down our intake of sugar. I think the price is a blessing in disguise. I ask everybody in this House to support the Minister of Consumer Services in calling for that boycott.

The result will be that people will lose a couple of notches in their belt and on their waistline. They'll be better off. It's been called a killer by nutritionists, particularly in England, recently. There's some discussion about it having as much to do with chronic artery disease as cholesterol. So really and truly, it might very well be a blessing.

These are the kinds of things that we have to be thinking of. Right now our process is to put together a department that can worry problems in the area of prevention as well as providing therapeutic services.

The department has worked well, I believe, despite the structure for the last couple of years. But it's time to streamline the legislation and to streamline the job. I urge the House to adopt this piece of legislation which really is housekeeping legislation.

We have before us great demands. We have the traditional system calling for programmes. We have programmes that are developing: ambulance services, acupuncture programmes, forensic programmes, home-care programmes — all of these programmes that have to have a vehicle that can put them together in such a way as they're economical and providing a service to people in a way that people require, but at the same time that don't cost us an arm and a leg.

So, Mr. Speaker, again I say to the House, if we want an efficient health care system in this province, I suggest very strongly that the House endorse this bill. I therefore move second reading.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I won't speak too long on this bill, because I know that the Minister wants to get away to China in a couple of weeks with the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to continue his studies into the subject of acupuncture, which he mentioned earlier. We won't needle you too much about that, Mr. Minister.

Before I get into some of the comments that the Minister made, there are a couple of things I did want to ask the Minister. They have regard to one of the hospitals under his charge — Pearson Hospital — which has been a continuing concern, particularly with regard to staffing at that hospital.

I think it may have been brought to the Minister's attention before that on December 9, when a Christmas party was scheduled at that hospital, for some reason, because there was no driver for transportation service, the people in that hospital missed their Christmas party.

Later on, as recently as Hallowe'en, another problem occurred in that the people couldn't get away to attend various other trips which were scheduled with Hallowe'en.

I wonder if the Minister could answer, in closing the debate whether or not that job for a driver for that bus has been advertised yet, and how soon the patients in that hospital can expect to have their service again. It's a severe hardship on people who already have certain disadvantages.

Also I wonder whether the Minister could bring us up to date on the staffing situation at Pearson.

Mr. Speaker: Surely the Hon. Member knows that it's the general principle of the bill we consider, and not details that really are probably subject to the question period.

Mr. McClelland: Well, Mr. Speaker, the bill outlines in section 6 that: "The department, under the direction of the Minister, shall have charge of all matters relating to public health and government-operated health insurance programmes." I would say that under that section all matters pertaining to the health care needs of the people of this province are fair comment under the debate in general principle of this bill.

I appreciate the Minister's comments, Mr. Speaker, about this bill being necessary to improve efficiency, about this bill being necessary to halt the escalation of health care costs. All of us on each side of the House are concerned about those subjects. However,

[ Page 4525 ]

one of the comments made by the Health Minister had to do with the delegation of authority. I wonder if we couldn't get a little better definition of where that delegation of authority will go.

You know, I'm a little concerned, and so is our party, Mr. Speaker, that there's an undue preoccupation on the part of the government with administrative development, with reorganization of power structures. We must caution the Health Minister not to lose sight of what the real needs are in this province, and that's to make sure that our citizens receive the kind of health care they require and deserve. We mustn't be blinded by this government's obsession to feed the bureaucratic monster until its growth is out of control.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Member. Am I to take it that you're the designated Member to lead in this debate for your party?

Mr. McClelland: Yes, you may take that.

Mr. Speaker: So it would be 60 minutes rather than 40.

Mr. McClelland: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. McClelland: What did he say, 60 minutes? I thought it was unlimited, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, wait a minute. Oh, no, there's no limit.

Mr. McClelland: That's right. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: That's right, we must get the rules very clear.

Mr. Speaker: I'd like to get it in advance instead of having a wrangle later.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: I think that probably the rule is that the light stays under your desk, Mr. Speaker, and you don't have to bring it up while I'm speaking. (Laughter.)

But there is a serious concern on this side of the House that we lost sight of the health care needs of the people in this province and bury them under this kind of obsession for control of power structures.

I wonder, despite the Health Minister's comments about not being able to implement the Foulkes report in its entirety at least, that maybe this is the first step toward the implementation of that Foulkes report. I get the uneasy feeling that the Foulkes influence — Dr. Richard Foulkes' influence — is felt far more in the Health department today than the Minister would care to have us know.

The Foulkes report, as we know, was almost paranoid in its denunciation of the present system. While the Minister has been pretty smooth in saying that it's just a report and that it's just a basis for discussion, Dr. Foulkes is still around and doing God-knows-what for this government, because we've never been given a clear indication of what is happening with the Health Security Research Project at this time.

We in the opposition think that it's time that the Minister level with the House and tell us exactly what on earth Dr. Foulkes is doing in the government these days. What is the Health Security Research Project up to in today's health care service?

Now some time ago, when this project was first being proposed to the House, I suggested on March 9, 1973, that this was not going to be any kind of a part-time project, but that it would, in fact, become a full-time arm of government. The Minister assured me that that would never happen. On March 9, 1973, the Minister said that the health security programme under Dr. Foulkes "is a one-year programme." And he was commenting in regard to questions I had asked at that time about the cost of the Foulkes report and the Health Security Research Project.

The Minister said at that time that there was nothing at all to say that that particular programme was going to go beyond next fall.

And then further, about a week later, on March 14, in answer to another question about costs of the Health Security Research Project, the Minister said: "Everybody is given a contract that says he is finished in October." Of course, that's October, 1973. Yet, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Foulkes and his Health Security Research Project are still around — another year later.

In regard to costs — somebody mentioned the cost of that report yesterday — I think the Minister confirmed not too long ago that the cost of that report, rather than the $250,000 or somewhat less that this House approved, had been about six months ago in the neighbourhood of $750,000. I would suggest to the Minister that it must be well over $1 million now. When you look at some of the new appointments that have been made and the costs that are obviously still going on….

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Well, on order-in-council No. 2567 Frank Keeling is appointed as deputy director of the Health Security Programme Project — salary

[ Page 4526 ]

$2,083 a month. What's he doing? What's his project? I thought the project was supposed to be over in October, 1973.

No one has asked this House for approval to have that project continued. Nobody has told us what's going to happen with that project. Nobody has told us what that project is doing today and how much it's costing. I'd like to know; is it costing us $1 million, $1.25 million?

Hon. Mr. Hall: You voted for it in the estimates.

Mr. McClelland: The only estimates that we've ever voted on in this House were estimates for $125,000 for the Health Security Research Project — $125,000. Now we're faced with costs of at least $750,000, and perhaps $1 million and perhaps more. Don't you think, Mr. Speaker, through to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), that this House has the right to know how much that project is costing, and has the right to know what they're doing today? That's the only question we're asking, Mr. Speaker, and we have every right to know the answers to those questions.

Hon. Mr. Hall: You voted for them.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, we voted in estimates in this House for $125,000 — that's all — for a programme that was supposed to be completed in October, 1973, and for which the Minister of Health gave us assurances….

Hon. Mr. Hall: You voted this year for it.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, we never voted this year for anything for that project.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: No, it's a different project, that's why.

Mr. McClelland: Well, tell us what it is. Tell us what it is, that's all we're asking, and how much it's costing.

Mr. Speaker, that's what concerns us about this obsession with bureaucracy, with power structures rather than health care needs. The buildup of these bureaucracies, Mr. Speaker, is really worrisome to those of us who are concerned about providing for the social needs of all kinds of British Columbians over the long haul, not over the short term.

It would be much different if any of these bureaucratic structures would create more efficiency, but the record of this government shows that the contrary seems to be true.

Rather than creating more efficiency, as the apparatus continues to build up, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be pretty conclusive evidence that there's a decrease in efficiency, because we see day after day in every department of this government, Mr. Speaker, the things that used to take three weeks now take 3 months, or 6 months, or a year to get done.

As the staff builds up, the jobs don't get done in time, and the people of British Columbia suffer because of it. And it costs more ultimately to the taxpayer, because so much government revenue, Mr. Speaker, is being wasted on just keeping the wheels turning around. I'm afraid there'll be nothing left over to keep all of those commitments in health care delivery that the Minister made when he assumed office.

I know perfectly well, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister's intentions are of the very highest order and that he wants to make sure that the people of British Columbia get the best health care delivery service that is possible, but because that money is going to be wasted on keeping that bureaucracy running, his hands are going to be tied because all of that money is going to be thrown out the window.

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): Oh, poppycock!

Mr. McClelland: The finance Ministers of Canada, including ours, are going to be meeting very soon, I understand, to discuss the very subject that the Minister talked about, and that is the soaring health care costs across this country. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, when our Finance Minister is down in Ottawa talking about health care costs, whether he'll tell the other Finance Ministers of this country that the pot is going to be dry in British Columbia because we blew all of our savings on building a wasteful, centralized power system, rather than a system which would deliver health care needs in the most efficient manner possible. And because that money isn't going to be made available, Mr. Speaker, what happens to those commitments that the Health Minister made to this House on earlier occasions.

If we don't have the money, if we continue to waste the money, Mr. Speaker, on imprudent investments in the stock market; if we continue to waste our money, Mr. Speaker, on imprudent investments in private industry; if we continue to waste our money, Mr. Speaker, on that kind of government folly, how do we fill the gaps that are presently opening in the health care delivery in this province? How do we take care of all of those people who are now left out of the health care delivery system? How do we take care of those people who are caught in that grey area between the two extremes of health care — extended- and acute-care services?

If we don't have the money, if we've wasted that money because of the actions of a Finance Minister

[ Page 4527 ]

and a government which really doesn't understand the economic realities of today, if we continue to waste our money that way, how do we cross those boundaries, Mr. Speaker, and make sure that health care, at whatever level, is made available to all segments of society?

The Finance Minister talks about Can-Cel. Talk about your losses on the stock market in B.C. Tel and Westcoast Transmission, Mr. Finance Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. The Finance Minister stood up in this House one day and waved a copy of The Province newspaper and said, "Oh, what a good boy am I — I just made $1 million for the people of British Columbia on the stock market." You've lost $10 million since then, Mr. Finance Minister — $10 million or $15 million — and that money should have been used to provide the kind of health care services that we need in this province, not wasted and thrown away by a slot-machine Finance Minister who thinks he can gamble away and play crap with the money of the people of British Columbia. That money should have been spent on health care delivery.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order. The remarks that the Hon. Member is making seem more appropriate to budget debate than to the specific matters that are in principle to be discussed in the bill. I would ask him if he could kindly relate his remarks to the advisability or otherwise of these changes that are to be made in accordance with the proposed legislation. Could you kindly get back to the principle of the bill?

Mr. McClelland: Right, Mr. Speaker, and if we waste all that money and throw it away on stock ventures and gambling on the stock market, then we don't have that money available to take care of the needs which are implicit in this bill, which is the delivery of health care service in this province.

Mr. Speaker: At that time it would be appropriate to debate that in the budget when the appropriations are made.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the bill outlines the Department of Health delivering health care services. If there is no money to deliver those health care services, well you might as well throw this bill out the window, because there'll be nothing left for the people who need those services.

The same thing, Mr. Speaker, with the $100 million that this government has wasted and thrown away on private ventures — that money should have been spent to provide the kind of health care services which are delineated in this bill, mental health services, extended care services, intermediate care services, acute care services, new hospitals, new facilities for home care, new facilities for the people of this province, Mr. Speaker, and that's what it's all about.

So how do we fill those gaps if we don't have any money? When do we start? The Minister mentioned preventive care, and everybody in this province, everybody in Canada knows that if we don't get into preventive care programmes then the health care costs in this country are going to soar beyond control. But we need the money to get into them.

When do we really start to get into those areas of preventive health care, Mr. Speaker? We're doing some good things in this province, in home care, and early-discharge programmes. But when do we start to expand those programmes? When do we start to eliminate hospital admission in the first place, in many cases, and really start saving some money?

We saw evidence in the Victoria papers not too very long ago, a couple of days ago, as a matter of fact, that points out very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that too many people occupying a higher degree of expensive beds than they need to, and the taxpayer has to pay the shot, Mr. Speaker.

The example is the same wherever you look. Every hospital district in this province — we've heard evidence that as high as 30 per cent of the patients in acute beds, are no longer acutely ill, don't need that kind of service, and could be treated in less costly facilities. Perhaps even more than 30 per cent, Mr. Speaker, of extended care patients could be accommodated elsewhere. Where is the programme to provide for the needs of these people caught in that gap?

You talk about budget, where are the dollars? That's right, if we don't have the money we can't provide the programme. And the money is being wasted. Mr. Speaker, you talk about budget, $1 million budgeted this year for intermediate care facilities is a drop in the bucket. It won't even take care of administration. It won't even take care of the paperwork. It sure won't provide any more beds.

So where are the programmes to fill these gaps? That's the question that needs to be answered, Mr. Speaker. And here we have another bill which deals with structural changes, which deals with power structures, We look back at the Foulkes Report and we know that once again there was an obsession in the Foulkes report with power. Power was mentioned over and over again and at least intimated in that report, rather than health care delivery. Power was the important substance of that report. Power!

So instead of a programme that details some new directions, Mr. Speaker, we're back on the power trip again. I might just mention, Mr. Speaker, that the home care and early discharge programmes that I mentioned earlier, weren't started by the government of the day, they were started by the previous

[ Page 4528 ]

government and pilot intermediate care facilities which are now on stream in this province, were also started by the previous government, and there's been no expansion on those programmes.

Some Hon. Members: No, no!

