[ Page 2011 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Vancouver Stock Exchange Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 52) .

Introduction and first reading. Mr. Chabot — 2011

Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Incorporation Act (Bill 50)

Introduction and first reading. Mr. Strongman — 2011

Committee of Supply: Department of Health estimates.

On vote 86.

Mr. Lea — 2011

Mr. Wallace — 2016

Mr. Levi — 2020

Mr. Bawlf — 2022

Ms. Sanford — 2022

Mr. Cocke — 2024

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2027

Mr. Shelford — 2029

Mrs. Wallace — 2029

Mr. Chabot — 2030

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2031

Anti-inflation Measures Act (Bill 16) Second reading.

Mr. Bawlf — 2031

Ms. Sanford — 2034

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Mr. Chabot, Bill 52, Vancouver Stock Exchange Act Amendment Act, 1976, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPARCHY OF
NEW WESTMINSTER INCORPORATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Strongman, Bill 50, Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Incorporation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 86: minister's office, $101,052 — continued.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, just before I get into talking about the minister's estimates, I would make a plea to the government that they at least put into second and third reading the bill from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman), because if he can pronounce that he deserves to get it through.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch on two items tonight, both dealing with ambulance service: the regular ambulance service that was begun under the previous administration through the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), and the escort service that has been discontinued to hospitals mainly in the lower mainland from the rural areas of the province.

First, dealing with the cutbacks in the ambulance service, I'd like to begin by reading a letter from a constituent. I would mention that I'm not going to read the letter completely, because the middle part of it is personal — and probably the most interesting part. It was written on February 12. It begins:

"Dear Graham:

"Well, they finally dropped it on us. The ambulance service here in Prince Rupert has had a two-day visit from the zone co-ordinator from Prince George, a Mrs. Betty Ann Davis. The results are that from 6 p.m. until 7 a.m. there will be only one person on full time at the station, presumably the driver. The attendant would be at home, or wherever he might decide to be, with an electronic pager. He would only be required to come to the station should there be a call, and will only be paid should there be a call.

"I think this has completely negated the advantages of having a station. It is also probably the first time in the history of ambulance service in Prince Rupert that there hasn't been a fully manned ambulance on a 24-hour-a-day basis.

"The reason in a nutshell is:

A. It works in Prince George, Quesnel and Williams Lake;

B. The minister states that there must be a reduction in the budget by $2 million; and

C. The majority of ambulance calls are during daylight hours."

Then he refers back to C — I should mention that this person works in the ambulance service.

"As to C, we have figures to prove we in Prince Rupert get as many calls during the night as day. We are told they are not interested in this — only in figures for the province as a whole. Of course, any protest has been met with the usual veiled threats that if we don't like it, we can find another job....

"Well, I guess that's about it. Maybe you can see what you can do for us on this matter. At least it gives you some ammunition for use on those pirates. In the meantime, some contact is being made locally to see what public pressure can be generated here."

Also, there's been a letter sent to the Emergency Health Services Commission under the minister's jurisdiction from the city administrator of the city of Prince Rupert, again dealing with the ambulance services and cutbacks. I should read this for the record.

"Attention: Director, Ambulance Services

"Dear Sir:

"The matter of ambulance service in the city of Prince Rupert has recently been the subject of much criticism by the public and Prince Rupert city council.

"An incident last week in which it took an ambulance 22 minutes to reach the scene of an accident in the downtown section of the city has heightened council's concern. I am attaching a copy of the station record of that

[ Page 2012 ]

particular call.

"Our information is that the ambulance station manning policy is the reason for the poor response time of an ambulance. Apparently the station is manned by a driver only and when a call is received for an ambulance the driver is required to proceed to the residence of the attendant and then from there to the point of call.

"It's conceivable that while proceeding to the residence of the attendant after receiving a call for service, the driver could come upon the scene of the call only to have to go on by and then return later to that scene with the attendant.

"City council feels quite strongly that the commission should make immediate arrangements to increase its ambulance personnel in Prince Rupert to ensure that a full crew, driver and attendant, is available in the station to respond to emergency calls."

As I said, that's from the city of Prince Rupert through the city administrator.

Then again we had a fire in Prince Rupert where one of the major hotels burned to the ground and the manager of that hotel, Syd Johnston.... It was in the first part of March and this was in the Prince Rupert Daily News on March 4:

"Syd Johnston, manager for the Prince Rupert Hotel, said in an interview Wednesday: 'They tell me it was 40 minutes before the ambulance got there and 20 to 40 minutes is becoming the norm for a call between the hours of, I believe, 6 o'clock at night until 7 o'clock in the morning.' "

I know, Mr. Chairman, that the minister isn't satisfied with that kind of service to any community, and what I would suggest is that there may be communities that possibly don't fall under the general guidelines that are set down for the province as a whole. In the province in almost every area, government has to take a took at the exceptions to the rule. That's true within every department, and I'm sure that cabinet, government, would agree with me on that.

I would appreciate it if the minister could have a special investigation of the circumstances surrounding the ambulance service in Prince Rupert, because I believe it's quite possible with these delays in ambulance service that at some point — I don't think there is any doubt about it — someone is going to die because of these 20-minute to 40-minute delays in getting to the scene of an accident or to where the need for an ambulance is required. It seems ludicrous that the ambulance would even have to pass the scene of an accident or the scene of an illness to get an attendant and come back. There's no way of knowing when ambulance calls are received whether it's a legitimate call or not a legitimate call, and it's the kind of gamble that we in society and government, I'm sure, cannot afford to take.

It's obvious that the ambulance service in Prince Rupert is not adequate and that the attendant should be on duty at the station along with the driver so there are two people there to take calls and not having the driver have to go and pick an attendant up at the other side of town and come back in some cases to the other side of town, which can take a good 30 minutes, especially during the winter months.

It's not acceptable, and I have confidence that the minister will look into the particular case that we face in Prince Rupert of ambulance service. I would appreciate it if he could indicate to me when he takes his place that there will be a special investigation, because I believe it's a special case. There may be other communities suffering the same way in British Columbia, but I'm not personally aware of them. But I am aware of the Prince Rupert incident.

The other area that I would like to dwell on is the case of escorts to hospitals from the outlying areas. I'm sure that my area is no exception in this case. The kind of service that has been supplied, paid for by government, was a much-needed service. It's of high priority with the various regions throughout the province, and I believe it should be a high priority with government.

I have some letters here that I feel are documentation of a case for the continuation of paid escorts. One letter I have here is from the administrator of the Queen Charlotte Islands General Hospital, and it's to the executive director of the Emergency Health Services Commission. I'd like to read this letter:

"Dear Mr. Ransford:

"I am assuming, as I have received no reply to my letter of April 7, 1976, that all air-evacuation escorts will no longer be paid as of May 1, 1976.

"This community is becoming increasingly upset regarding the decision of EHSC to stop paying escort fees. During 1975 we evacuated over 40 patients, all of them seriously ill and in need of immediate care. After checking the records I can find no incident where this system was abused. If the system has been abused, then I feel it is the responsibility of the EHSC to monitor and correct this, but not to penalize those areas which have used the system only for emergency cases.

"As you are aware, we do not have easy access to trained personnel and sophisticated institutions as those people on the lower mainland do. Further, there has been no indication from BCHP that they will pick up these costs and certainly no provision in our

[ Page 2013 ]

budgets for the hospital to do this at this time.

"We certainly would appreciate knowing your reasons for this decision and would hope that you would reconsider this decision.

Sincerely,

M.A. Kelly,

Administrator."

I have another letter from Dr. Richard Helmer, for the Queen Charlotte Islands Medical Society, outlining in more detail the kind of cases that were removed by air in 1975 and the cases that they've had so far this year. Ten cases so far this year, and knowing Dr. Helmer, knowing Miss Kelly, the administrator of that hospital, I have every reason to believe that the logic and the facts that they have put forward are indeed the facts and the facts only. They are very concerned, as people connected with health service, about this service that's been withdrawn from people.