Mr. McClelland: Of intermediate care. What about the commitment, Mr. Speaker, by this government to provide a prepaid dental care system? Where is that? Where is it? That was a commitment by this Minister and this government. There's no money, Mr. Speaker., That's why the commitment isn't being met.

How about the commitment to get more paradental people into remote areas of the province? Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of those people are needed right now to take care of the dental needs of the children of this province. What about that commitment?

There's no money, Mr. Speaker, that's why the commitment can't be met.

What about the commitment to provide more funds for medical research? There's no money, Mr. Speaker. That's why that commitment can't be met, because the money has been wasted.

What about the commitment by the Minister to start educating young people in good health and physical habits? I don't see any new programmes in the schools for that. Also for preventive medicine. No money, Mr. Speaker, that's why. Because the money has been wasted on foolish extravaganzas by the Minister of Finance.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it's time that the Minister of Health told the people of B.C. how much his department is overrun — overspent.

How high are those overruns in the Health department to pick up such costs as the $1 million or more for the continuing job for the Minister's friend, Dr. Richard Foulkes, to pick up for the costs of the increased bureaucracy, to pick up even for the increased cost of the take-over of the ambulance service — a programme that everybody in this House welcomed? But we're told that the people responsible for that emergency programme are spending money like it was going out of style, with no budgeting. And that's exactly what happened in the other department, Mr. Speaker.

I think we should ask this Minister to finally tell us what the overruns are going to be in the Health department. Is that department overspent by $20 million? By $40 million; by $103 million? How much, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

An Hon. Member: Watch your temper. Just keep chewing that gum.

Mr. McClelland: That's another reason why the real health care needs of this province may not be serviced in the long term, Mr. Speaker — this government is operating as a short-term government. They're spending money in such an irresponsible manner that in the next year and the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that, just as we've seen in the Human Resources department, with no budgeting and no accountability, there will be nobody to carry on those programmes in the future. That's what bothers the people in the opposition, Mr. Speaker.

So while this bill appears at first glance to be just a simple housekeeping measure, it sure opens the door. It opens the door, as the Minister himself mentioned in his opening comments, for delegation of powers to a health supercrat in the person, perhaps, of Dr. Richard Foulkes — I don't know. But certainly the Minister is delegating his powers to somebody as a supercrat, with that supercrat getting top billing in what used to be the "Cocke and Foulkes show." Now it has been turned around to be the "Foulkes and Cocke show" with Dr. Foulkes on top and the man who soon may become the one-man band in the Health department, with the Minister abrogating his duties and his responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, rather than being just a simple — housekeeping bill, there is fear that this bill may be the first step toward the implementation of all of the things which are wrong with that Health Security Programme Project Report, that is the preoccupation with power, the preoccupation with administrative structure, to the detriment of the real needs of health care delivery in this province.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I must say I was astonished that the final word to the official opposition were "the real needs of health care delivery in this province." Now I think back to two years ago and I think of the previous Minister, Mr. Loffmark, and I think that no better words could better describe him and his programmes.

I've been known to criticize the present Minister, which I do on occasions with great restraint, of course, but I must congratulate him that in comparison with his predecessor, he's a pillar of virtue.

I look back and I think of the tremendous amount of debate that was taken up in that election campaign dealing with health matters, dealing with the deliberate antagonizing of doctors and other people in the health field. A deliberate attempt by the government to set people against medical personnel who served them. I can only say that the last word to the previous speaker really did shock me because there has been an improvement; there has been a distinct improvement under the present Minister, and I congratulate him for it.

[ Page 4529 ]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when I'm on my feet saying a few kind words — my usual practice — I checked the Hansard of my last speech on the Health Minister's estimates, and I find that twice in two paragraphs I congratulated him then for a constructive and conciliatory approach which the previous government did not have, and I would repeat that. There are many things that I would like to say about health programmes, and many things I have criticized of this government.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): A former Tory praised him for the same thing.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, you better watch out, Mr. Premier, because yesterday the Minister of Agriculture could only find one person in the opposition to praise, and that was the former Tory — and he has tried every party in the House, and yours is next, so you'd better watch it. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, as long as he is going over to your side. I want to make a public announcement; the answer is no! (Laughter.)

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, it's got to come sometime.

Nevertheless, back again to the reference to the previous speaker — the wild statements of excess over budget. Now I checked on this because I was, like everybody else in the House, horrified by the Premier's words that every government department would be overrun. The Premier said it and we were all horrified. Shame on him. But I checked the Department of Health and found that in statements of special warrants issued between the session of 1974 and up to October 31, 1974, there were only three, and I'll give the figures because I think they are very modest. I think the Minister should be congratulated on being one of the very few Ministers who's shown some restraint.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're being factual; that's damaging to his case.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I'm being factual, but it's also damaging to every other one of your Ministers, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no. It's damaging to their case. There is nothing you could damage with the facts.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, let me suggest that on August 25, special warrant No. 25 put $70,000 available for a validation study of multi-disciplinary advisory board on exercise — presumably $70,000 spent buying bicycles, or something like that. Now that was one; that was a special warrant….

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That was the PNE — the fitness programme to encourage all those kids going to the PNE to buy Barrett-burgers and Anderson-burgers. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Beg your pardon.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You can continue your excellent conversation outside in the corridor.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On September 27 there was special warrant No. 43 — a grant to the Cerebral Palsy Association of B.C. to the tune of $140,000. Again, outside a budget and something I'm willing to accept.

October 31, warrant 58, supplementing vote 83, Local Health Services, $2.5 million. Now these are the three budgetary excesses, if you like, that I've been able to find — there may be others — the Minister can correct me on his closing of this debate.

But I would like to say that he has shown some restraint it appears; in comparison with other Ministers he's shown a substantial amount of restraint. I congratulate him for it. While we may well be critical of odd details there, in terms of his overall budget, it's not an excessive amount of overrun to date. More may come later. But at the present time fair's fair, and the Minister has shown a fair amount of restraint in the fiscal area.

I would like to say that in his speech he mentioned this: he talked about costs of the department; costs of health delivery — and I appreciate that too because they certainly are increasing astronomically. The Foulkes report, which was talked about again earlier, was something which his speech indicated to me that he was essentially rejecting in at least its cost aspect.

The Minister talked about advice from Treasury Board and says that it's the way to go. Well, I would recommend to him that he not follow Treasury Board's advice too closely otherwise he may wind up with the cost overruns of other departments. Perhaps he should continue with the budgeting practices which have led to a relatively minor increase over budget. I would suggest to him that following Treasury Board advice is probably an unwise thing.

He talked of the planned programme and budgeting and it would seem to me that that probably would be a desirable objective.

Now, I've mentioned the Foulkes report. I'd like to say that I am pleased that the Foulkes report on

[ Page 4530 ]

reorganization seems to have been ignored here. We have a heavy emphasis on costs, and I think there really must be in this government department a great deal of cost-watching as well as cost analysis, because there are virtually innumerable programmes one can get into to in the health and medical fields — innumerable in terms of dietary programmes. Just about everything can be done — educational programmes for students, dental programmes. All sorts of programmes can be put forward in all good faith, all of which cost a pile of money, and the real job of the Minister is to sort them out.

I may dispute from time to time how he sorts them out; which ones he gives priority to. But it does appear to me that from what he's said today, and this reorganization bill, that he is at least aware of his responsibility to sort them out on a factual basis, on a value basis, rather than on the basis adopted by the previous Minister.

He mentioned community care and chronic care. The question comes to mind at once, Mr. Speaker, as to why we really have had nothing done so far on chronic-care hospitals and the crushing financial burden upon those who are supporting their parents or other senior citizens in these hospitals. The enormous cost per month of keeping people in chronic care is of concern to us all. I would suggest, if it's permissible under the rules, that when he closes the debate he says a quick word on that.

It's 2 1/2 years we've been waiting for that. It was a commitment, I understood, of the government. It was certainly a commitment. It was certainly a commitment of two other parties, the Conservatives and ourselves, during the campaign. You have a full 70 per cent of the electorate who voted for such programmes, Mr. Minister, and in this instance I would suggest that the time has come to tell us when we're going to proceed on these, because I keep on running into people who keep on saying: "When is it going to come? I know it's coming some time, but when is it going to come?"

It costs thousands upon thousands per year per individual. Something akin to the scheme started by the government in Alberta — probably, I believe, a Social Credit government started that — would be very desirable in British Columbia at the present time.

The costs I worked out in '72 would be approximately $20 to $25 million. It's a chunk of money, but in view of the tremendous unevenness of the burden which the failure to have a proper chronic-care programme results in, I think the Minister might well indicate something along that line.

Now the Minister mentioned the need to delegate duties and decentralization. I was very pleased to hear it. To date there seems to be only one Minister who is at all interested in decentralization, and that is the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). He, from my experience and observations, appears to be virtually unique in believing in decentralization. From this bill, and the statements of the Minister, I gather he may have at least one colleague in cabinet who supports decentralization.

I think it is tremendously important, in particular in the health field. Programmes set up from Victoria, programmes run on a province-wide basis or a national basis tend to be expensive and in health care, let's face it, the dollars and cents aspect is becoming the most critical at the present time.

Sure, it is easy to say that if a child is ill, or something of that nature, or if a child suffers from a certain disease, no expense should be spared in curing that child. Now this, of course, we would all like to subscribe to. But we do know there are budgetary limitations. The Minister knows it, and one way to get the best health service, I believe, is by decentralization and by the delegation of duties which he talked about.

The prevention programme which the Minister mentioned in passing, when he talked about sugar and other things, I would like to thank him for. I took part in the testing, as did many other Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, and I was told I was one of the healthier MLAs, but since then I have gained 10 pounds, so I am now back to not eating sugar at the suggestion of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) who I trust will also lose 10 pounds with me, or better.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I think you are referring again, Mr. Premier, to the 300 IQ points that you tried to find in the official opposition, and failed to do so.

A word, though, about another aspect of this bill. In this bill you are taking the requirement that the Deputy Minister be a medical doctor out. You are, in other words, allowing someone who is not a medical doctor to take that post. Well, I thought about this as carefully as I could. I consulted with a number of people on this point in the medical field, medical doctors, and they were fairly divided in their views.

I'm going to suggest that the Minister is correct in making this change. The fact is that the person in question, Mr. Mainguy, is highly regarded by the medical profession and they have no doubts about him and his abilities. I think that the Minister, in his need for flexibility, is probably right. As I have mentioned before in this House it is, in my view, the right and privilege of a government, of the executive, to name a Deputy Minister, whether he be a political appointment or not. I think in this particular instance we can criticize the fact that he is a political appointment, but they do have that right, and I think in this instance the Minister is making the correct

[ Page 4531 ]

move.

If there are doubts about the correctness of this, perhaps he could follow the example of the Attorney-General who, of course, is the only man receiving a QC these days. You can always give an honorary degree to anybody. The government has this power and perhaps you could grant an honorary MD to satisfy those few people who might object.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It might well be phony, but then so, of course, is the Attorney-General's QC.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is essentially reorganization. It does not allow us a full debate on health matters. You've shown a certain amount of latitude in allowing myself and the previous speaker, as well as the Minister, in touching upon, certain things, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to repeat what I said earlier, that it appears the Minister is on the right track. It appears the bill is well motivated and is a good bill, and we will of course be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances I normally take my seat and turn it over to the representative of the Medical Party of British Columbia on my left, here. But he's having a caucus meeting at the moment trying to determine who is to be the designated speaker for his party on this issue, and it is extremely difficult. But if he has solved that problem I will turn the floor over to the Medical Party of British Columbia.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I just want to make it plain, Mr. Speaker, before we get into any hassle over the length of time I can speak, the caucus did decide that I am the designated speaker. Actually there are problems in caucus because when I take on the role of Whip, all I ever get is a backlash. (Laughter.)

We, this party, our party….

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You used to get a backlash before.

Mr. Wallace: Well, the backlash before would involve a certain amount of looking around, but now at least I only have to look forward. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, we do support this bill. The debate so far has ranged rather far and wide and again I hope that small though we may be in numbers, that I am given the same privilege of wandering all over the ballpark on health services if I should choose.

But essentially this bill is to make the Department of Health more efficient and to provide the wide spectrum of services to the people of the province, as the Minister said, in the most efficient, economical and yet in the most up-to-date fashion. There is no question that there are few areas of human endeavour where the potential to do more is very great. Almost month by month the capacity for Ministers of Health to become involved in providing a very justifiable and very valuable increase in the range of health services is just the custom of the day, and since the budgets must inevitably increase steadily, then the efficiency of administration and the structure of administration becomes extremely important.

I would first of all like to echo the words of the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), and say that I personally have the greatest faith in Mr. Mainguy to carry out the job of Deputy Minister of Health. I might say that in darker days in this province during a former administration, people like Mr. Mainguy served extremely well, in my view, despite some circumstances which made their job very difficult. So I have no hesitation in saying that my personal contact with Mr. Mainguy has been very reassuring and I would agree with other comments that it is not necessary to have a doctor as the Deputy Minister of Health. affairs and health services. Most of us, as doctors, tend to be educated and experienced in one field of medicine, and I think the most important requirement for the Deputy Minister of Health in this kind of department, with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, is a man with a wide outlook on the whole field of health services.

This is not to say that there isn't a doctor somewhere who might have a very wide outlook, but generally speaking, to meet both the medical and administrative requirements of the deputy's job, I think perhaps it would be better, or at least equally important in the hands of a non-medical person.

There is a tremendous overlap between the different arms of the health team in meeting the needs of people, and certainly, again, I would say that in my experience in former days before this government came to power, there was a distinct lack of even communication between people in the different divisions of the department as it was then structured.

I'm not just referring to the political aspects. I'm talking about men and women who I know personally, working in the civil service, who in private would tell me how frustrating and ridiculous it was that two departments would be planning specific services where there was a very important degree of overlap but where the actual communication and planning between the two divisions or departments was negligible.