Mr. Chairman, there's also another letter I have here, not from my constituency but from Cranbrook, from Dr. Shelfield, the liaison medical officer with the Cranbrook and District Hospital Ambulance Association and the Cranbrook and District Hospital medical staff, outlining the same kind of problem. So I don't think there's any doubt about it that the service which was being provided was an adequate and much-needed service, and that when government is setting their priorities they should take into consideration the kind of service which was being supplied.

It seems to me that some of the social services that have been cut, not only in the health field but under the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) also.... It's been that they've come into office, this new government, and said: "Let's cut the services, do a review, and then see whether they are needed." It would seem to me that a much better method would be to take a look at how the services are functioning as they go along, and then decide whether to cut or whether to continue. But to cut services without doing all the necessary review to see whether they are needed, and what priority of need they should have within the departments — which, it appears to me, is going on.... It seems to me that instead of ministers taking a look at their own departments — and I have no way of knowing; it just appears to me — the ministers in administering their own departments are getting more decisions out of cabinet than they are making on their own as the minister responsible for a department.

What appears to be happening is that it seems we have a committee called cabinet that is putting together, in the social services, a camel; in other words, they say the camel was made by a committee. It seems to me that the social services that are happening are cabinet decisions; I can't believe that one or two of the ministers whom I know personally are making these kinds of decisions. I feel the decisions are being pushed on those ministers, Mr. Chairman, by the cabinet.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), whom I have known for four years, not only in here but on a personal basis... I just cannot believe that these are his decisions that are coming out of there, because these are pocketbook decisions and pocketbook decisions only. It makes it look like we don't have a Ministry of Health but, as one member said earlier, a Minister of Sick, because it seems to me that it is sick policy that is governing the kind of social decisions that are made in delivering social services to this province. I don't feel that it's good enough for each minister to stand up in his place, after being criticized for the lack of a good programme to supply services, and say: "Well, the previous administration left us broke." What they've done, they've come into this House and said: "Well, the NDP left us in debt. We're going to borrow all this money and pay off the debt."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. LEA: A member over there says "Right on." So now they say they've done that; they've taken care of that horrible fiscal nightmare the NDP left. They say, "We've taken care of that by bringing in a bill saying that we can borrow $400 million," which we know is a little bit of a farce — but anyway they've said that. Then they turn around and say: "Even though we've wiped out that debt with that bill we brought in the House, the NDP still left us in dire financial straits." They're trying to have it both ways. They're saying: "We brought a bill into this House to take care of the debts that the NDP left us, but even though we've brought that bill in and taken care of that separately, we still don't have any money for next year." It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, they're trying to have it both ways.

The budget is up; it's up to $3.6 billion, and probably will come in closer to $4 billion or $4.1 billion — probably, because I believe there has been a little underestimation of revenues. I hope it does, because I hope during the year that if those revenues are coming in more than has been estimated, they will put that money into services this year, the year that they're coming in, and not try to build up a war chest to spend at election time. So I hope the money does come in and it's spent wisely this year, and that budgets that are sort of on a shoe-string now could be beefed up.

But it's beyond me to understand how a political party, Mr. Chairman, can go out during a political campaign and say that they're not going to do certain things like cut down Mincome and they're going to supply more medical services to people and, at the same time, say: "We know exactly the state of the

[ Page 2014 ]

province from a financial point of view but, even though we know that during this political campaign, when we get in things are going to be better immediately." That's what they said.

The minute they get in they say: "Well, now we've taken care of what we suspected was a mess, but we're still in a mess." No one from the government benches has convinced me that they can have both those arguments and both be valid. One negates the other. What it is is that as government they have run into the same thing that every government is running into probably in every jurisdiction in the western world: the cost of supplying social services, such as health services to people, is rising all the time. Governments are having to scramble for revenues to meet the kind of demands that are being put on government for those services. We all know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. LEA: But the Social Credit said that they had a remedy. It was called: "Let's get the province moving again." That was their remedy. People said they believed that and they voted them in. Now that they are there, they have to accept the responsibility of governing, which it seems, Mr. Chairman, they don't want to do. Now that they are in and they have that responsibility, every time they are not supplying a service to the people of this province, which they should be supplying, not looking at innovative ways to supply service and innovative ways to gain revenue from the resources of this province, they throw up their hands and say: "Well, we'd like to supply these services except for the previous administration."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are with the minister's office.

MR. LEA: I realize that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 86, please.

MR. LEA: Could you tell me where I have been out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am reminding you that we are dealing with the minister's office; we are not dealing with revenue or finance. We are dealing with the minister's office.

MR. LEA: We are dealing about the money that's available to deliver the services that the minister is in charge of.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The health services — you're right.

MR. LEA: That's right. And so when we start looking at the kind of money that he has to deliver health services, then we have to start taking a look at the priorities the government has set. It just seems to me that what is happening in that cabinet room is that everyone has a nice brand new ledger — probably purchased from a store that deals not only in hardware, but maybe a few ledgers on the side in stationery — and it seems to me they are making ledger decisions. Pocketbook minds making pocketbook decisions, and they are not taking into account the kind of services they were elected to supply to the people. All they can say, Mr. Chairman, when we say they are not supplying the service, is: "Well, if it hadn't been for the NDP, we could really be a good government." You know, they said: "We want the NDP out so we can be a good government." That's what they said during the campaign.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): We're doing it.

MR. LEA: They are not being a good government. They're not being a good government, because of the priorities they are setting. How in the world, Mr. Chairman, can you call yourself a good government when you have $3.6 billion to spend and you have ambulances in the city of Prince Rupert that cannot get to the scene of an accident or an illness in under 20 or 40 minutes time after time after time? How can you call that good government? What kind of responsibility is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't fix up the roads.

MR. LEA: It's not good enough to try and blame it on the past government. When you have $3.6 billion and you are having that kind of service for health-care delivery in the province, there is no excuse. There's definitely no reason. All we are listening to is excuses, but there isn't one reason, not one reason why that delivery service in Prince Rupert — in terms of the ambulance service — cannot be adequate. There's just no reason. All it is is a saving of a few dollars on some wages in the ambulance service.

I suggest that if you are going to save a few dollars, it should be done in other areas of government, not where people's lives are at stake. I am sure the minister agrees with that, Mr. Chairman. I feel rather sorry for him; sitting over there as the Minister of Health he has to listen to the dictates of a cabinet that is not as feeling as he is, because I am sure he is a feeling person and wants to deliver those health-care services and can't because of the hardware merchant at the helm.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: And that's what I feel is wrong. I also believe there are too many people over there to

[ Page 2015 ]

How in the world, Mr. Chairman, they can think of the average person and the average needs.... They should listen more to about four or five ministers over there who, I know, are from the average family background and have had to face the average outlay that average families have. There are about four or five over there — the rest of them haven't had to worry about it for a long time, and some of them by inheritance — some of them by inheritance who have never had to worry about it, not even in their youth. So two things....

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Nonsense! Nonsense!

MR. LEA: What do you mean, "Nonsense!"?

MR. BAWLF: Absolute nonsense.

MR. LEA: Nonsense, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has the floor.

MR. LEA: And guess who is speaking over there?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, the member for Hawaii.

MR. LEA: No, not the member for Hawaii, the member for Victoria who, I am sure, could buy himself a couple of ambulances. He could buy himself a couple of them, have them on call 24 hours a day and not miss it. That's nice; that's not nonsense.

I am talking about the kind of ambulance service in Prince Rupert — it isn't there. I am hoping the minister will get up and say that the ambulance service will be brought up to a standard that is acceptable to the medical staff in Prince Rupert, to the city of Prince Rupert and to the people who work in that ambulance service day to day and know exactly what the situation is.

Go up, talk to them and find out exactly what's happening there because I'm sure that nobody in their right mind could leave that service the way it is. In other communities if it is the same as it is in Prince Rupert, then it is a sorry day for British Columbia that anybody ever decided to get the province moving again. It's a sorry day.

The escort service is another area. I don't know how much it cost government last year — I heard about $150,000. The minister can maybe enlighten me as to whether that's anywhere near the ballpark figure, $150,000 for the escort service — trained medical staff to go with patients when they are travelling to a hospital in an emergency case. It seems to me that out of $3.6 billion — probably closer to $4 billion — if we can't afford $150,000 or $200,000 to ensure that people have some safety travelling on aircraft going to a hospital, then it's a sorry state we've gotten into as a society. I would really ask government to take a look at some of their expenditures in other areas.

When I notice the Premier making his state of the province address.... That's another thing he borrowed from the United States. He went down there and got "let's keep it moving again" from Reagan, and the state of the union address from the United States. He is trying to Americanize the political system in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Now I would like to know how much it cost for the props the Premier used when making that address so he'd look presentable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, vote 86.

MR. LEA: Makeup, drapes, the whole works — what did it cost? He could have gone on television and said: "I'm just ordinary. I can make my statement. It's words I'm trying to get across to people." But no, that kind of cost is going into government while people don't have proper health-care services, ambulance service and escort service. It seems to me that this government has its priorities all mixed up.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): How about your $18,000 for helicopters?

MR. LEA: And we still supplied the services.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Yes, I remember that — and we still supplied the services.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, that group can sit over there from now until the next election with their pocketbook minds and their pocketbook policy and blame the NDP, but it's not good enough. Probably it will be politically good for us because we could probably throw them out at the next election, but we don't believe that the people in this province should

[ Page 2016 ]

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

What they're trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is cut off services to people and blame us, hoping that the population will get mad and angry at us when in fact....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEA: Yes, hear, hear! I know that's what you're up to. But when you are risking people's lives for political gain, as it appears to me, then I say it's about time you took another look about getting this province moving again, this time in the right direction and with some social conscience.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, tonight I would like to touch upon the area which represents the most incredible degree of discrimination in our society, and that relates to the senior citizen who does not qualify for acute care or extended care. I suppose members on that side of the House are probably groaning and saying: "Oh, here he goes again. This is Wallace's annual speech." I make no apology for the fact that it is Wallace's annual speech...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: ...because I've been making this speech since 1969 and I've listened to three successive governments. Not only are we just standing still, but we are going backwards. And I have the figures and the documentation to prove that accusation, at least as far as the greater Victoria area is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with sympathy this afternoon to the emphasis on preventive medicine. I am totally behind that emphasis. But before we start talking about 3 cents per dollar on preventive health, I think any community or society that claims to be as developed and as advanced and, according to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the wealthiest province in Canada — it's in Hansard the other day; we're the wealthiest province in Canada — before we listen to that kind of assertion, I think we should look, I hope with some real guilt, at what we are not doing for our elderly citizens who are sick.

The Minister of Health this afternoon quite rightly mentioned that Ontario is closing acute beds. The answer to that is very simple: yes, the reason they are closing acute beds is that they built too many and they ignored at least three very detailed, valid assessments of hospital needs. I am talking about the federal task force report in 1964; I am talking about the Hall royal commission and I am talking about the Foulkes report.

On these three reports a great deal of money was spent, and some highly talented and well-informed experts came up time and time again with the statement that our emphasis was in the wrong direction and that we were building more and more expensive acute beds when what we really needed was an adequate supply of various other types of facility below the level of acute care.

Now I know the three gentlemen from the department who are sitting beside the minister know this very well, so I hope we won't see the minister getting up and giving a whole lot of further lip-service to the need to de-emphasize acute care, because it's one thing to de-emphasize acute care, but surely the challenge is to embark upon providing these other levels of care.

Mr. Chairman, we're here today emphasizing and re-emphasizing the cost of acute care, the misuse of acute care, the capital cost of building new acute care, and — would you believe it? — in Vancouver, where various studies have shown that there is no need for new acute beds, we have the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) announcing a new acute hospital of 240 beds, at probably $100,000 a bed to construct.

There is nothing debatable about these facts I've quoted. We have various studies in the Vancouver area in recent years which only re-emphasize what we've known since 1964 — that it is not acute beds we need but three or four levels of care below the acute level of care. We have the Minister of Education saying that we're the wealthiest province in Canada, and yet here we are, in May of 1976, embarking upon a programme to build 240 acute beds on the university campus when the greater Vancouver area is crying out for various kinds of facility but it is certainly not crying out for acute care. The studies show very clearly that what we require are intermediate-care beds particularly, and a continuing expansion of extended-care beds.

When we have the government talking repeatedly about the need for financial restraint you would think, Mr. Chairman, that if $25 million is available to be matched by federal health resources grants, surely we should be spending that $25 million in the most diligent manner possible, and in the manner that most appropriately meets the needs of that one section of our society which is the most unfairly treated group of anybody I can think of — and that goes for all other age groups. In making my annual speech, Mr. Chairman, I have to repeat that it is all right if you are in acute care, where there's no financial disaster for the patient. It's all right if you qualify for extended care, because that's $4 a day, starting June 1. But, Mr. Chairman, if you or your parents or your grandparents are unfortunate enough

[ Page 2017 ]

This is the government that espouses a respect for the dignity of the individual and the importance of self-reliance and independence. What's the reward under this system for the self-reliance and independence of the person who, in his middle years, doesn't look for unemployment insurance and doesn't look for social assistance and works his fingers to the bone and saves a few thousand bucks, and then after age 65 becomes sick? If that particular person does not require acute care or extended care, the state rewards him handsomely by letting him pay all his own bills and be completely self-reliant and independent, and gives him that great honour of paying all his own hospital expenses. Big deal!

And this government.that sought the confidence of the voters back in 1975, produced all these expensive, glossy technicolour ads. I just want to quote two lines, Mr. Chairman, from one of these very expensive brochures. It's under the general title of "Senior Citizens and Health Services." It says: "...develop a construction programme to provide nursing-home care for senior citizens."

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, what's actually happened in the Victoria area. I'm quoting government material. "Between November, 1973, and November, 1975, there has been a net loss of 31 personal-care homes, which represents 282 personal-care beds."

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose government was that?

MR. WALLACE: This is the Department of Human Resources.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I am not talking about that. I am talking about your commitment to solve this problem. You've done nothing about it — not a thing.

You went on the election platform, and here it is: "...immediately develop a construction programme to provide...."

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, come on. You know, that gets so hackneyed now. That's not what you were saying on the election platform last year. You were promising the old people of British Columbia you would do what the NDP had not done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. Exactly. Thank you very much for the confirmation.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: And here we are almost halfway through 1976....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You're getting all red. You'd better go and get your blood pressure tested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members will assist me greatly if they will address the Chair.

MR. WALLACE: No, it's not my blood pressure that's in trouble. It's your record as a party that fooled the public in seeking election. You're the ones who should be troubled by your blood pressure and your conscience, because this kind of document played a large part in helping your government get elected, because — if I have to repeat it for the nth time — the years I've been in this House since 1969, three successive governments, each in their turn, have made this kind of commitment to the voter of British Columbia. I'm very sorry to say that not one of them has come anywhere close to even appearing to attempt to meet the kind of commitment that they made.