So this bill, if it does nothing else, and actually I think it does a great deal more, at the very least establishes clearly the importance of having all the services integrated to the greatest degree, and the people in the different divisions of the department communicating and cooperating.

[ Page 4532 ]

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I would certainly agree with the comments which have been made about the Foulkes report. That, and this was certainly my main concern about the Foulkes report, was that it emphasized to a frightening degree, administration.

Now I have said today, and I say again, that certainly administration, both its structure and its efficiency, are very important obviously. But I would just make the remark — and I'm sure the Minister is aware of this — that it can become too easy to zero in so much on the administrative structure and the administrative personnel, to lose sight of the patient, to be so intent on departmentalizing or dividing the total Health department into various branches and divisions and to have what on paper appears to be a highly efficient, well-considered administrative structure. But you go out into the communities and find that services are either lacking or they're not being delivered.

Some harsh comments have been made about escalating costs by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). I think that some of the comments from the Member for Langley sound rather hollow in the light of some of the lack of performance of his party. Certainly he wasn't a member of that party, and I'll excuse him on that basis, but if he had sat around caucus table as a member of that party when it was government, he would not have the gall to make some of the statements that he's made in this House today. If he wants some affirmation of that criticism of mine, maybe he should talk to Mr. Loffmark.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: That was the kind of administration where the Minister would mention to me that he couldn't take certain matters to the Premier because the Premier didn't want to hear anything about them. That's the kind of system that existed before. I'm sure that the Member for Langley would not have made some of the comments he's made today had he known how the former administration functioned.

When there was a shortage of money, for whatever reason, what was the first direction in which restrictions were placed in that administration? Schools and hospitals. You could have schools, but you couldn't have gymnasiums and libraries. And you couldn't have hospitals.

I just say that while this government is sadly lacking — and it has been mentioned already — and this government has certainly fallen down very sadly in the area of intermediate care, I can well remember the Premier of today sitting down the row here and making the most impassioned plea and, in fact, a sincere commitment that the financing of nursing homes would be a top priority if the NDP became government.

When I criticize as an opposition Member, I like to try and put criticisms in context. There are some points I wish to make where I commend this government. But if I have to level one absolutely just and fair criticism, with regret, I have to say that this government has absolutely failed miserably in keeping a promise which the Premier of the day made more than two years ago, when I sat here in this House and applauded and supported him. Before that, in fact, I was trying to bring about the same service when I was a Member of the former government.

I would just repeat, as has been said already, that the example is there for us to at least look at, if not follow; and that is in Alberta.

Perhaps while it is a little out of order to get into this amount of detail, I do hope that the Minister might be given the same latitude that opposition speakers are being given, in closing the debate, to comment on the principle which surfaced some time ago, but which seems to have been submerged again — namely the concept of having the patient pay $5.50 a day for his care. At a time when Mincome is providing $228 or thereabouts per month, this concept would seem to meet some of the criticisms which have been raised about the tremendous cost of health care.

Again, I find it difficult to follow some of the criticisms which are directed at this Health Minister or, for that matter, any Health Minister. It is that every politician consistently is asking for wider range of service, more service, more efficient and more often. Then, as soon as that service is provided, there's an unholy outcry as to the cost.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in discussing efficiency in administration, we can only go so far in expecting miracles. The fact is that it wouldn't matter what government was sitting over there today, or how efficient the administrative structure was, or how efficient the personnel in that structure. If this society wants free drugs and ambulance service and acupuncture and counseling and home care and public health and mental health services and all the services that are being mentioned and many more that are being requested, let us at least be responsible enough to recognize that this costs one large pile of money.

In debating a bill which provides for the vehicle in distributing services, I think we're all being a little less than honest with ourselves unless we recognize, regardless of the government in power, that the costs inevitably must escalate. By what degree they escalate is something that is open for debate, and the manner in which the increased costs are approached and the funds raised is also, of course, very much a political issue.

Certainly in this kind of relatively non-partisan

[ Page 4533 ]

debate — and I think all three opposition parties will support this bill — I think it's timely to put this issue of costs and the individual responsibility of the citizen clearly in the picture.

One of the elements of administration in this government, which I think one should mention, is that when this government took over, there was deep dissention among the ranks of hospital employees. By all the rules of collective bargaining they had bargained and agreed upon a certain wage increase, which the former administration chose to reduce arbitrarily by 30 per cent — thanks again to Mr. Loffmark.

To be fair, I shouldn't make that last comment and leave it at that, because I know very well that it was the former Minister of Finance (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) who made it plain that he had less respect for collective bargaining than he had for cutting costs in the hospital field.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): He devalued the Loff-mark? (Laughter.)

Mr. Wallace: The Attorney-General says: "He devalued the Loff-mark." At any rate, Mr. Speaker, with some of the problems we face here and the way in which we spend a great deal of time on rather serious and sober issues, a little bit of humour is certainly very welcome. It's always forthcoming from the Attorney-General, although sometimes he's humorous when I wish he would be serious.

So this reorganization of the department, I think, offers real hope for the better administration and efficiency of the department, as long as we're not losing sight of some of these factors which neither this Minister or any other Minister of Health can run away from. If you want more service and better service, it's bound to cost more money, I hope the Minister of Health might give us some idea in which direction the department will function in the matter of the greatest efficiency in the expenditure of revenues.

I would like the Minister, in closing the debate, to mention who in the department — whether it will be the Deputy, Mr. Mainguy — will have the direct responsibility of trying to improve the relationship with regional hospital boards. Regional hospital boards were set up in this province with a very distinct and realistic purpose: to co-ordinate planning and hospital services within regions.

As I said a moment ago, administration can sometimes look just great on paper but it certainly is not working well and, in fact, is working very poorly in the Capital Regional District, as the Minister well knows and as the Minister has tried to correct. It seems to me, since hospitals are one of the main areas in the Health department where funds are expended — for example 80 per cent of the hospital bill is incurred by paying the wages of personnel in the hospitals — that there is no more important component of the whole health services picture than the regional hospital boards.

It perhaps comes strangely from me to talk about a greater need for central action in regard to regional hospital boards. But I have to ask the Minister, in closing the debate, whether he would comment on his own appraisal of regional hospital boards, how well or poorly they are functioning. And if they're not working well, why are they working well?

To what degree does this new administrative structure…in what way would it give us hope that perhaps the more personal attention of the Deputy Minister, for example…. Would he be the best route, or is the Deputy Minister himself planning any kind of new avenue of approach to the regional hospital boards?

The regional hospital board in the capital region is a flop, and the people in this community are becoming absolutely frustrated and impatient and very restless that there's so much talk and very little action. I know that the Minister has been in frequent communication with the Capital Regional Board in recent weeks and months and that action has been taken by order-in-council or will be taken to give more authority to the advisory committee of the regional hospital board.

But when we debate a bill like this which essentially zeroes in on administrative functions, and when one looks at how one vital aspect of administration through the vehicle of the regional hospital boards has failed, one again has to echo the comment I made earlier: let us not overemphasize administration as holding out the kind of miraculous cure for all the ails and ills of the delivery of health services.

The regional hospital board, I believe, is a concept that could work well and really has to work well simply to avoid duplication and excessive costs at various hospitals within the same region.

So with that last negative note, I wonder if the Minister would comment on that, unless there are others wishing to speak.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): With all the Members here supporting Bill 166, the Department of Health Amendment Act, it brings back one of the nightmares I had as a newly elected greenhorn MLA from Dewdney riding going to a meeting once with the medical staff of the Maple Ridge hospital and listening to these people. This was after a month and a half of being an MLA.

Then I was invited to meet all the doctors, all 30 doctors, at Maple Ridge. I think there were some of the members of the board of the hospital. Maple Ridge, of course, being a growth area in the lower mainland…. We went down to the basement of this

[ Page 4534 ]

hospital into the boardroom, and the great, steel fire-door rolled shut and I could hear a click. I felt that the lights were being turned on this greenhorn MLA from Dewdney, where very competent doctors like Gallagher, Terwiel and a great number of people put me in a bear pit. I felt in a pretty vulnerable position for a couple of hours as they let out a lot of bile about 20 years of just what was not happening in health care — not just in Maple Ridge but in many parts of the province. These were doctors who were genuinely concerned with the delivery of health care. There were just such a range of things.

Certainly they were after me and they didn't know what to think of our new Minister, I'm sure. They're very confident in him now, but it was then a whole new ball game. You know, when you're dealing with health care, you're dealing with life and death, and it's a pretty personal business. There was a tremendous amount of hostility, if I can use the word, that came out during that meeting, much of it towards me. I think we left resolved that we were going to, first of all, basically get some sense of organization into this very large structure.

I must say that I don't know if I ever did understand the medical services aspect as distinct from the hospital insurance. I still have a lot of uncertainty there. I can better understand the mental health branch. I think I can best understand the public health branch. But it was confusing to have four separate Ministries, each with a Deputy Minister. Then there was the confusion that I guess in many constituencies existed between the public health and also mental health, often with separate jurisdictions, separate boards, separate staffs — sometimes, fortunately not in Maple Ridge, in separate buildings. And then there was the relationship of these people to the clinics and especially to the hospitals.

The real misunderstanding that I felt between public health officers and private medical people — I just found in my first year as an MLA that this was something that had to be cleaned up. First of all, there was the basic need for a sense of order, a sense of direction, surely a simpler system of accountability. I know that this reorganization is going to do that. At least it simplifies it down to, you know, the senior Deputy. Incidentally, it seems common sense that you get the best person; it shouldn't be the profession that determines the slot. Long ago in the church we felt that you don't need to have a clergyman to be the head of the United Church of Canada — at least the earthly head. We've long since got over that kind of a problem and look forward to some other churches taking a similar position.

An Hon. Member: Earthy or earthly?

Mr. Rolston: Earthly, yes.

There is now a community services aspect of medicine and of health care. We're thinking of public health and mental health; we're thinking of the whole better utilization of these staff in the community. Of course, there's the other side; there's the institutional, the medical, the hospital side.

If I could just say something first about the medical — the doctors…. I was impressed with an editorial in the B.C. Medical Association, I think half a year ago, talking about the doctor-patient relationship — something that I think all governments want to promote. One thing I would certainly hope is that there would be a…. I don't believe this is deteriorating as badly as many cynics say. I guess it's the old kind of relationship where the old family doctor went to see people who had incurable illnesses.

Here we could think of illnesses of diphtheria and the croup and tuberculosis and pneumonia and polio, many illnesses which are still with us but not so prevalent as they were in the days when the doctor obviously had a much more regular kind of relationship with these people. With special drugs now and much better hospital facilities, better preventive medicine, I would hope that that kind of a relationship isn't quite as necessary. But what is important…I think this is still an important relationship. Maybe the doctor's not up on a pedestal. Like the clergyman, he's not up there on a parapet like he sometimes was.

Interjection.

Mr. Rolston: Well, yes. That's another matter, another debate.

But we want to relate to these people. There has to be a sense of the patient and the physician as equals — not equals in the sense of knowledge but certainly equals in the sense of humanity and as persons. One thing this will mean is that the patient will help himself, that he will take greater precaution, preventive medicine; there will be less anxiety, less trauma in getting a physical and healing.

I am sure that there is a greater volume of work done by the doctors, and therefore the relationship of the patient is a little different. I hope that the medical people and, I hope, this new reorganization will ensure that there will be less of a kind of responding to illness and, more hopefully, that this reorganization will help that there's more preventing of recurring: illnesses. If it's a fellow who has athlete's foot and he's still having difficulty…. I met a fellow recently who'd been taking pills off and on, not very systematically. You know, he should have gone in. If that was a problem three years ago and it's recurring, it's time that he automatically take the incurrence to have that prevented.

I'd like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, on the

[ Page 4535 ]

whole business of personnel management. I think that in my experience in two years in serving the constituents of Dewdney, sometimes there are problems with the personnel management. I trust that this new reorganization will do a real job on this. Dr. Foulkes several times referred to the need for better morale and better management of the top people in the health sciences, more attention to the needs of these people, more attention to the needs of the women workers in this profession — certainly much more training of the general practitioners.

I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister will laud the University of British Columbia, which is now more aggressively trying to train Canadian indigenous public health officers. I realize there are financial reasons why often people come from Scotland and England because of special training programmes in public health. But maybe the time is coming….

Mr. Wallace: What have you got against the Scots?

Mr. Rolston: Nothing, nothing at all. But there are programmes. I'm looking forward to speaking next week, if I can be out of this chamber, to the med students of UBC on aspects of public health and marriage preparation. I would hope that there's more money, and I hope this reorganization will promote that — more training of the family physician, more training of people who want to go into medicine who come from the boondocks and are willing to go back to the boondocks. Dr. Foulkes referred to that.

People who came from Masset who can be encouraged to come down and take a full medical programme, either the MD programme, or maybe the paramedical programme, who have that kind of mindset, you see, who want to go back to the Queen Charlotte Islands, or to Hazelton, or to Terrace, or the Kispiox Valley — it could be that that is one alternative, that. We can have a programme and maybe subsidize these people through med school, knowing it is more likely that, continuity-wise, they will go back to those areas.

I have lots of questions when we talk about reorganization of the doctor-hospital side of your Ministry. I have questions about labs. I find that the labs in the hospitals that I work with are incredibly crowded — just bad, really bad. Of course, there's a lot of pressure on them. There is tremendous pressure on the little lab in Mission — a reasonably new hospital. But if there's going to be more and more lab work done in the hospital — if I understand our policy, if we're going to move more and more towards lab work in the hospital rather than the private labs run by doctors — it's going to be unbelievable pressure on labs in the hospitals. Quite frankly we just don't have the wherewithal in my riding to deliver that now — certainly not in Mission. Just big changes are going to take place there.

Of course, equally, I would say that as we develop emergency programmes, with our excellent emergency facilities starting this summer, there's again more and more pressure on the emergency parts of hospitals as an aspect of outpatients, and there's got to be a great deal more facility there.

It might interest the House that a small hospital like Mission — a hospital that was built with 54 beds and now actually has 60 beds, and is usually filled at 60 beds — it might be of interest that there are 13,000 outpatient visits a year in the Mission Hospital. Nearly as many as the Langley Hospital, a much, much larger hospital, but nearly as many — 13,000 outpatients.

I'm thinking of, again, the lab — tremendous pressure on the x-ray, increasingly more and more pressure on physiotherapy. Again, many of our hospitals just weren't designed with that in mind.

We're now having full-time staff people in some of the smaller hospitals. CARS have done a great job in the past, but this is kind of changing as we move more into physiotherapy. Maybe as we talk about that, Mr. Speaker, it's fair to ask the Minister what the relationship of physiotherapy and occupational therapy is to the Workers Compensation Board where often a fellow from away off in a remote area has to come down, either to the facility of the Workers Compensation Board on 33rd Street, or in Shaughnessy, or in the new facility presently under construction in Richmond. Couldn't much of that occupational and other physio work be done in that hospital? Surely that's the way we're going. Again, design-wise and space-wise, the whole organization of the hospital side of your department needs to incorporate that in its planning.

I am delighted that we are getting 60 acute-care beds in the Maple Ridge Hospital. I continue to ask the Minister, and I have talked to your construction department many, many times …. I thought we were going for the psychiatric wards. as an essential ingredient in most medium-sized general hospitals. I can think of Nanaimo, for instance — a medium-sized general hospital with an excellent psychiatric ward. I just assumed that was the way we were going.

I keep asking the Minister and his department if we could have 60 beds plus a psychiatric ward which I would assume is the less-expensive facility; it doesn't require the heavy medical costs of acute-care beds, but would be part of the organization of hospitals in our province. It would get the whole bit about being close to the community, and the various healing people in the community would help the people in mental and emotional distress.

These are some things I wanted to add to the debate on the medical-hospital side of the Ministry, I know there is tremendous pressure on the B.C. medical facility and that you are going to increase

[ Page 4536 ]

Shaughnessy alone from 600 to 1,120 beds. There are at least four large diagnostic centres now in Vancouver which will be part of the B.C. Medical Centre, and presumably people in B.C. can zero in on certain centres for special work.

There will be morale and a great deal of confidence, not just in pediatrics but in many things — just as in Toronto the people think of the Sick Children's Hospital. All 8 million people of Ontario zoom in on that tremendous diagnostic centre in downtown Toronto for special referrals. Again, we are decentralizing health as much as we can, but there are some special referrals which must be done.

Before I leave that aspect, there is this whole business of training: we need tremendous training, and lab technicians. A great deal needs to be done in just basic management people. At last we have a dietician in the Mission hospital. We have waited, but now we do, and we appreciate that.

There is the whole paramedic thing — respiratory people, a variety of technologists in respiratory work and, of course, nurses. And there has been a great deal of debate on the need for doctors.

Anyway, we are talking about one side of your Ministry. The other side, of course, which I especially get excited about, is the community side: the community health, the public health, the mental health, parts of physiotherapy, and you mentioned home care.

I laud this because, first of all, it helps me to see to health care in the whole sense, the total sense. We don't make that gray distinction between mental health and physical health. If I understand Dr. Foulkes, this is certainly one of the things he was trying to emphasize. I would like to say that theologically, or any other way, as we see health, if a guy is sick, he's sick. It doesn't matter if it is physical or emotional.

We need to have a community facility which can really deal with that so we can support that person — the Minister has heard me many times asking. As we talk about the whole health, we talk about family health, emotional health, marital health. The Minister has heard me, and I hope at some time there can be an honest exchange of feelings on the need for helping in counseling and training people for marriage and developing the family. I fully respect the Minister; he is responsible for the marriage Act; it is under his charge, and I respect his reservations about certain people….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to direct his remarks more directly to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Rolston: The marriage Act is under…. Well, reorganization includes a lot of things. We'll get to that debate sometime, I hope.

Anyway, total health: there is total preventive health in marriage and family — physical and emotional.

Finally, of course, on the community side, once again I would reiterate a plea I have made twice before for health boards for an area. I realize it is not incorporated right now in this amendment, but I would think that ultimately the day is coming for a health board which would incorporate mental health, public health and the hospitals. Presumably, it would be contiguous to the regional districts. Now, that can present problems because there are some places where it doesn't quite make sense.

If the Minister could realize that, for instance, the specialists come from Abbotsford and Chilliwack to the Mission Memorial Hospital and, therefore, we are drawing from other regional districts. The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) realizes this. That medically makes good sense; we're on the same telephone exchange and there is a referral system. The Minister has bought an excellent referral telephone deal where if there are acute problems at night we have a referral system where we can get a specialist in Chilliwack or Abbotsford to whip into the Mission hospital and deal with the case.

Unfortunately, politically that is in another regional district. I am not sure what you do with that one. There are already moves to see if politically the capital costs for hospitals could be attached another way. Goodness knows, that's another discussion.

It brings up the whole need to look ultimately…. Maybe a year or so down the road you will see a need for simply a local, indigenous health board, bringing all the people together, co-ordinating, but in no way sacrificing individual patient-doctor relationship at all. I think it would co-ordinate the programmes.

For instance, we are still a little anxious that doctors in Maple Ridge better use the new home-care programme. It's early; it's the first month and it's slow getting going. But I think such a board could say: "Look, you guys, this is the thing. We are going for home care now. We hope to have 15 patients cared for at a given time — we've hired coordinators and staff. Let's use this. You asked for it over the last few years; let's really use it."

Of course, I think it would avoid a proliferation of the private hospitals and some of the small personal-care homes that aren't really appropriate or aren't working that creatively with the total health team of that area.

So I support the legislation. There is nothing more basic to all the Members than feeling whole and feeling healthy.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I really had to sit up and take notice of the former speaker's statement. I am sure I didn't hear

[ Page 4537 ]

correctly when he was championing the cause of itinerant surgery.

To anyone who is not familiar with it, itinerant surgery is when you have surgeons travelling long distances to perform surgery and leaving immediately after. This has to be done in rare cases and it's something that we should be guarding against very much in the future. I hope the Minister would do this.

It sounds nice in blueprint, Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), but the problem is that every operation is not completely successful and it's not without its complications. If your specialist comes in and does gastric surgery and leaves, or your gynecologist comes in and does a Caesarian and leaves, and a bleeder develops, it's a matter of life and death within minutes. There wouldn't be the facilities in terms of emergency and surgical services that would be required at hand to save that patient's life.

So I do hope the Hon, Minister of Health will take the Member for Dewdney in hand and certainly not control him but explain to him that that approach to medicine would be another bill leading us backwards into the future. I personally believe that itinerant surgery is not something that we should encourage. I think I would get very strong backing from the medical profession as a whole, and I don't mean just physicians.

I rather enjoyed the Member for Dewdney's delightfully fresh statement that when he was first elected he was taken downstairs by some doctors and he felt genuine hostility. I wonder if that Member has been out in the province lately to talk to farmers, insurance agents, taxpayers, little people? I suggest that there is a great feeling of hostility that I hope will be as effective on you in terms of your voting on some of this legislation as your thoughts were and your reaction was to the medical aspect. I would just say, in all good humour, that if I were you, I wouldn't preen my feathers too soon because you may be plucked sooner than you think.

You just read an article that may well have been the plucking of a couple of pinfeathers….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: …in the honeymoon of medicine that's going on under this administration.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask the Hon. Member to address the Chair, please.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, on acupuncture, I'll certainly give the Minister credit. He had an open mind; he has had proper authorities investigate it and has stopped any professional bias that might remain or have prohibited it. I would caution him not to go overboard.

Certainly, in light of all the commissions that have already been over there, I must seriously question just what advantage there is going to be to the health care of British Columbia by the Minister going to study acupuncture in China, But that's not what I intend to talk about.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: That wasn't announced.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, you were so reticent to announce it, we thought we'd better announce it for you. You wouldn't want to keep the people of British Columbia in the dark, Mr. Minister, I know.

In the old bill that this seeks to amend, section 3 gave the Minister management and direction of his department but had no provisions, we agree, for wholesale delegation by the Minister of his duties and responsibilities.

The new bill does provide in section 2 that the Minister preside over and be responsible for his department, and it also provides a wholesale delegation of power. To sum that up in a few simple words, I believe what it says is that the Minister will move out of direct daily involvement in his department and will delegate his former functions under the old third section of management and direction to someone else.

One must look upon this with mixed emotions because there's little question that medicine is a changing science and a changing art. Restructuring is always required; structures must move forward as do the arts and science. So I am prepared to support this bill on the basis of this need.

I wouldn't want to disappoint the Minister and not ask this vital question: is it the bill that makes Richard Foulkes the Minister of Health?

But I don't want to dwell on that sort of thing. I do want to ask if it is really desirable, at a time when health-care policy in this province is undergoing and expecting to undergo fundamental changes, that the Minister should be getting less involved. One would hope that this is a procedural matter and that the Minister will be involved as much as he has been since talking office.

The reason one has to ask this question is that we've seen bills like this before in the House and we've seen disastrous results. We know that the Minister himself is a director of ICBC. Whether ICBC is a result of his direct involvement in this programme or the lack of it I'm not in a position to say at the moment. But it can hardly be used either way as a vote of confidence for this Minister who is one of the few Ministers who has some association with business in the government.

I think it would be a shame if this bill was, in effect, a removal of some of the Minister's direct

[ Page 4538 ]

responsibilities by delegation with a view that he should be shunted to the left to take a more direct involvement in ICBC — and I don't intend to discuss ICBC.

But with due respect, the Minister has proven himself certainly one of the more successful Ministers among his colleagues. I suppose one could say he stands out well above the group of inefficiency experts that surround him, But I believe it's because the majority of his time has been spent in this field of medical and health care.

We hope, Mr. Minister, very much that this bill will not, in essence, move you from a close relationship with this field. The programmes that were initiated before your administration were on stream when your administration came into a position of authority and have grown. Some were initiated by yourself. But it's absolutely essential at this time that there be vital involvement by the Minister.

I don't want to be too critical of the Minister. As I say, I think he's one of the better Ministers in that group of inefficiency experts. I'm not really sure, when you look at what they've done whether that's saying much, but I do mean it as a compliment.

Certainly he has shown himself very adept in the public relations area. One can sense, just at the debate of this bill, a very finely-tuned public relations circle going on. When the bill comes into the House, just on the day when it's about to be debated. by the government — poof! — a really glowing article comes out in the Vancouver Sun on the B.C. Medical Centre. And then the bill doesn't come on the floor for debate. While the Sun said that there would be more feature articles day by day, the next day the article doesn't appear. But then when the bill is thought to come up again, the next article appears. I don't intend to go into great detail on those articles — I think there'll be much time….

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm not saying he's got the Sun, but I suggest he does know the reporter very well and this has been very helpful, As I said, it's a masterful and finely-tuned public relations programme, and he has shone in this area in his administration.

But what has to be borne in mind in speaking to this bill is, as I mentioned, the fact that the bill permits the Minister to shuffle many of his usual duties over to officials.

One area of concern that comes up, when you think of what has happened in other departments of your government, is the whole area of mental health. We believe, and the professions believe, that this is an incorporation — and everyone's pleased about this — of mental health under more direct involvement, with a moving of some specific instances to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). I hope that Minister will confirm that that is, in fact, the approach he intends to take and that there isn't going to be a shifting of more mental health services to the Human Resources department.

Also, he might briefly outline the future of mental health in British Columbia.

I must speak for a moment on costs. Really, it's the first time that he has spoken with even a mild inference that costs might be a matter of concern. It's like the old missionaries: we don't talk about money; the good Lord will provide. And He usually did, through the generosity of other people. The Minister has adopted this attitude around the province and hospital boards have this attitude.

I think that wage-and-contract negotiations have been negotiated with this attitude in mind. It's very commendable, but it seems to me, Mr. Minister, that the chickens are going to come home to roost and you must be much more specific in your concerns.

I would refer you to one of the Sun articles where it states very clearly — and I'm not going into all the details of why costs are escalating — on November 6, that'

"Most of the money that is being spent and is being budgeted in the future is going to be channelled through the hospital system, which is being reshaped by the emergence of the B.C. Medical Centre."

When you read the acceleration of costs now and you listen to what the proposed accelerations are going to be, Mr. Minister, this B.C. Medical Centre is indeed going to be a very expensive situation.

What concerns me is that right in the article it says that Vancouver General, for example, and St. Paul's will probably end this year with deficits of about $750,000 and $400,000 respectively. But both expect no problem getting the money. In the previous article someone made it very clear that a great deal of money has to be spent, but they are not really too concerned about that.

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that one of the things you must be greatly concerned about is not penny-pinching, but indeed knowing where your money is going to go, knowing in terms of capital construction, in terms of operating costs, because many of the programmes that are being initiated have very heavy, ongoing, in-built costs. It is not simply a matter of those costs as you see them in the next three to five years. It's what's going to happen to those costs over the next 10 to 20 years, and how the demands of such powerful machinery that you're setting up are going to affect the priorities of health care in this province.

I think the Minister will agree with me — and he has said publicly in the east and, I believe, in the States — that British Columbia has enjoyed one of the highest standards of medical care and health service in the world for the greatest number of people. We have

[ Page 4539 ]

the highest standard in nursing education; we have the highest standard in practical nursing education. We have the highest standards in medical education. We have the quality hospitals in nearly every area of this province. And that is not to be sneezed at.