However, Mr. Chairman, to continue quoting from a report which happened to emanate from the Department of Human Resources in November, 1975, it's entitled "The Adult Placement Section." That word "placement, " I think, perhaps symbolizes some of the lack of humanity which attaches to the last three governments' attitude to the old people in our society. The adult placement section, it's like you were putting blocks of wood in some slot or building bricks. We're dealing with human beings and this kind of document talks about adult placement like moving so many old people around like blocks of wood. In case you think I'm exaggerating let me quote the RNABC, November 27, 1975:

"Greater Victoria nurses are fed up with the inhumane way that elderly people are shuffled from one institution to another and they've called on British Columbia politicians of all parties to put a stop to this gross people upheaval. The angry nurses say the elderly are being deprived of their peace and security, and they say the present inflexible system means the following...."

and I list them:

"1. Elderly people must be constantly shunted about between institutions because the institutions provide limited levels of care.

"2. Unsympathetic government criteria for assessing where the elderly should go ignore the fact that they are elderly human beings.

[ Page 2018 ]

"3. Provincial assessment teams are inconsistent in evaluating patients.

"4. There aren't enough institutional beds nor enough institutions providing a variety of care under one roof."

"There seems to be no place for the elderly to hang their hats, settle down and live in peace and security, not even in their own homes. There is no support for the relatives of our aging people. They are in an abyss of confusion and they have feelings of desperation."

"Health professionals and the public are very worried about the poor utilization of beds and the inhumane way we shuffle people from one institution to another, based on a functional ability alone."

Though this isn't any news to that side of the House or this side of the House — I don't suppose it's news to anybody in this province — before we get any bluster or statement about what is being done I just want to read this report from the government's own Department of Human Resources in November, 1975, which documents that there has been a net loss of 31 personal-care homes representing 282 personal-care beds.

MR. BAWLF: Under the NDP.

MR. WALLACE: During the same period of time, four private hospitals have been lost and, although the government took over Glengarry and Aberdeen private hospitals as extended-care units, this represented a loss of beds for intermediate-care patients, who were then accommodated in these facilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have those dates again.

MR. WALLACE: November, 1973, to November, 1975.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I might say, in answer to that question, that within the last 30 days another four personal-care units in the greater Victoria area have closed down with a total of about 50 personal-care beds. Without going through all the pluses and minuses, there were 75 extended-care beds added at the Saanich Peninsula Hospital, but when you add and subtract, there has in fact been a total net loss of 212 beds covering that spectrum of personal care, intermediate care and extended care. There's been a redistribution. Extended-care beds certainly have not been created because they were there already as intermediate-care beds, but it's quite obvious that if you isolate the private hospitals and put in these hospitals only the extended-care patients, you have reduced the number of beds available for intermediate-care patients who are in some of these beds.

This report from Human Resources states: "In summary, there has been a total net loss of 35 chronic residential adult-care facilities in the capital region. If Glengarry and Aberdeen are not considered in these figures and we take into consideration the creation of Saanich Peninsula extended-care unit, we have a net loss of 32 facilities and 269 beds."

It goes on to point out that these figures do not include special-care facilities. It goes on to document many of the reasons why these private facilities are closing down. There are financial reasons — reasonable rate increases do not offset spiralling costs There are staffing problems — there's great difficulty in obtaining or keeping good staff because these facilities do not pay the same wages as in the public-hospital sector. There is a lack of alternative resources.

That surely has to be the key, Mr. Chairman: many of the patients admitted for lesser levels of care deteriorate with the advance of age or the increase of the disease that afflicts the patient, and the personal-care home, which was meant to provide a limited level of care, is faced with trying to provide a much greater level of care. In Oak Bay just the other day, if anybody cared to read the report in the newspapers, the Colonist detailed very well the problems of Oak Bay Manor. Many patients enter Oak Bay Manor requiring little or no personal care, but their condition deteriorates and they need more nursing care and perhaps quite a bit of nursing care as the weeks or months go by. The patient wants to remain in the same setting, and that's something that's so typical and desirable for elderly people — not to be shuffled around — but not only can they not remain where they are because of the lack of nursing staff, but there's nowhere else for them to go, even if the owners of the personal-care home want to move them. The waiting lists for the facilities that do exist are completely inadequate in number.

This report, Mr. Chairman, documents in very clear and really unequivocal terms, the tragedy of getting old and getting sick and having repetitive promises from successive governments. "If you elect us, we'll embark on an immediate programme to provide the kind of facilities you need." It's not only that these facilities are not being provided; it's the tragedy of seeing mistakes about to be made that are completely preventable.

When I think of the millions of dollars that will be spent and the $25 million that will be spent on a university campus hospital at a time when Vancouver does not need acute beds, and when I think that acute beds cost perhaps twice the capital cost of

[ Page 2019 ]

The thing that really fills me with despair is that I happen to know the three men who are sitting advising the minister, and I'm confident from the years I've known them that they are advising the minister that these are the kinds of beds that should be built, but we have the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) blow his top and say that we must have the $25 million spent by 1980 and it will be a UBC campus hospital for acute beds, despite all the evidence that that's not needed.

These are facts! This isn't any kind of political chicanery. I am documenting facts from a great number of directions, and yet $25 million will be spent building....

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Oh, Scotty — $90 million.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm being charitable. I'm taking the lowest figure, so I can't be accused of exaggerating, because the other $25 million comes from the federal health resources fund.

But the point is that whether it is $25 million, $35 million or $45 million, Mr. Chairman, we do know that we are dealing with a substantial sum of money which is about to be spent in a way which will ignore the overriding priorities of the greatest number of sick people in this province, namely the senior, elderly citizen who does not qualify for acute care, and does not qualify for extended care.

The other area that I want to touch upon and ask the minister if he would give us some outline is the question I asked regarding Glendale Hospital. I realize that Glendale Hospital has been renamed, or is now a lodge. I realize that the minister is, quite rightly, trying to obtain the maximum federal funding for that hospital, and the funding depends on the particular legislation under which the institution is managed provincially.

But there's a very central fact that I did not receive an answer to from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). I've checked this out with the board of management — and again I'll just quote round figures without the thousands of dollars — but the board of management of Glendale believes that it cannot maintain service without a budget of $8 million for 1976-77.

The hospital, or the lodge, under the management or the jurisdiction of the Minister of Human Resources, shows a budget of approximately $6 million, or just over $6 million. Now there's a gap of $2 million somewhere, which the Minister of Human Resources said, in answer to my question in question period, would be met. He very carefully avoided giving any details as to how it would be met. So I subsequently checked with the chairman of the board of management of Glendale Hospital, and it was his information that the required budget of $8 million would be financed in the coming year.

Now I hate to even suggest being facetious, Mr. Chairman, but $2 million is a lot of hay. And $2 million over and above the $6 million last year represents a 33 1/3 per cent increase. I've often thought that in this whole area of chronic care in institutions it would be an excellent idea if we could get the jurisdiction under one minister. I really wouldn't be too personally concerned if it was under the Minister of Human Resources or under the Minister of Health, but this continuing split or dichotomy is very confusing.

It's quite clear to me that persons receiving social assistance or Mincome would be very much a matter of responsibility for the Minister of Human Resources, but there are also intermediate-care or extended-care patients who do not receive Mincome and who are independent as a result of their own financial situation.

I might interject at this point that I wasn't at all satisfied with the answer I got this afternoon regarding the manner in which extended-care patients who are entitled to Mincome will be reviewed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's not my estimates.

MR. WALLACE: You see, Mr. Chairman, how defensive the minister becomes.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, take the easy way out, blame us.

MR. WALLACE: It must be great, absolutely instantaneous relief for the minister when someone starts to ask a question and he hears the first word which quickly suggests that he can quickly say to himself: "Well, thank God, that's another minister's responsibility."

There are sick people, Mr. Chairman, and this kind of hair-splitting, jurisdictional, self-defensive approach is just typical of government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Get off the stage.

MR. WALLACE: "Get off the stage, " he says. He doesn't like being told so many home truths all in one speech. That's his problem — he just doesn't like to hear all these cold, hard, true facts.

The essence of the situation is that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that although the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources

[ Page 2020 ]

While the minister admittedly is not responsible for Mincome, all I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister who is responsible tried to leave the impression with the House today that we're only six days away from a complete change in rates and regulations and he doesn't know how the department's going to handle the person entitled to Mincome — six days away from this situation. So I suggest that in the interests of the overall well-being of the patient, it would seem to me well worth while if the government would consider bringing this whole area of intermediate care under either the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — and I suppose that probably would be the better deal — or under the Minister of Health. But this continuing situation lends nothing to uniformity of management, and that was well demonstrated by the fact that some Mincome patients in extended-care hospitals do receive Mincome and others don't.

The last point worth making, Mr. Chairman, is that the government was committed to a programme of construction of nursing homes in their election platform. Not only would this provide the beds that are needed by a lot of these patients, but it would provide a real boost to the construction industry at a time when we're trying to create jobs.

Just as a matter of interest, talking about hospitals and employment, we have a total of 26,000 people in British Columbia employed in the hospital field. Surely the government should be recognizing the fact that hospitals per se are a very-important part of the employment sector in British Columbia. We have 22,784 full-time and 3,274 part-time. So I would suggest not only that their election commitment has not been met, but right now it would solve two problems: it wouldn't only provide the institutional care that's so desperately required, but it would be providing a lot of jobs in the construction industry at a time when unemployment is 9.7 per cent.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, really, it's kind of difficult sitting here being a former minister listening to the questions that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asks and the inability of the minister to answer the questions.

Maybe just for the interest and information of the members, I might just comment on Glendale. I'm also concerned that the information given by the Minister of Human Resources is not accurate. The actual expenditures last year were $6.8 million. We gave almost....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Quiet, Mr. Member for Hawaii, you have nothing to contribute.

We gave almost $800,000 in supplementary money for staff. If you work on the basis of a 15 per cent incremental expense, you get pretty close to the $8 million that the member for Oak Bay is talking about. So we'll have to wait, I think, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, till we get to the Minister of Human Resources' estimates and then we'll kind of take him apart piece by piece on that one.

The other thing, of course, is that we have to remember that the reason for transferring Glendale Hospital to the Department of Human Resources was in order to be able to get a sharing arrangement, which is under the Canada Assistance Plan in respect to the retarded. That was in place; we were able to get that.

But what I'd like to talk about is intermediate care. As I see it, after three years looking very closely at some of the phenomena, I cannot agree with the member for Oak Bay and I can't agree with the minister, Mr. Chairman, if he is going to say is what we have to do is to get into a massive programme of intermediate-care building. I personally, after looking at the situation very closely for a number of years, completely reject that idea. That is not the way to go. When we were in the estimate process last year, we looked and I asked how many beds we were looking at. I was told that we were looking at something like a need for 4,000 intermediate-care beds.

MR. WALLACE: Forty-six hundred.

MR. LEVI: From 4,600 to 6,000 beds. We were looking at a cost of anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 a bed. We were looking at a capital cost programme that would run anywhere from $150 million to $200 million. If it takes you three years to get to the 4,000 or the 5,000, you're probably going up because of the inflation cost. We were looking at $70 million to $90 million in operating costs, and we were also looking at the failure of the federal government to come to grips with the intermediate-care programme in some real way so that there would be some sharing.

The other thing is that unless you develop the multi-level system of care, then the whole system of extended care here, intermediate care there and the personal level of care over here is very inhuman, because it's true that people have to be kicked out of here and then have to qualify for there and then they go into extended care.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the way to go in this situation is to look at that extended-care situation as being the place where old people have to go because they're chronically sick, but we have to build the kind of services that keep people in the community. Now that's costly. It's not inexpensive, but at least

[ Page 2021 ]

It is possible — because of the home-care programme that the former Minister of Health started, that we did in the extension of the homemaker programme, that the public health nurses participated in — to build a range of services around old people in such a way that they could remain for a much longer period in their homes. And only as a last resort would they go into an extended-care situation.

Now we also need to have some understanding on the part of the family. We have to get to the idea of...myself, now approaching 50, saying to my children that I hope that I'm not going to be completely cast aside when I'm 70 — that you'll come and see me in my little one-room place in some manor.

We have to get back to that, because there is no way — and I'm not speaking on behalf of the government; they'll speak on behalf of themselves — there is no way, given the increase in the population of the seniors.... We have just had a report from Habitat. We can expect in this province by the year 2000 nearly 400,000 people over the age of 65. Based on the percentage of people we have in institutional settings right now, the costs would be incredible. Absolutely incredible!

So what we really have to look at is how we develop a system of keeping people in their homes. It's part of a preventive programme. There are excellent preventive programmes for seniors that are operating. It means a tremendous involvement of the government and a moving away — a depoliticizing.

I remember during the last election that the Premier's great plea was: "Let's take politics out of pensions. Let's take politics out of business for seniors." Okay, let's cross all the political boundaries. Let's talk about how we can deal with the old people in our province in such a way that we're not offering glib political promises that somehow we're going to have endless miles of extended-care and intermediate-care buildings in this province, because it isn't possible and it is not desirable. What is desirable is to address ourselves to what is possible financially; and what is possible financially is for us to address ourselves to an extension of home care, to an extension of the homemaker programme, an extension of the physiotherapy programme, an extension of the podiatrist programme. We've been insisting, as is happening now, that with all senior citizen centres you won't just deal with the people that live in those places, but deal with other people that are living around those centres so those people can participate in the programme. It is possible to do this.

You know, when we came in there were something like 3,200 people under the responsibility of the department in terms of the rest homes and the boarding homes and private hospitals. As of last December there were 7,600 people that were having to be covered. And that is the extent to which people have been penurized in this province to try and get by in the personal-care and the private-hospital situation.

I say to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), Mr. Chairman, through you, that it is not possible to win the battle of the private hospitals by simply meeting with them and trying to get them to accept a little bit more money when you know that realistically you should pay them the kind of money they should get comparable to what you do in the government system. It just isn't in the powers.

You know, let's remember — and for the benefit of those new members over there, you know, those freedom fighters, let's place the responsibility very squarely where it goes. Twenty-five years ago in this province the first Social Credit government could have made a move in this area, but they didn't. In the last 10 years of their reign they leaned heavily on the voluntary sector, and they leaned on the backs of low-paid people to operate private hospitals. And then came the day, even shortly before we became the government, when no longer would these people accept $1 or $1.50 an hour. They wanted to be like everybody else and live. That's when we started to meet the reality of having to pay people for the work they do. You can't operate social service systems, Mr. Minister, on the backs of volunteers. It is not possible. Somebody has to be paid.

So I think that what you have to do is to move away from the Oedipus complex idea that we have, that somehow the solution is to build buildings to put people in. Let's go back to that community, let's talk to the nurses, let's talk to the homemakers, let's talk to the children of the seniors, and let's talk to all of the professionals and paraprofessionals that can make a contribution to keeping people out of institutions until it is absolutely essential to put them in.

I realize, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), that you have stood up every year in the time I have been in the House, and you've argued this point. But after three years as a minister and looking at this very closely, it simply isn't the way to go, because the money isn't there. But there are ways to go. There are programmes that exist in North America that demonstrate that it is possible to deal with seniors in a humane way, given the money. It's not inexpensive. But you are not going to get trapped into that capital-cost programme, simply not going to get trapped.

We see now that the federal government is going to come along and probably wind up sharing maybe '77, maybe '78, when they pass the legislation in this. But I would hope that by then, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you will have rearranged the priorities in such a way that, except for the extended

[ Page 2022 ]

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I'm in debt to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for outlining at some length the rather dismal record of the former government in producing new hospital beds in this region, so I won't retrace those steps except to say that it's unfortunate, sitting here listening to the views expressed particularly by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) in a kind of air of righteous indignation towards this new government and what it has or has not been able to accomplish in six months, and contrasting that with the three years that that party had in government and the fact that they produced a net loss of hospital beds in this region. All the more so is it rather sad to contemplate when placed in the context of the campaign literature that reached the doorsteps of my constituents throughout my constituency in the last election, NDP campaign literature which purported that that government had, in fact, produced 600 new beds in the city of Victoria during their term of office. Now what kind of outrageous nonsense is that?