Certainly some things have had to be sacrificed, just as the Minister will have to sacrifice in the future. One of the questions that must be answered is: where are those priorities going to lie? We must strive to keep up the local and regional health care and their facilities, and we must strive to see that the health-delivery programmes in British Columbia are such that they continue to attract quality people, whether they are trained in British Columbia or not, and that we don't do what has happened in the English system and attract people whose basic qualification is that they are willing to suffer and serve and peddle pills under a very suppressive and initiative-starved system, and where there is a system of layering, which is absolutely stifling to anyone in any sector of delivery of health care.

I would caution the Minister, when one examines the potential of administrative distribution and the potential for great bureaucratic development in this bill, and in some of the other bills that are under section 6 of his administration, that in British Columbia we have had a high standard of medical care. We have attracted quality people to deliver this service. We have among the highest quality for all paramedical services in Canada and, I might add, the seventh-lowest — or among the highest qualified — physicians in Canada on an overall standard of training.

I suggest the reason those physicians have come here was because the system itself that was practised here has been a very attractive system to both patient and doctor, and also to the paramedical services. There has been a degree in the patient and doctor relationship which is not enjoyed everywhere, and there certainly has been a degree of cooperation in the B.C. Medical Plan, because it was worked out between the doctors and the government. It has probably been the most successful, in terms of patient service and meeting the needs of the doctors and being financially responsible, of any plan in the world. I'm sure the Minister realizes this.

But is the Minister aware, when he talks in terms of growing costs, of the cost squeeze that is going on out there within the medical profession, for example — I won't talk about the hospitals because someone else has — where they're built into a payment system on fee for service, which should be continued, which hasn't taken into account their rising costs of operation?

There's the fact that nurses have received increases, the minimum wage has gone up, office help price has gone up and will have to go up more. The costs of operating any services within the clinic, Mr. Speaker, have gone up. The operation of these clinics in forms of taxes, Hydro power, heating, have all gone up, and we are having growing in British Columbia something we have never had before.

I'm certainly not speaking for all, but the majority of medical clinics in this province which have been functioning on the concept of close relationship between varieties of physicians in their specialties in order to give the patients the best possible service, and even many doctors operating on their own, simply are not going to be able to continue to give the service that they have in the past or that they want, because they are not going to be able to afford to operate their clinics.

Their own remunerative position and the fact that they are, by and large, such dedicated people is the reason there hasn't been a lot of public talk about it. Their hourly income runs around $5.50 for the average physician on a greatly extended hourly basis — not by their own choosing but by the nature of the practices they are involved in.

They are in the position now of not having guarantees of holidays, time off, regular hours, weekends. Yet they are earning less than perhaps the local plumber or electrician and, in many instances, other jobs which don't require any major training.

I'm not championing any particular cause, but I point this out to the Minister as one of the cost squeezes, one of the accelerating cost problems that must be faced if you are to plug in to this plan the way you want to all these services. The success of this plan to a large degree depends upon the nurses and the physicians. You cannot do it without them and you cannot do it without their cooperation. It is a matter which should be recognized in your early budgeting stages, and I fear that it hasn't.

In saying this I would again caution the Minister, when one looks at this blueprint he's designing for medicine — and that's what it is — that not only is the challenge going to be in implementing it in an effective manner for the patient and those involved in the delivery of care, but that we are not moving towards the implementation of the programme that went in in Manitoba, which is gorgeous in design and disastrous in patient care, because the patient is absolutely lost in the shuffle; that we don't develop in Canada the same system that has developed in England where you have a two-tier system of medical care, one for the wealthy and those who can afford it, and the other for the poor; that we maintain the freedom of physicians and nurses to move about as their ability and needs direct to maintain flexibility and ability for the professions in all sectors of interest to respond rapidly to medical changes; and that we don't get into a system where one centre of the province is favoured over another in providing facilities so that we have again what they have in England — just years of waiting lists and inadequate

[ Page 4540 ]

facilities.

We have to see in British Columbia that our regional and local hospital facilities for acute care maintain and expand the service that they are, so that people who don't live in the lower mainland and who aren't near to highly specialized centres where this service could be given just as well out in their own region, have to face the extra cost of coming down, the extra emotional problems, and sometimes very serious health problems.

I'm sure I'll have more to say about that under the Minister's estimates. I would just remind him, in this grand design that is evolving, of the recommendation of quality care and service of the British Columbia Medical Association of July, 1973, where they say:

"The British Columbia Medical Association therefore believes it essential that the family physician should not only have free access to hospitals within his community but should have appropriate use of their services. Only in this way will high-quality, concerned and informed primary care medicine continue to be available throughout the communities."

I would suggest that that is a very vital recommendation for the Minister to bear in mind as he delegates more and more authority to see that the qualified practising physician has his input and has a good deal of responsible freedom to practise his profession and doesn't become locked into a hierarchy where nothing short of death of a senior will see any change.

I would recommend just on this point that the Minister consider, in incorporating any heavy medical structure — perhaps such as the B.C. Medical Centre — that appointments be considered on a term basis, perhaps 5-year review and 10-year maximum, so that an individual can come in, be chosen for various reasons, can exercise those reasons to the very best of their ability with their enthusiasm, with their freshness, with their open minds, and they can do a good job and they can move on to other areas with grace and in the best interest of the patients and patient care in the province.

I am a little concerned in addressing this bill because it was mentioned somewhere in an article by Tim Padmore on November 6 in the Sun that health care in British Columbia was the second biggest business to MacMillan Bloedel. I just hope, when one reads through the terms of care and levels of care — and I hope even more after listening to the Minister a few minutes ago when he talked about this level of care and that level of care (I can't even recall all the different pinpoints he had) — that we're not going to start turning out health care like we do plywood and whether intentioned or not, end up a system of health care in British Columbia that is marked like plywood.

You're good on one side or you're sanded on the other side. This is marked for sheeting, if you'll pardon the expression, or this is a utility health care, or this is D-grade health care. I think this is what has happened in England and I'm sure the Minister would agree that this is something we don't want to happen in British Columbia.

It's all very well to talk in terms of big business, and we may be second only to MacMillan Bloedel But, for goodness' sakes, let's not run health care like you run MacMillan Bloedel. It's people we're dealing with — human beings, not trees.

Listening to the Minister talk about his levels of care and talking about finances, I would ask him one question and perhaps he would elaborate on it. In the article in the Sun on November 6 it defines various levels of care and who will pay for what. I draw your attention to primary care, which refers to the patient's initial contact with the medical professional — an ambulance driver or general practitioner, for example. This is to be paid for at the local level.

Now, is it the Minister's intention to shift some of the cost-sharing and some of the cost responsibility of the programmes that he is developing or that this director may develop onto the local level? Is it the Minister's intention that all ambulance services should be paid for at the local level? Perhaps you can clear that up for me.

I'd like to speak for a minute on continuing education. Others have mentioned some of the gaps in medical service in British Columbia at this time This is a gap, Mr. Minister, where you yourself have compounded the problem and compounded some ill feeling. It's in this whole area of continuing education.

Your speech today was predicated on the expansion of facilities, expansion of care, expansion of services. But who is going to carry out all of these? I know that the B.C. Medical Centre has a good design or a blueprint for long-term training, and I know they have a design sometime for continuing education programmes. But the need, Mr. Speaker, is now, and this need is growing every day.

Traditionally there is a concern in this area. Right now we find that universities and higher education institutions are being very heavily funded in the training of health personnel and in health programmes. But there's an irregular system of funding for continuing education. It's been traditional to this point, and it may well mean changing, but continuing education is the area under which continuing education for health programmes for nurses has been done, and this has been through the extension departments.

What has happened now is that there is such heavy funding in the universities themselves, which are not interested in carrying on these programmes of a clinical nature in continuing education because

[ Page 4541 ]

they're concentrating on their programmes,. that the extension departments have been literally told to paddle their own canoes. And there just are not funds available today for this type of education. Their own overall budgets are very marginal.

I believe it's high time — I think the nurses believe that it's high time — that continuing education was recognized and funded. The Minister has offered funding for forms of continuing medical education to the physicians in this province. He pays for….

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, I checked yesterday, Mr. Minister, and I'm told, "Not so."

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Perhaps there's a breakdown in liaison because my understanding is that certainly the registered nurses don't know about this.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, then, I'm not getting across to you. Is this a long-term programme? Is this a short-term programme?

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, is this going to allow for planning and development money for training programmes?

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks more directly to the principle of the bill and not get in too detailed a discussion at this time.

Mrs. Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is under the Minister's administration. We are passing a bill delegating more powers from him and we're concerned about the fact that this delegation may interrupt a continuity of service to the patient, which health care is all about. We're concerned about bureaucracies building that have no relationship to the patient.

One of the most vital areas of concern in nursing today is the lack of funds for continuing education. It takes anywhere from two months to 16 weeks to develop a proper programme for continuing education in various areas of health.

Nurses in British Columbia are deeply concerned that more and more demands are being made on them in their nursing practice, and more and more changes are coming along for which they haven't the opportunities to upgrade their knowledge and their abilities. It's always been a changing situation but it has accelerated greatly. To their knowledge, there are not these moneys available, and they would like to see them made available.

I suggest to the Minister, in the interest of carrying out some of the changes in medicine or the continuation of some of these medical programmes, that this money must be made available, If it's there and they don't know about it, why not? Why don't they know about it?

I hope that this sort of funding for nurses is not going to be incorporated in the wage-and-working-conditions negotiation. I hope it will be made free so that the responsible groups within nursing education can design the plans as they see them needed in the delivery of health care, not as some contract suggests that they should be made. That freedom and flexibility must be there.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Minister, I have tried to be constructive and kind. You, in this bill, have another stupid, massive NDP bureaucracy. We've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt; we've tried to praise you where praise is due. We have not unduly criticized you. But I suggest the day is coming, if your administration doesn't change, when the people of this province will condemn you most seriously. And you turn around and giggle.

Speaking of bureaucracies, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention something that's going on in the province. We've had one case right now where there has been a breakdown of liaison. I ask the Minister and point out to him that this is another danger.

In the hospitals around British Columbia there has been a large increase in administrative staff. One of these problems is that there is, intentionally or unintentionally, a breakdown of communication. I have had letters and met with some people around the province where we have positions available in the hospitals but not being advertised and where we have young people taking special training in order to practise in our hospitals in British Columbia — such as licensed practical nurses and orderlies — going back to their home towns or going to a community and going to the hospital to apply for a job. When they apply for that job. they're told that there isn't one available and that they should call back every once in a while.

This has happened in many places. I have a specific case here where a young lady was financed by her family at over $2,000 to take a practical nursing course. She graduated with top marks or very good marks. She wasn't eligible for financial assistance under Canada Manpower because she had done the very sinful thing of going from high school right into training without taking a year off to go on welfare. So she didn't qualify for any training money; she trained herself with her family's help. She went to a

[ Page 4542 ]

hospital to apply for a job and she was told that there weren't any and that she should call back once in a while.

This seems a most inadequate way of handling employment in hospitals if it's the common case all over the province. I'll get the Minister to investigate this specific one right after, if he will. This is an attitude one must assume developed out of a bureaucratic structure that is becoming insensitive.

Put that attitude together with the Canada Manpower attitude, which is that when people go in for a job they don't get any guidance as to what jobs are available. There's no real discussion about what their abilities are, and there's no effort to try and match the right people to the right jobs. All they're told when they're looking for a job is: "Look on the bulletin board, and keep coming back."

They leave their names, just as this girl would leave her name, and their qualifications — or they want to — with the Unemployment Insurance board and say: "Will you call me if an opportunity comes up if I happen not to be in that day?" They say, "no."

If an employer says, "I want a girl — or a man…" We're not supposed to say boys or girls any more. "I want a person with this qualification to do this job; will you find me one?" Canada Manpower says, "No, you come and look at the bulletin board."

When you relate this to this, Mr. Minister, here we have a person trained at great cost wanting to go to work in a hospital, with really no way of knowing when a job becomes available.

I'd like the Minister to look into this all over the province. Is there a pecking order developing? I hope not. But I think we should examine the advisability and feasibility of a position becoming vacant in a hospital, it being advertised publicly. Or there should be very definitely a public posting, particularly in the paramedical services.

The RNABC has long kept a registry there. A nurse wanting a position can go to the RNABC, tell them where she wants to go, the type of job she wants, and that can be co-ordinated through the RNABC. But the licensed practical nurses and the orderlies, as I understand it, don't have any way of knowing about this. We may need help in hospitals. There may be all kinds of people in the community who would like to come back to work, and who are well qualified to come back to work, but who don't, or can't, because of this type of growing attitude in a hospital.

So I would ask the Minister, in discussing this bill, if he would give me a commitment that he'll look into this, and see that this sort of very sad case that I'm particularly referring to doesn't happen any more — except that it has happened already in other parts of the hospital.

Mr. Minister, as mentioned before, I think everyone in British Columbia who knows anything about medical care has a great deal of respect for Mr. Mainguy. Basically, your initial statement outlined this as possibly the Mainguy bill. We see that there is ample room for extension of this power and extension of these appointments, and we would urge you to move with caution in terms of bureaucracy. And we would urge you to estimate what your accelerated costs are going to be — not from the point of view of penny-pinching…

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that you have two minutes remaining.

Mrs. Jordan: Thank you.

…but to see that moneys spent on medical care are moneys spent with value to the patient, with value to health care, and also to see that priorities are spread around the province.

Such places as Dellview Hospital in Vernon, which was built in 1942 as a wooden structure and doesn't come under the classification of quality construction as some people talk about in Vancouver, is in a very real need of the money to rebuild — not an expensive building, but one to serve the needs of these people.