You know, Mr. Chairman, I feel sure that had he known the truth, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) would not have stood for having that in his campaign literature. I wonder just who is responsible for that hoax that they attempted to perpetrate on the citizens of Victoria. I can only assume that it was something that came from the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) and, if so, I must say I find that rather regrettable. I hope he will enlighten us on that score.

Now we find, after a lengthy diatribe on the subject of what this government has or hasn't done in six months, that these are the true facts of Victoria's hospital situation: a net loss of beds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there other kinds of facts?

MR. BAWLF: There are definitely other kinds of facts, Mr. Member. Just dealing with that for a moment, we find that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is indignant because he doesn't see enough progress by comparison in six months, and I would ask: is it not sufficient progress that in the short time this government has been in office it has made a positive decision to proceed with a major acute-care facility in this region? The member for Oak Bay seems to feel that because it is two miles away from where he would want it, perhaps that's not acceptable. But he himself has reminded us that this has gone on for years, the discussion about this facility, and that nothing material was accomplished under the former government in three-and-a-half years.

I would just call that member's attention to reflect on the progression of studies that were done with regard to a major acute-care facility — a facility which was long overdue and a facility which this government is proceeding with. Those studies have spanned a great many years, it's true, and in the time that those studies have evolved there has been in this region a major shift in emphasis, Mr. Chairman, as to the location of future populations and expansion of the urban area that is Victoria. It is quite evident from this plan that while the centre of gravity of population in the region is not about to shift dramatically over the next 25 years, what population growth is going to take place outside of the presently built-up area of Victoria is going to take place to the west, more so than in any previous plans or thoughts of the regional planning board.

In fact, this is where the major growth emphasis is taking place today — on the western side of the region. There's a two-mile shift in the location of this acute-care facility which the hon. member for Oak Bay finds so objectionable that he's on the verge of filibustering the minister's estimates lest he get on with building that hospital. It's interesting that that two-mile shift is, in fact, about the same shift, geographically, as is taking place in the intended distribution of population according to the new regional plan, and in the same direction.

It is also worthy of note that the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has indicated, although not properly quoted on the subject, that we are proceeding with the transportation improvements which will render that hospital site accessible. It is interesting to note that that site has a good deal more space for future expansion; that the site, in fact, costs a great deal less for all those benefits than the alternate site which the member for Oak Bay is so enthusiastic about.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just conclude that I believe the people of Victoria will judge the present Minister of Health to have done this region a great service in proceeding with this facility, notwithstanding all the carping that has taken place here over the last day or so. When his record of accomplishment getting this underway, after only six months in office, is compared with the record of the former government in over three and a half years actually reducing the number of beds in this region, I don't think there will be any question as to where the strides have been made in this region, and under which government.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I think that the first member for Victoria, who just took his seat, has a lot of gall by standing up in the House tonight and suggesting that little was done during the three years under the NDP in the field of

[ Page 2023 ]

I think one of the omissions in the discussion on these estimates of Health has been the lack of reference to the great progress that was made under the NDP and under the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke). I would say that he is the best Minister of Health this province has ever seen — that former Minister of Health, the member for New Westminster.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's nonsense, and it is nonsense for him to suggest that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is being critical of the lack of progress during the last six months, and that he should be more patient.

You should know something about the history of your party, Mr. Member. The member for Oak Bay does, and it is because he knows the history and the attitude of the Social Credit Party to health care that he's willing to get up in his place and speak year after year about health care in this province. If he spoke louder tonight it is because he knows that history better than you do, Mr. Member.

The former Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman — and pardon me for digressing — did a great service to the people of British Columbia in the field of health care. Introducing the whole section on emergency services alone would have put him head and shoulders above most Ministers of Health this province has seen. Developing that whole comprehensive medical centre concept, which would have been of such benefit to all of the people of British Columbia, was but another one. Unfortunately, that concept is not being accepted by this new government. Instead, we are going to build a hospital out at UBC. And undoubtedly the other Minister of Health had some influence on making that decision — that is, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

The home-nursing programmes were developed, and the mammography equipment which you mentioned earlier, Mr. Minister of Health, through you, Mr. Chairman, was initiated by the former government and by the former Minister of Health. I would like to report tonight that in my own riding, in both Campbell River and Comox, that particular mammography equipment is being well used. It was needed for a long, long time.

It is sad to see so many of these programmes going down the drain, either through hastily made decisions or through the general attitude which that government has towards health care and people services. Some of these decisions are ill considered and made hastily. I would support the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) when she was speaking this afternoon and indicating that decisions are being made too hastily. I'm referring specifically to the pediatric unit and the maternal-care centre.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, in view of what was said this afternoon, will have a second look and put those two units together. It's obvious that that's a wise, common sense decision and I hope that he will review it.

No one has mentioned the increase in the extended-care beds that occurred during the last three years. Extended-care beds....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Right! They were needed for years and years here.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Whose programme was that? Who initiated that?

MS. SANFORD: The extended-care beds that were started under the former Minister of Health, the member for New Westminster.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: A continuation? You had barely begun to solve that need.

lnterjection.

MS. SANFORD: What nonsense! The former Minister of Health will deal with that, Mr. Member, and has already indicated to me that he will.

Mr. Chairman, what is happening is that we are again seeing the old Socred attitude to people services. Each time we hear from the people on the other side of the floor, from the government side, they indicate no money; they plead poverty.

At the same time, they are showing concern for their friends in big business, aren't they? They're going to take care of the mining companies and make sure that they're going to be okay. They're interested in the oil companies and we have the Premier going back to Ottawa asking for a $2-a-barrel increase so the oil companies will have enough money to do some exploring. They'll take care of those friends. But when it comes to basic needs of people in their province in social services and health services, that's another matter. Then suddenly there is no money.

MR. CHABOT: Talk with Lauk.

MS. SANFORD: But I have no doubts that the money, which could be coming in from the mining industry to provide these kind of services, Mr. Chairman, will not be forthcoming because we have heard from the Minister of Mines and Forests (Hon.

[ Page 2024 ]

I'm surprised that the members from the northern part of the province have not been on their feet to speak about emergency services and the cutback on the escort programme for patients who have to come down to Vancouver for treatment. I'm surprised they haven't mentioned that because in my constituency in the northern part of Vancouver Island they're very concerned about it. We haven't heard a word from them, from Omineca or Skeena or Fort George.

This was a valuable service which has been done away with. And what happened, the people in the north end of the Island tell me, is that as soon as we get a government in power that cares more about money, with the pocketbook philosophy that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was discussing, it's the services to the remote, isolated northern parts of the province that are affected first.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't care, do they?

MS. SANFORD: They tell me this over and over again. In northern Vancouver Island, for instance, this year — too bad, there isn't enough money. We can't finish the road which they have been waiting for all these years. Even such a minor thing as a resident hydro repairman, who used to live at Alert Bay, can no longer be funded and they're just going to have to wait until somebody can get a ferry in when their hydro goes out: "Unfortunate. Too bad that you live in a remote area, but we've got to cut back hydro so we can't provide that."

The cost of living in those northern parts is already so much higher. Yet they're the ones who get their services cut first. We have the ferry rates, for instance, from Kelsey Bay to Beaver Cove. Do you know what it is now?

AN HON. MEMBER: A quarter.

MS. SANFORD: It's gone up to $15 for a car plus $6 for a passenger. That's $21 to go one way. And if they want to go to Vancouver, of course, they have to pay that much more. But we expect the people in these areas to pay and pay and pay. And as soon as there's a cutback, it's their services that get cut back first.

In the small community of Port Alice in the northern part of Vancouver Island they were so concerned about doing away with the programme to escort patients down to hospitals that they have prepared a petition in which they indicated it's going to cost them $200 to $300 more if they have to be sent down to Vancouver as a result of this decision not to provide escorts on the plane when a patient has to be shipped out.

Now this is the kind of thing that happens — $200 to $300 more because of one decision to cut back on one programme. We ask those people in the northern parts of the province over and over again to pay for these cutbacks, because they're the ones who are hardest hit. Now I certainly hope that some of those members from the northern part of the province will get up and agree with me on this and say: Look, my constituents don't like this either. If it's $200 to $300 more for people on the northern part of Vancouver Island, I would assume it's much higher from places like Omineca, Skeena and Fort George.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to pass these petitions over to the minister so he can receive the signatures of all the people at Port Alice who have objected to this additional $200 to $300 cost for them to travel to Vancouver if they are patients. I hope the minister will reconsider that decision.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I've been mildly amused listening to the member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf). The member for Victoria has spent a great deal of his time with his eye on development and he hasn't really spent a great deal of his time with his eye on the development of health care services. Had he, he would have known, for instance, that in Victoria the logjam was that of Victoria — totally, completely and absolutely the Capital Regional District. They had their problems.

But, Mr. Chairman, that member hasn't even the sense or the understanding before making statements such as he made to know that the decision has to emanate from the local community with respect to capital development of that regional area with respect to hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, then he went on to talk about the 600 beds. Yes, there were 600 new, insured beds in the Capital Regional District.

MR. BAWLF: Not insured.

MR. COCKE: Insured.

MR. BAWLF: It didn't say insured.

MR. COCKE: They were $1-a-day beds, Mr. Chairman. If that member wants them to go back to the private sector and the people to pay $600 and $700 and $800 a month to keep their folks in those institutions, let him stand up and say it here and be on the record as having said it. Mr. Chairman, rubbish — rubbish, to say the least. I won't deal any further with that member's suggestions because they don't warrant really very much discussion.

Interesting factors have come forward, I think, in this evening's discussion. The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) and the member for

[ Page 2025 ]

Something that flabbergasted me a little bit was when the minister stood up to get his vote off the ground on Thursday. He said: "We are not responsible for the cutbacks in home care." I guess he was trying to head us away from discussing the question. No, Mr. Chairman, that's not the way people out there see it. Sure, the member who was so critical of the last government for having spent a few dollars now says that that government was incorrect in putting the lid on certain programmes, but home care wasn't one that suffered very much because as staff was needed staff was replaced.

Mr. Chairman, here is something that went out to a number of members of this House; I am sure that the Minister of Health received a copy of it. This was from the Kelowna chapter of the RNABC. They have a pretty good handle on the historical development of the home-care programme and what has occurred. They have an article in here called "The Sequence of Events." The sequence of events started on January 30, 1976. What happened that day, Mr. Chairman? "Staffing Restraint Policy by Attrition Issued." This is what that staffing restraint policy said:

1) no resignations will be filled;

2) no replacements for maternity leave;

3) no replacements for sick leave;

4) temporary four-month appointments will be cancelled.

Mr. Chairman, I can go on with this and go through many, many events that occurred subsequently, but suffice it to say that the Minister of Health must, in my view, priorize that programme again where this kind of thing does not occur and where an outcry that has developed across the province was subdued. It can only be subdued by that minister once again making a priority of home care. Letters from the Sunshine Coast and from all over the province indicate a very grave concern around home care.

What did the minister say, Mr. Chairman, when he was a member of the health committee in the last parliament? He said as follows in a minority report that came down from that committee: "I am in full and complete support of the recommendations contained in this report which call for provisions to plug the gap in the levels of health care available to British Columbians." One of those levels was home care. In the recommendations: "Home care programmes should be developed particularly in the urban areas of B.C." and so on. "Patients treated in the home must not be financially penalized."

You see, Mr. Chairman, the member then — the minister now — knows that it is important to keep people as long as possible in their own environment. We must not have in B.C. a system that recognizes only that bricks and mortar are the way to go — a system, really, that incarcerates the aged in our society. That's not what we are looking for; we are looking for a system to keep people in the most peaceful environment that can be provided, and as much as is possible that most peaceful climate is their hope.

So, Mr. Chairman, I don't think much more need be said. I think that the minister knows that this is important. I agree with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he says the minister probably wants to do the very best he can in these areas but he is being constrained by those who continue to look at the bottom line, continue to blame the past government for everything that they see ahead of them. At least they should have the courage, once in a while, to admit that it is expensive to provide services in our society, but that's what we're here for. That's what it's all about. We are a service aspect of human society and when we forget that we've forgotten what we stand for.

But, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to go on with one other thing, and that's the whole question of raising the rates — raising the medicare rates, raising the per diem — in order to satisfy the bottom-line syndrome. Mr. Chairman, I have a fair memory — not as good as some, but fair enough — and I can sure remember the Minister of Health, who then was the critic, when I happened to be sitting over where he's sitting now. Every time I would have the audacity to suggest that possibly there was room for room and board in extended care or some concept — we talked about $5 a day, we talked about $5.50 a day, and I suggested also, at the time, that the reason we weren't implementing that kind of policy was because we were worried about those people who got caught in the bind — that member would get up and he would scream: Taxing the sick! Charging the sick! How's your memory, Mr. Minister?

You know, he wasn't Minister of Health very long, but he implemented that policy. But he did it, Mr. Chairman, against his will. He did it against his will. I am going to let you off the hook. Because three days after the Clarkson Gordon report was issued he made this statement, on February 23, and that report, as I recall it, was issued on the 20th. "So far there does

[ Page 2026 ]

Well, it didn't take him long to get the word from the Treasury Board. Because what occurred was that the medicare rates went up 150 per cent and there was a substantial increase in the rates of hospitals. Now, Mr. Chairman, I haven't worked out precisely what the benefit to this government is in increasing the per diem in hospitals, but I'll suggest to you that the $4 that you're getting now isn't going to be very much of a reward for what has occurred. The $4 will reduce the Ottawa contribution to the provincial health scene. So that's No. 1. The $4 actually is an increase of $3. So let's say that we've increased our revenue by $1.50 or possibly a little more. Do you know what it costs us to collect $1? More than a dollar.

I suggest to you that the $3 now, or the $2.50, is going to cost considerably more because, you see, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How much did it cost before?

MR. COCKE: I don't know. I just suggest that it's going to cost you....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You take your place in your own time. I'll take my place now. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the minister and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) that the $4 in the end result will not gain this province anything more than a farthing. I'll tell you why. You had trouble collecting the dollar before. In many instances collection agencies and other means were used. Just billing a dollar, for instance, Mr. Chairman, isn't worth it, because clerical work in billing for a dollar is far, far more than that. But the thing that occurs to me is that there just isn't going to be much in it. So it's going to be no deterrent, because doctors are going to send people to the hospitals, regardless. There's no deterrent there. But let me tell you who it hurts.

This is why we were very, very rigid about the business of not increasing the dollar a day. As a matter of fact the thought was that we should take it right off, because there is no deterrent in anything with respect to going to the hospital, except those who are poverty stricken, and theirs is usually paid for by Human Resources.

So, Mr. Chairman, what occurs? The man in his mid-50s isn't the guy who's part of the statistics. He's part of the statistics, but he's not the guy who fits the statistics. The average length of stay in your hospitals is six days, but that man in his mid-50s who has had a coronary and is lucky enough to be saved probably stays in there three to six weeks. He's lost possibly his income, or a major part of it. He's got a family at home that still requires sustenance and shelter, and $4 a day for six weeks for that family, I suggest to you, is a tremendous load to be thrust on them, and to be thrust on them by a person who, not long ago, was screaming about taxing the sick. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there isn't going to be that kind of return that would justify this very casual attitude towards the sick — this very callous, casual attitude of increasing the per diem on acute care.