We hope that the priorities that will be delegated through the powers of this bill will be for health care all around the province to the greatest number of people.

Mrs. D. Webster (Vancouver South): As the Second Member for Vancouver South I must say that I am very, very pleased with the bill concerning integration of services, and the way that it is going to be divided so that the public health and mental health programmes will be integrated, and that hospital insurance and allied subjects in that sphere are also going to be integrated. It is going to mean a better delivery of health services.

I would like to say that I am surprised that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) should be the lead-off speaker for the official opposition as health critic, when he doesn't even know what he's talking about. It's all poppycock.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Interjection.

Mrs. Webster: It's not a vicious attack. It's about time you did some homework, Mr. Member. All you had to do is phone the Health Services department or the hospital department and you would find that your statistics are entirely wrong.

There are a great number of extended-care hospital beds being provided. Ever since the standing committee on health went around the province last year to look into integration of health services, a

[ Page 4543 ]

great deal has been done. All you have to do is phone your Health department and you will find that at present there are over 3,000 extended-care beds now in British Columbia.

I was told in speaking to the people in the Department of Health and Hospital Services that there are only three places in British Columbia now that are in real need for more extended-care beds. Not that the others couldn't stand more, but they're in pretty good supply at present. They are Prince George, Kamloops and Vancouver.

In Vancouver I was at the ceremony that took place at Shaughnessy Hospital about a month ago in which Shaughnessy was transferred from federal to provincial jurisdiction. They have 870 beds there, Mr. Speaker. About 270 of those are going to be used for acute care. Another 200 will be used for extended care, and they expect that 400 will be used for intermediate care.

About two weeks later I went into Shaughnessy to have a look through the hospital. Dr. Covernton, who is the administrator of the hospital, was delighted that I took off the time to be able to see what was happening there. They are reorganizing the hospital already. They feel that the streamlining is going to do a great deal towards the service, not only by way of teaching, but by way of giving extra extended care and intermediate care.

There are not too many veterans left in this hospital, but he assured me, and we were also assured on the day the takeover was taking place, that veterans in the hospital will be given first priority, and will be given the same fine care as they have been given all along.

That hospital, Mr. Speaker, has some of the finest equipment you can find in Canada. It has beautiful large lounges for the patients off various wings of the hospital. And it has a huge lecture theatre with not only fine clinical equipment and fine diagnostic equipment, but also a great deal of specialized equipment especially for teaching. It has extended lawns. It's on a 46-acre site and it's going to also be the site for the erection of the new children's hospital which will eventually be in that same area. So it will be closely connected and integrated with the services of Shaughnessy Hospital.

Presently in the integration programme to make the children's hospital more efficient, a care-by-parents wing has been erected which will serve as an interim measure to make the facilities a little more adequate there. Here again, they have very, very find equipment. But the congestion has been bad, and this is now being relieved. This is all part of the integration plan by the Department of Health.

Beside the fact that there are 3,000 extended-care beds in British Columbia, intermediate care beds have been constructed. There is a fine intermediate-care unit in Vancouver — Dogwood Lodge — which houses 150 patients. Then there's another one called Dogwood II, in Burnaby, which houses another 150. There's a new one also in Victoria, and this is increasing the availability for beds for intermediate care.

In relation to teaching facilities, last summer I attended the international convention for occupational and physiotherapists at the University of British Columbia, and that was the first time that the occupational and physiotherapists had ever held their convention in Canada. They were absolutely delighted with the fact that the programme that we have at the University of B.C. Includes both occupational and physiotherapists, and that it is expanding and doing the fine job that it's doing.

The number of doctors being trained each year has been increased during the last two years from 60 to 80, and with the use of Shaughnessy Hospital in the future they hope that they'll be able to double that.

I would like to make mention of a few facts concerning Pearson Hospital, because here's one place where the integration of services and where this bill is going to help a great deal, Pearson Hospital is an extended care and rehabilitative hospital at the same time. It was originally intended for T.B. patients, but with the new cures for T.B., that has been changed, and a great number of the people that are in Pearson are paraplegics or stroke cases, or people who are terminal cases of one kind or another and they know they will never get out of there. It takes a particular type of people to handle them. The administrative staff, the doctors, the nurses, the orderlies and the physio- and occupational therapists are all very, very dedicated people and will do everything they can to make their patients happy. But during the summertime, as in practically every other hospital, during the time when they have to give holiday time to the various members of staff, there's always a short-term shortage, and while this in other hospitals is not too bad because they don't necessarily have to take people for elective surgery, or something of that kind, in a place like Pearson Hospital it doesn't mean that they can reduce the number of patients in the hospital.

It's a traumatic experience for people in a hospital such as Pearson to find that the personnel they have been depending on are not there. So, one of the things that's really going to help a great deal, is that this bill provides for a hospital board for hospitals that have not already got one. Most of the general hospitals have their own hospital boards but Pearson needs that sort of thing, and needs it very, very badly, because they have to have lay people who are close at hand, who are sensitive to the needs and show deep concern for these needs of the patients in this particular hospital.

Another thing that I would like to mention, just

[ Page 4544 ]

briefly, is the fact that the home-care programme throughout British Columbia can be extended and integrated with hospital care. There is a great deal more that can be done now through day surgery. There's a great deal more now that can be done by preventive care for patients, particularly for elderly patients, so that they can stay within their own homes and can have a visiting therapist or a visiting nurse or doctor come and give them attendance at home for treating their ailments rather than having to put them in hospital.

One thing, I think, that frightens old people more than anything is to have to go into hospital. If they have a comfortable place at home and have those services there, it's much better for them and they respond much more quickly to treatment. In fact, during the last year or two there have been pilot projects going on in various parts of the province — Victoria was one. There's been one in Vancouver and Nanaimo and Kelowna, and one or two other places, I believe. In Victoria alone, during a 17-month period there was a saving of about $275,000, and not only was there a saving in money, but they found that people recuperated much more quickly at home, and also it saved hospital beds.

In relation to the preparation of extended-care hospitals, let me say that one of the doctors pointed out to me that, even if the average stay of extended-care patients in an acute care hospital were one month, that would mean that one patient would be taking up a bed that would supply acute care for four patients, because the average acute care is not more than one week. This means that 100 extended-care patients in acute-care beds could give service to 400 acute-care cases, which means that there would have to be far less money spent on acute-care beds by providing extended care. These are some of the things that the integration of services really can do for us.

Another thing that I think is exceedingly important is that mental care is not now going to be separated from physical care of the patient. It means the treatment of the whole patient. The stigma will go out of the thought of going into a mental hospital. That patient will just be going into a hospital from now on. That patient will just be getting care, and not necessarily mental or psychiatric care, but care.

Elderly patients, very often, are prone to senility or to confusion, and psychiatric care in their case is very often due to the fact that they start off with some kind of physical ailment. Whereas, for instance, Mr. Speaker, an older person might, through high blood pressure or obesity, or something like that…. In one case, one person might get a stroke; another one might get a heart attack; another one might get some other type of ailment; but another might get loss of memory from the very same thing — it's all from arteriosclerosis.

As a result, some of them not only have one of these ailments, but have a combination of them. They have to be treated as a whole person. They can't be treated separately, mentally or physically. For this reason, the integration of these services is most important and, as the Minister mentioned, it's also most important in that early in life we can start by proper nutrition programmes for young people, because that is where our bad eating habits start. That is where the proneness to heart and stroke cases begin, and with good nutrition we can prevent a great number of these ailments. Many of us are too fat — we eat too much of the wrong food — and we do need assistance so that we don't have to supplement our bad diets with a lot of vitamins and minerals and other pills without knowing what these particular things also do for our bodies.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Webster: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this integration of services is going to be of benefit to all of us, and it is going to help in making our health services more efficient and related more closely to the needs of people.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take more than a moment or two to raise a subject with the Minister — I rarely take more than a few moments, Mr. Speaker. The Minister, I think, will appreciate that in a bill which deals with the reorganization of health services, I would want to ask him, and hope that he will comment on the Saanich Peninsula acute-care hospital which has a history now of several years.

The Minister has been kind enough to reply in correspondence; we have had some corridor conversation about the addition of a given number of hospital-care beds. But it is of paramount importance to the residents of the peninsula who know that Resthaven Hospital, which is very old, should be replaced just as soon as possible. We have heard that statement for quite some time.

On March 31, 1973, voters in the Capital Regional District went to the polls and approved construction, not only of the acute side of the hospital — the extended-care wing was under construction at that time — but they also approved a very significant amount of money for hospital construction in the entire regional district.

I realize that the problem is not restricted to this regional district alone. I realize that probably one of the aspects of your portfolio which gives you the greatest concern is getting through the maze of complications and individual boards, agencies and commissions — I'll use the term bureaucrats as well to get hospital beds under construction. We hear of this in a number of parts of British Columbia, and it does

[ Page 4545 ]

exist in the riding I represent.

Can you give us any indication, Mr. Minister? Are you any closer to a decision with respect to the acute side of the Saanich Peninsula hospital? When can the constituents of that area expect some action?

The Greater Vancouver Regional District is similarly concerned. I indicated a moment ago that it must be of concern to a Minister, such as the present Minister of Health, but it is of concern to people who need beds; it is of concern to people who are involved in the entire and complex hospital process.

The statement by the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, dated November 4, said in part:

"The existing process is very elaborate in that everything originates with the hospital society and goes from there to the regional board, then to the province. Then the process is reversed at every stage. There are too many opinions on should be incorporated in construction. In many cases there is conflict about what should be provided.

"A great deal of money is spent on processing each project through these stages and a tremendous delay, sometimes amounting to years, is the result."

Sounds familiar. And it would fit more than the Greater Vancouver Regional District case.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to emphasize that the Minister has been helpful. He hasn't committed, but he has been helpful with respect to the acute-care beds of which I speak.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) spoke about the Capital Regional District problem earlier this afternoon. You have a reorganization proposed within this bill, Bill 166, which is before us. But, Mr. Minister, will it move us more quickly to acute-care hospital beds?

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there is a fair amount of support for this bill; I feel that it pretty well permeates the House, and I am very glad that it does.

I will say to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) that he will get his report on what is happening in Pearson Hospital. I just can't give you day to day whether a driver is on staff or not, but we will check into it.

Anyway, getting back to the arguments of the Member for Langley: he talked about an obsession of feeding the bureaucratic process. That's where he started — the first step to implementing the Foulkes report…what's Foulkes doing now? — and all the rest of that kind of material which we have heard before.

I indicated that Foulkes did a report and it was a very valuable report for the province. It was not just a discussion paper which people discussed. Aspects of the report are implemented and aspects of the report are not implemented nor implementable, as I've indicated. And I indicated in my early discussion that the reorganization which was suggested, the pattern, could not be implemented.

He said: "Where is he now?" He doesn't know how to read his estimates. Last year, vote 82 — that's where we find that particular situation. Sure, its name was changed because his work was done. We have had him doing other kinds of work. Chronic care: if you would read your paper and, as a matter of fact, listened to the discussions last estimates. He has provided us with a good deal of good solid information, and I make no excuses.

If we talk in terms of the facts that under the NDP government the Finance Minister has somehow…. In a bill like this, how you could involve him…if the money isn't being made available to health care, it is going somewhere else. Let me give you an example: $294 million last year of Social Credit — $294,671,164. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, add, say, $80 million for medicare and you still come up with $374 million. What was it under the NDP? $548 million dedicated to health care in this province, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Don't tell me about a cheap Finance Minister. We've got a Finance Minister that has complete concern about health.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, it's not because the Premier's here that I'm saying these nice things, it's because it's true.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Sure we need money, Mr. Speaker. Sure we need money.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh, here comes the rhetoric.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: That's for preventive care and for all other sorts of care. "Prepaid dental plan," the Members says, "How come you haven't done it?" We do work miracles, Mr. Speaker. Sure we do, but we can't work a miracle without enough practitioners to deliver the service. That's why we've got people right now studying that very problem to find out what

[ Page 4546 ]

alternatives can be reached where we can provide dental care for the people.

I gave the example before. Wouldn't we be smart providing a prepaid dental care plan for the people in Prince Rupert where they've got two dentists, and those two dentists are supposed to provide service to 17,000 people?

This summer both those dentists went on holiday at the same time.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: We did. We cannot invent dentists, my friend.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Yes, and we will, but it takes time. It took you 20 years to do nothing. (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: But they did it well.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, he said: "Tell the people how much the overrun is." We went specifically to the ambulance: our ambulances will stay within budget. But I'll tell you this, watch your estimates next year, it's going to be more. Of course it has to be more. It's a fantastic service for the people of B.C.

He said: "Who's the new health supercrat?" whatever that might mean. Jim Mainguy — a fine administrator, picked after two years of careful selection, and we had the opportunity of going right across the country, and we did. We looked at many alternatives, but he's a fine administrator whom we feel will do the job. I make no apologies for him; as a matter of fact, we found him in our own department.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Cocke: So, Mr. Speaker, this bill does give us an opportunity to try and provide services.

The whole area that was brought to our attention by the Member for Victoria was the fact that we have had some warrants.

I'd like to bring one of those warrants to the attention of the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) who was indicating that we were short shrifting chronic care. One of those warrants was $2.5 million, as a backup, or as an improvement on our home-care programme. I think the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and everybody else in this House will admit, and surely support this, that if you don't have home care backing up chronic care then you've got a programme that isn't going to work in any event. So, that was one of those warrants.

Of the others one was for prevention — the Multi-Disciplinary Advisory Board, $70,000. The other was for cerebral palsy, who have a real problem and they needed the money.

Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of situation we have and I'm glad the Member acknowledged the fact that these are needed moneys.

The deputy won't necessarily be a medical doctor, that's quite right. He should be an administrator, but that doesn't say he shouldn't necessarily be a medical doctor either. He could very well be. But at the present time we are appointing a layman.

Going on with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I'm glad that he does have the kind of feeling that he has about the new deputy. I'm sure there will not be the over-administration that he worries about. We're not trying to provide a kind of process that's going to be a bureaucracy; we're trying to simplify it. We're trying to get to a point in time where we can really deliver a co-ordinated service. This is the way we want to go.

Intermediate care. Yes, we feel as badly as the Member for Oak Bay that we haven't been able to provide any more than we have to date.

Let me take you back to the origin of extended care, In 1966, this province went into extended care. I took over, and we were still 2,000 beds short. I'm not going to throw the wet towel at the Socreds completely on that. Sure, they didn't give it the kind of priority that they should have. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, they had around them a situation where they knew, once they got fully into that, there was the other prospect that would be wide open. They'd have to go into that. I think that was one of the reasons for the lack of attention.

We have now put a priority on this whole area, but it takes time. For instance, it didn't take very much time to convince the Capital Regional District that they should be into extended care. They've done it well over the last few years, but they've neglected acute care. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has only now decided that there's a priority around extended care. You have to work with regions. You're partners with them and so you have to depend to some degree on what they're doing.

We're looking at the $5.50 a day for extended and intermediate care. It's a process that I rather agree with, but it's something that I haven't certainly finished discussing with the government.

The regional boards. The Member for Oak Bay was talking about the regional boards. How do we sharpen them up? I don't know; I don't really know. I know the problems that they've been having here, and we've altered regulations. We've asked the Capital Regional District to take the responsibility for planning, organizing and building the hospitals or the beds that are necessary. Hopefully, they're going to take up that challenge. If they don't, Mr. Member, the alternative is a little bleak. The hospitals have had a lot of trouble over the years and I would hope that

[ Page 4547 ]

the Capital Regional District will pick up the challenge and get on with it.

Mr. Wallace: It's their responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: It certainly is their responsibility, and we're going to try our very best to provide the backup that they need.

The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) talked about morale and the attention to health-care workers. I agree; that has to be done. We have, I think, in the health-care system a better morale. There has been a growing feeling of belonging that has developed over the last while. But there is a tremendous pressure in that business. It's a tough business for people when lives are depending upon you and what you do.

I won't comment on the counselling of the unmarried at this point. I think most people know how I feel about that.

The health board for an area. It's a good idea, Mr. Member, but it has to be developed around areas that have co-terminus boundaries that have some kind of relationship to other services. We just can't start providing health boards with that kind of input without a great deal more planning.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) talked about itinerant surgeons. The Member for Dewdney was merely talking about a problem that they have in Mission where they have no resident surgeons. The itinerant surgeons that he speaks of come to the Mission hospital. Sending a patient to a hospital in another district isn't always that easy. But, in any event, it's part of the medical process that they make their own decisions. I don't give direction in this particular area other than to provide the services as best we can. It's very difficult to move around physicians, as you well know. My predecessor (Mr. Loffmark) tried that once and got a bit burnt.

We're not going to China to study acupuncture. I would hope to look at acupuncture. One thing that I want to look at even more than acupuncture is the whole barefoot doctor syndrome and the system in China which seems to be so much more open. In other words, if a person begins in health care, they could develop right through the system to finally become a doctor, trained western style.

Our problem in Canada, as I see it, is a philosophical one that has to be resolved in the schools, in education, universities and so on. I think once a person gets into the process, he should be given credit for what he did before.

Let's take a look at the way you go through. You start as a ….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: You wouldn't understand. But you start, let's say, as a nurse's aide. That's the end of the line; you get no credit for that. If you wanted to go on to be a licensed practical nurse, you start over again. If you are a licensed practical nurse and you wanted to become an RN, you start all over again. Mind you, I think there are steps being taken here to resolve that. But, after becoming a nurse, you have to start all over again to go through for a doctor. I think these are the kind of rationalizations that should be met.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Oh, no, of course not. I'm interested in the paramedical services. Certainly, we would try to encourage the health system to take better advantage of people.

It's a great bill, the Premier says. If that's the case, I would ask that everybody in the House support this great bill.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has just said that he'll pay it. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the continuing education situation has been discussed with the nurses. You haven't obviously talked to the right nurses. There is continuing education going on with the full knowledge of executive of the RNABC. We're funding a programme right now for the extended role of the nurse.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: I'd like to make one announcement, and that announcement is to the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). He knows full well….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: No, he's over there. I wonder if this would have ever happened under the previous administration. If the regional district comes to my office and asks, they can have the Saanich Peninsula 75 acute-care beds as quickly as they can put them together.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 166, Department of Health Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 4548 ]

Hon. Mr. Hall: Second reading of Bill 169, Mr. Speaker.

LANDLORD AND TENANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No.2)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is an interim little measure. You can call it what you will but it's housekeeping.

Let's get the numbers right, There are approximately 270,000 family units in rental accommodation in the Province of British Columbia. When you add to that their families, we're dealing with the fate and welfare of 400,000, 500,000 or 600,000 people in the Province of British Columbia. We have decided as a government, Mr. Speaker, that we should not leave these people to the mercy of a marketplace where they would be caught up in the vice of inflation without any chance to protect their living conditions.

We have been a government that listens first and always cares. In the case of this legislation, we have listened to the voices of the people from whom you have all been receiving letters. We have acted in what are admittedly difficult circumstances with what are admittedly not complete steps, in what is admittedly still a learning process. No question about it.

I read for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) — and I have many letters here — but we're not talking about the classical theories of economics here which have largely disappeared in terms of practical results in our marketplace anyway, but we're talking about real people — Ethel Hicks, secretary of the Okanagan Regional Council, Senior Citizens' Association of B.C.:

"At the meeting of the Okanagan Regional Council of September 27, a motion was passed that I write you on behalf of the organization and urgently request you reconsider allowing the rents to rise. Many pensioners are in dire difficulties and are only getting by at the present levels. Therefore, we urgently request that you keep the level at 8 per cent as it has been in the past."

I have all kinds of letters. Here's one from Victoria — there are 200 units in the apartment buildings: "Last year we had the eight per cent. Please, Mr. Macdonald, do not lift the eight per cent ceiling. Goodness knows that it's hard enough to see the rent raised year after year."

I have letters from people. This one is a widow who lost her husband as she says tragically five years ago. She said:

"I read in the papers the news that the rents are going up an increase of 20 per cent, If this happens, my rent will be over $200 per month. I don't receive much more than that. On what am I supposed to live?"

I want to finish this letter, because it's typical of many.

"I know there are thousands in my position, but this is a small consolation. My husband and I worked hard, raised our family, and were never on welfare or unemployment insurance. Do honest, hard-working people always get the short end?"

I can't read the rest, but quickly, she talks about her rent, her food, her clothing. You know, we're talking about the basic staples of life. Education, which we subsidize, and look after people, because it's a basic staple; health, and we've just heard from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) about what we do and should do in those fields; food. But shelter is an important element as one of the basic ingredients, and we cannot turn our backs when we face the kind of situation we're in.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Well, you know, Hon. Member, in terms of the kind of continuing programming and research in this area which is going on — and that's why I say our measures are tentative and interim — that when we have a rent review commission, we break it into two components. We have the limited rent review with one gate open at the present time. We'll have to add other gates open to look after hardship cases where the building can't support itself on this limit.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): You're closing that gate. So why are you?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: In addition to that, the other component has got to be research and planning. The Province of Quebec, with the general agreement of the populace — I know the landlords cry a little bit and the tenants cry a little bit, as they do here; they cry quite a bit here — but with the general approval of the people of that province, are evolving a system of fair adjudication of these disputes in a simple, informal way without the cumbersome bureaucracy. It is not easy. They've been evolving this over a period of three times.

If you want to make a debating point that this is not the be all and end all, if you want to make a debating point that we missed the deadline, that we were hopeful that we would have section 28 operated by this time and we didn't do so, make that point. Read the report of Barrie Clark who points out the difficulties, procedural, administrative, economic, the need for continuous review, and you'll understand the reasons for it. But if you want to make that kind of debating point about us, if you want to say it's not a final programme, I'll save you the time — I'll admit

[ Page 4549 ]

it. If you want to say it's not an easy problem, I wish you would say it, but I don't suppose I've got to try Peterson's card to lie on my back and look at a daisy. (Laughter.) So it isn't the easiest thing we're facing.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I have no desire to prolong the debate, but I want to answer interjections. I'm not going to try and hide any portion of the problem and why should I?

I want to say basically why I disagree with Dr. Cragg, who has a report which we tabled in the House which has a great deal of valuable material in it. But there is one basic disagreement with which I had to take issue. On page 85 of that report, for the convenience of Members, he says this: "The increased costs of providing accommodation imply that large windfall capital gains can be expected to accrue to the present owners of rental accommodation."

Now, I took the position that on that kind of a target where you valued the old stock of rental accommodation in this province, which is very extensive, at the new inflationary, escalated costs of today, that your rents are going to go up this year by 20, 30, 40 and more per cent. I said that there was no occasion why the great windfall capital gains on the older stock of residential premises should accrue to the landlords. Older stock should accrue to the landlords — I don't think it should.

I realize that if that happens and we have a 20 per cent, and a 30 per cent, and a 40 per cent and even more rise in rents, imposing an intolerable load upon basically the poorer section of our community, that we will have a bill through the Department of Human Resources, and our other social services, that will come right back to be paid by the taxpayer, Just following up on what the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, there can well be other ways to protect tenants in addition to rent restraint, and those things should be actively examined. For example, we have begun a renter's grant, and that depends….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Modest, but a start, and a start from a government which admitted that the tenant existed, and existed in dire circumstances in many cases. I can remember the pleas from the back bench of the Social Credit Party, from Herb Capozzi and the other people, year after year, saying that we were discriminating against the tenants, we never did anything for them. I say, yes, we move into some kind of tenant help in terms of shelter — renter's grant, and perhaps other ways of looking at that problem which should be considered. You've also got to have restraint, because there's no use increasing a renter's grant to have that go right into the pocket of a rapacious landlord.

Most of the landlords are responsible, but believe me, there are gougers out there who, if this kind of legislation was not before this House, would be imposing, as I say, intolerable loads of exploitation upon tenants who would have no place to turn. When I say that, I'm not attacking the landlords generally, because I met with them today in my office — the rental council. They disagree with me, but there's communication. I met with the tenants. I don't agree with the tenants completely; there's communication. It's sometimes a little one-sided — I seem to be hearing more than I'm giving — but I still meet with them.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I'm trying to see what points I have not covered. I think I've explained the basic reason why I could not accept the Cragg report. The 10.6 per cent return, you have to say of that two things. In the first place, it is based upon the advice of the top practical working economist in this field in Canada, and that is Claude Chapdelaine of the Quebec Rental Commission, a man who is going to be made available — although I need the approval of the Quebec government, and there's no intention of having him; I'd promised I wouldn't try to lure to B.C. — but he will be available, I hope, with Jerome Choquette's consent, to consult with us in the next few months.

The other person who helped us in formulating this amount was Carl Joffrey, who is the senior alderman of the City of Toronto, head of their executive committee, a man who has been active in cooperative housing projects; a man with a business sense, a cooperative sense, and a heart — and a social democrat to boot. He was a social democrat to boot. If you want to make something of that, you go ahead, but who else is going to protect people if the social democrats don't do it?

The 10.6 per cent is basically divided — and it is not as complicated as some of the formulas you will see in the Cragg report — into an allowance which bearing in mind that the operating expenses of a building in general are 44 per cent of the expenses of that building, is based upon the average increase in their operating costs in this period of time. Then you take 44 per cent of that.

For the balance, it is capitalization, because we believe older stock of housing that they should have the same return as they had in times heretofore. They came up with this figure in terms of fair return and averaging the new increases in mortgage rates, which have been roughly from 9 per cent to 12 per cent over the last five years, and it would be unfair to load that all into one year, so it's averaged over five years.

[ Page 4550 ]

On that basis, they come up with that figure recommended by the best people in this field in Canada.

On top of that, we allow the renovation thing — the beginning of the allowance which has to be made because there will still be hardship cases out there in the case of landlords. We have the exemption section in the Act which does enable the cabinet to act in those cases. We exempt the mobile homes if they make a case before the rental commission.

We keep the rental commission as small and as informal as possible — part-time chairman, I would think, and two members and a relatively small staff, closely related to the work of the rentalsman. They will not be separated out in terms of their workings because Barrie Clark, the rentalsman, will still have the function of information-providing, acting as ombudsman for the tenants of the Province of British Columbia. In that capacity he had 12,000 inquiries. This is partly why we couldn't move into section 20 — 12,000 inquiries in the first 14 days of the opening of the rentalsman's office, showing the kind of community need that goes far beyond that tenants association and far beyond the landlord's association — a people need that's out there that has to be met. That was the work volume.

In addition to that he must adjudicate, of course, in terms of unjust evictions, and we have the security deposit in this bill being put on a simple basis, but in case of dispute, referred to hem for adjudication in an informal way. So there will be close liaison, and Barrie Clark will be playing a major role closely connected with that of the restraint-setting function.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I've said all I want to say. I stress the difficulty of the problem once again because ….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I want to say this, because ….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: If I sit down quickly, will they?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, they'll help us.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I want to say that part of the difficulty, apart from land costs — and we're not like a province, even like Ontario, with large tracts of land easily developed — is the interest rate increases, the tax changes in Ottawa, the construction costs which have gone up enormously, and we have the other thing of population growth because people like the climate in British Columbia.

And there's no way they'll turn away because there is an NDP government. They love the political climate. They love the things that are being done by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). They love the social security programme that is being evolved by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). They come flocking into this province to the extent of about 4 per cent per year, compounded. And that is as high a population increase in the lower mainland of the Province of British Columbia as you'll find anywhere in the world — Egypt, India, you name it. This is part of the pressure that is brought to bear upon tenants. This is part of the reason why we must act.

I want to say that as difficult as the problem is, the inevitable hour will arrive when all of the Members of this House will have to vote upon this bill.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Do it now and get it over with.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I say this: if you vote against this kind of rental restraint, take the political and other consequences of what you're doing, because you're saying the lid is going to be off if you vote against this bill, the only practical way to receive some restraint in the next few months.

And the lid will be off. You will be imposing an unjust enrichment load on the tenants in favour of the landlords of this province. You will be allowing the gouger to have a free hand in this province.

So I say the inevitable hour is approaching when we must all stand up, and we should stand up in terms of human protection for those who need it in this province. That is the message we bring you in this bill from a government that listens first, but always cares.

I move second reading.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker….

An Hon. Member: Well, you got that part right. (Laughter.)

Mr. Bennett: Thank you, The Premier's back. He's been practicing vacationing and he's got to relearn training on that, so he takes a day off at a time getting ready for China. But I'm glad you're in the House.

Now I appreciated the Attorney-General's concern for the people. I felt for a while there that he thought he had this market cornered when it came to worrying about the people who are having difficulties with their rent and coping with all the costs of inflation.

Inflation is hitting all of our people, not just in rents but in every aspect of services and products they have to purchase today. And rental

[ Page 4551 ]

accommodation certainly is one of the basic needs. It's something that's very important to all of us.

When the Attorney-General mentioned that he gets letters — all of us are getting letters. We're getting letters about people concerned about the high cost of their taxes; they're concerned about the high cost of running thy government. They're concerned about the high cost of food and they're concerned about the high cost of rental and housing accommodation.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, what they're concerned about is that for the last two years, there's been hardly any construction of rental or housing accommodation in this province. They're amazed that the government would start acting and reacting two years late with legalisms and authorities rather than facing up to the real reason there's a crisis in this province, and that is the lack of construction of rental accommodation, the lack of construction of all forms of housing in this province.

They knew the growth rate of this province when they came into office. You'd been in opposition for 31 years, or something, in this province, a lot of time to prepare your programmes. What rental accommodation or housing construction have you caused to happen in this province? Nothing!

Some Hon. Members: Nil, nil.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Zero, because the money that was allocated within the budget this year has mostly been spent to buy existing projects. We have seen it right in Coquitlam — paying $6 million plus for a project that was already started, that was half under construction. That isn't social capital creating new shelter units. Not at all: that's the government giving a big profit to a developer after the units were already in construction.

In British Columbia we have a shelter crisis. Costs and availability of housing, both to ownership and tenancy, are prohibiting many British Columbians from obtaining adequate shelter. Many people do not have this basic need available to them. This is the problem of the difficulty with rents. This is the problem the renters face. This is the problem the people who wish home-ownership face. No construction has been going on; we have an undersupply of accommodation in this province. That's what we face today.

Taking a legalistic approach, taking an authoritative approach, taking an approach that's only been used, which I'll quote later from reports, in times of war in other jurisdictions, and which any time it's continued has proved to become part of the problem and not the solution…. When the Attorney-General stands up and suggests that they are interested in long-term approaches…this legislation, the approaches and their conclusions are not a long-term solution. They are short-term and they become part of the problem. They make short history. In British Columbia your rent restrictions have become part of the problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: It's worse here; it's far worse here. But rather than argue, let's try and achieve through this debate some basic solutions, because there are solutions available, not just developed in Quebec but developed in other areas. You have the opportunity to look for new solutions, and we intend to offer some.

In two years the shelter crisis has accelerated in this province. The lack of construction figures have gone like this since you came to office — that's your record. That's your record.

An Hon. Member: What are the figures?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bennett: Mr.- Speaker, as I was saying, what we need to do is increase the supply of all types of accommodations throughout British Columbia. The construction and resulting availability of all types of accommodation will ease the pressure of the undersupply we face at this time. That is the so That is the answer we should be looking f should be developing programmes now that will do away with the undersupply.

The solution can only be found with an aggressive series of initiatives which will implement construction programmes in this province, both in housing and in rentals, and with the various types of innovative construction that have been offered lately by housing firms and by others in other areas of this country. All areas are looking for a solution, but British Columbia is in the most acute need.

Now, rent control, while it may be politically convenient for this government at this time, only covers up the real problem and delays the type of real action needed to solve this problem.

Rental control aggravates and increases the problem rather than being part of the solution. In fact, rent control contributes to the creation of other urban problems, problems that I will bring up later in my speech, problems that have been discussed in reports where they have rent control — in Newark and in New York.

I wish to show you later in my speech, Mr. Minister of Health, through you, Mr. Speaker, the problems over and above rental problems that have been created in those communities, problems of a sociological nature that have caused downtown-core abandonment. A very serious problem directly attributed to rent control and the resultant problems that it creates.

[ Page 4552 ]

I'm not in favour of doubling the rents. I am in favour of facing the problem squarely and constructing more units.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Running away to China to hide from the problems! You need a Ministry of Housing over there. You should stay home and clean up the mess at home.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when I say that rent controls contribute to the problems, they do; and they're not a solution. We know that now with the short history we have in this province. I am opposed to rent control as a solution over the long term in this province.

We know that rent control was first introduced in its modern form in Europe in World War I as part of a series of market controls on all parts of the economy. It was introduced as a temporary measure to prevent a rapid increase in rents from the housing shortage that always develops in wartime when there is no construction. It was not a control introduced in isolation, Mr. Speaker. It was a control that was brought in along with other restrictions. It was a control that was brought in with price control on all commodities. Controls affected all parts of the economy, every structure, at that time. They had price controls, they had wage controls and they had controls even as to the amount of supply, in the form of ration.

We've had that in this country too in wartime, Mr. Speaker. I can remember in the last war when we had controls on all commodities. We had price control, we had rent control, we had ration books, we had wage control and we had an excess-profits tax. It was fine in that period when we were controlling all segments of society together. It's a good solution.

In a time of a national or international emergency it can be a quick solution at that time. But when they're maintained and when they're used as the only solution, rent controls, in isolating and picking out one part of the society, become part of a major problem and will affect the housing and shelter situation in this province seriously, with other problems arising from it in the future.

The other problem that is created when you have a rent control or a price control is also those areas of black markets that developed during the war, where we had it with products. You'll always have a part of your society that will try and beat the system. During the war we had black-marketers. Even against the strong national interest there were people who gouged; there were people that created a black market; there were people that didn't observe rationing.

These people will always be with you — whether or not they're in the landlord field — as we will always have some tenants who aren't courteous to other tenants, who do not respect the sanctity and the quiet enjoyment of other tenants. I wouldn't condemn all tenants, Mr. Speaker, or all landlords or any group over the misbehaviour of a few. We recognize that this will always be a problem. This will be a problem in society. You'll have people with those attitudes affecting what happens.

Rent gougers will be with us whether we have this legislation or any sort of control. They'll be trying to circumvent the law. You'll have key money. You'll have the problem that we have today in locating mobile homes, where there is a shortage of land available for mobile homes. We have the people practising the same type of thing, like key money. They are location fees.

In my area where there is an extreme shortage, where they can't get approvals, where we have this artificial freeze, where we have this new artificial price and land and it's difficult to get it serviced, we have location fees of $500, $1,000, and in some areas of this province, Mr. Speaker, it's reached $2,000.

Now nobody condones that type of action. But when you take this head-in-the-sand, sweep-the-problem-under-the-rug type of legislation, you're only encouraging these people to use their initiative to once more hurt those very people that need help. Let's take a look at the basic problem; let's take a look at the long-term solutions. Let's not get caught up with a control approach, an approach that historically hasn't worked in any jurisdiction where it's been introduced.

Mr. Speaker, we've found out that there is a discrimination against a certain economic sector when we bring in this type of control. We are now asking the landlords of the province, those that have older accommodation, to subsidize for the rest of society, for all other taxpayers who have not used that as a particular investment…. We're asking them to subsidize it on our behalf. We've picked them out — just because they've happened to have made a six-suite, a 10-suite or a 12-suite apartment their investment.

Say they are a retired couple from Saskatchewan who have come to B.C., as the Attorney-General said, because everyone wants to live here, despite the government. Because of our climate conditions and the prosperity that's been built in this province over very many years, very many years, many people have found British Columbia a good place to live, particularly in their declining years, and they've enjoyed for years advantages here that could be found in no other province, and they still do. But there are deterrents now because of the high costs associated with living here, and the fact that accommodation isn't available.

There are discriminatory effects on different areas, different segments of our population, when you bring in a control aimed at one particular part of society.

[ Page 4553 ]

The former government made the same mistake in anticipating and worrying about inflation. In trying to show some leadership, or trying to prevent inflation, they tried to bring in controls on the teachers' wages. They were just as wrong as this government is wrong in picking out one segment of society to solve the problem for the many. It was wrong then to have expected the teachers to accept those controls to help cut the costs of schools — just as wrong as it's wrong now to expect the landlords….

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development): Who owns the majority of rental housing?

Mr. Bennett: Not all of them are big ripoff landlords or corporations or insurance companies or Block Bros. or Wall & Redekop. When you take a look at the breakdown of the people that own suites, many of them are just small individuals that have it as their only savings — couples. I'll quote some statistics in a few minutes to tell you who owns them.

Mr. Speaker, that government then was just as wrong in penalizing one segment of society to solve a problem for the many. They were right to be concerned about inflation at that time. The predictions they made about uncontrolled excesses have come true. All of us are bearing the results of inflation now. All of us. And inflation is the cruellest tax of all. Those very people that the Attorney-General was worried about, the people on fixed incomes, those people who can least afford it: they're the ones that are hurt by this very inflation that government had a responsibility to be concerned about.

Inflation and the costs of inflation, acceleration of the cost of accommodation, of servicing that accommodation, the very fact that the government through its utility has put up the costs of heat to that accommodation, have created part of the problems to the inflationary rise and having to receive more rent.

Yet we realize, Mr. Speaker, that we must solve the problems of these people. But we can't pick out one segment of society. I'd like to quote from a previously quoted report in this House that talks about the very penalties where you have discriminatory effects on certain parts of society — when you have these controls and where you pick out one group.

"Rent controls discriminate in favour of tenants of controlled premises, and against the tenants of uncontrolled accommodation. Rent control is backward-looking in that which people occupy which house is largely determined by a past event — namely, the date when rents were frozen and sitting tenants, simultaneously received security of tenure.

"From this point on the diminishing supply of controlled property makes it increasingly difficult to obtain new accommodation for rent. Controlled tenants become reluctant to give up their premises because they would have to seek housing, Mr. Speaker, at much higher prices in the uncontrolled sector of the market."

That's a new sector which is created under this bill that accommodation which is uncontrolled.

"Prices and rents in the uncontrolled sector are likely to rise to levels considerably higher than would have been the case if rent controls had not been introduced, because virtually all of the new demand will be directed into this part of the market, and increases in demand will probably outstrip any increase in supply."

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): Love Grace.

Mr. Bennett: You do? I've heard you spread it around. (Laughter.) I would hope that all the recipients aren't unwilling, Mr. Minister of Highways. I would hope, Mr. Minister, that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I don't know what principle is involved here but…. (Laughter.) Back to the debate.

Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After a comparatively short period, there will be an increasing number of families at all income levels who will find it more difficult than ever to obtain accommodation. Whereas, through historical accident, people with higher incomes may enjoy controlled accommodation at relatively low rents. Thus, with the passage of time, personal need is less and less connected with this receipt of the rental subsidy.

Secondly, rent control discrimination favours the tenants of controlled premises and is against the landlords of controlled property. The latter are forced, in effect, to subsidize their tenants. Many would hold that it is wholly inequitable to require one group of citizens to subsidize directly another group, especially when the original selection is made more or less by chance on the basis of who happened to be renting or owning certain types of accommodation on the particular day when rent control was introduced. That is not fair, Mr. Speaker. That is unjust, Mr. Speaker.

If the Attorney-General is worried about justice in this province — justice for all — you can't penalize one segment or give an advantage to one segment through an accident of being there at the right time

[ Page 4554 ]

when, after two years plus some months of inactivity of his government in creating shelter accommodation — and rental accommodation in particular — and the fact that these people were bearing the cost of inflation, he happened to finally stumble onto the fact that he had a heart. Maybe he got more than one letter that week and maybe then he decided to act, not looking at the problem.

The reasons and the studies that you advanced here today, Mr. Attorney-General, weren't presented to this House when you first introduced your concept of rent control earlier this year. At that time you didn't develop this with any degree of study. It seems to me that once having embarked on a programme, you're seeking to justify it. You're closing your eyes rather than looking for the new solution that you would lead this House to believe you're prepared to accept.

Where is the initiative that should have already been taken not only by you — but your government through the Housing Minister? Why hasn't this been taken? Here we have the same selective approach, picking out one segment of society — and, in fact, no permanent solution to help those very people in need that you're talking about.

I get letters from tenants in my constituency who feel the oppression of high rents. I'm not just concerned about them for the short term when it's politically expedient; I'm concerned next year, and the year after, and the year after, and for B.C. Who ever is government will be facing the problems of your misdirection if you're not prepared to accelerate the construction of new accommodation in this province.

Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Before we adjourn I would like to table the information that was requested by the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). It appears that the Legislature has a staff of 116 people at this time: 69 are female and 47 are male. The particulars are all set out here.

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.