On extended care? I could agree, Mr. Chairman, providing there are safeguards for those who are not going to get economically hurt in the process.

What's the justification for a $4 acute-care charge? If you think you had trouble collecting before, you're sure going to have trouble in the future, I suggest. I think it's a shame that we're trying to pick up a few pennies and hurting people considerably.

The next thing, just for a moment, is that the medicare increase is unfortunate. The sooner we get away from that kind of premium-payment medicare and on to what we should be doing and what we should have been doing as a government when we were government — the income-tax system of paying for our medicare — the better off we're going to be, with far better tax points than this crazy collection system that costs us a barrelful of money, Mr. Chairman. Go down sometime and see the 150 people punching out bills and see the tremendous staff that it takes to implement this kind of policy. I believe six of the 10 provinces have already gone to the other system. It's a better system, and I can only hang my head just a little bit that we didn't come up with it soon enough. That was our policy and eventually we would have done it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister is so casual that he says: "Oh, well, you wouldn't worry about it."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You never told anybody about it. Why didn't you tell us about it? We could have known it was coming.

MR. COCKE: Oh, Mr. Chairman, the fact is the one thing that is public in our society is NDP policy. It's not something that we cover under a bushel like the new coalition and the old Socreds, where they're so ashamed of the resolutions that come forward that they try to hide them and pretend that they're no part of that organization except when they need a little help financially.

Mr. Chairman, it's still the way to go. It's the way we must go eventually. This business of increasing that kind of fare is not going to serve B.C. In the long

[ Page 2027 ]

Mr. Chairman, just one last word on that whole question. Why don't they go back to the original defender of the faith, W.A.C. Bennett, who, in 1951 in the Health estimates, said, "we can see that higher premiums are going to hurt a great many people; we regret that."? He went on to talk in these terms that I think I've reported to this House before, but, Mr. Chairman, he was quite right: they're hurting a lot of people. And what are we getting out of it? I suggest that the price is too high and it's about time that we got rid of the poll tax — and that's really what it is: medicare premiums are a poll tax. Now we've increased the problem by increasing our hospital per diems. The whole thing is on that minister's head, and I would like to see him defend his position just for a little while.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, you'd better let me answer a few of these questions before the evening is over. I noticed the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was going to get on her feet. I should have let her because I'm sure she was going to disagree with the member for New Westminster about the need for a higher extended-care rate than acute-care rate. I know she doesn't agree with you on that one, Mr. Member.

The medical plan, if we go back awhile, was established in 1965 by the former Social Credit government, and the rates haven't changed since that time. It was in a very strong financial position over all the years up until 1973 or so, six months after the NDP assumed power. The plan had, at that time, cash and investments of almost $65 million, but by March 31, 1975, they had completely disappeared. They were gone — all of those reserves, Mr. Chairman. With this cash all gone and the costs up considerably — and we won't know how much they are going to be up this year — the government had no option but to attempt to restore the medical plan to some kind of sound footing.

I must remind the Chairman that the plan rates have remained unchanged since the plan was introduced in 1965. He talks about it having no effect on the budget of the province for the plan from subscribers, because of these rate changes, but the estimated increase is almost $40 million — around $39 million for nine months of the year. That's a significant income for the province.

That still leaves, Mr. Chairman, an estimated operating deficit of $42.2 million to be financed from general provincial revenues after the payment of an additional $8 million in premium subsidies for low-income people. If the rates had not been increased, it would have been necessary for the province to pay the medical plan $90.2 million in the next fiscal year.

MR. COCKE: Did you hear that there are other ways of collecting money?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: From the point of view of the increase to the $4 rate it's $10 million in additional income to the province, which will be very handy to the hospitals in this time of restraint.

MR. COCKE: I bet you won't get $10 million in extra income.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, you can have your estimates, and your estimates are pretty bad most of the time, and they are probably wrong again, as you have been wrong all afternoon and most of the evening. And you're going to continue, I suppose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You know, he's consistent, anyway. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, please address the Chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if it had been anyone else who had said some of the things that were said by that member, who was not only the former Minister of Health but who was also a member of the Treasury Board, if I understand it correctly....

MR. COCKE: I wasn't. But anyway, it doesn't matter. You're wrong again, as usual.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. So he wasn't, but he certainly was the former Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, and he should know better. I don't mind the member standing up and talking about lack of government policy and the difference between the former government's policy and this government's policy. That's fine — that's all fair game. But for that member to stand up and talk about things that he knows to be completely untrue and not near the facts is just astounding to me. He talks about the home-care programme and the staffing restraints in that programme. They weren't started by this government, and you know they weren't, Mr. Member. You know they weren't.

[ Page 2028 ]

MR. COCKE: I suggested that that was the case.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It was part of the programme that was initiated by the former government to cut back on the number of civil servants by 15 per cent, which started way back last summer before there was even a thought of an election. At least we weren't thinking of an election then. It started with the former government. And because the home-care programme was the victim of an attrition programme, it took some time for that programme to show up.

MR. COCKE: Who brought in the January 30 ruling?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I won't dispute that because the present government, when it assumed office, looked at that staffing restraint policy of the previous government and said that we will continue it.

MR. COCKE: Oh, nonsense!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We'll continue the 15 per cent.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that government issued a directive last fall to reduce the staff in the civil service by 15 per cent across the board, and we continued that programme.

However, knowing the value of the home-care programme as we did and, Mr. Chairman, as you do, too, because I think you travelled around this province on a committee in which we were told what the home-care programme could do to health-care delivery in this province.... We were told forcefully in every part of British Columbia that home-care was a necessary adjunct to the delivery of health-care services in this province. But here we were, when we took office, faced with this attrition of staff, faced with the need to somehow find a way to restore that service by, we were told, about 80 positions. Eighty positions short in the home-care programme, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: And his reply was to cut it off.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, what we did was manage to convince a sympathetic government and a sympathetic Treasury Board that the programme had to continue. As a result of those consultations with the Treasury Board and with cabinet, that programme is continuing at the levels it was last fall. Those positions are being restored, and I would expect that most of them have been restored now. That's the action of a government that cares.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are pretty good at visiting their grief on other people, aren't they?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is not in his place now, but we sympathize with that member and his desire to have an intermediate-care programme developed in this province. We share that desire as well.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) talks about not building any intermediate-care facilities and getting everybody at home. That's completely unrealistic and everybody in this House should know that.

MR. COCKE: That's not what he said.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Home care becomes ludicrous at the point where it becomes as expensive as the member for Vancouver-Burrard was talking about. He was talking about having teams of people coming into the homes, which is fine up to a point, but if you're going to have 10 people coming in to look after a person at home, then it becomes more sensible to have that person in a kind of institutionalized facility. Hopefully we can keep those institutionalized facilities as homey and personal as possible. That's the goal.

Two things: home care, but intermediate-care facilities too. That's the way we want to go and that's the way we will go.

It's too bad that the federal government so far doesn't share in those facilities, either in the home or in intermediate care. Mr. Chairman, you know, as do most of the members here, I hope, that the reason sometimes you have to shift programmes around into Human Resources is because the only way you can get the proper level of federal sharing is through the Canada Assistance Plan. That's through Human Resources, so you fiddle around with those programmes in order to get the best possible deal that you can from the federal government. We hope that we can convince the federal government to end that kind of charade and that we can bring all of these sharing programmes in where they belong. We hope that that happens very quickly, but in the meantime this government has committed itself to a programme of intermediate care. We've been here five months, Mr. Chairman, and what we want to do is make sure that we develop the kind of a plan that will deliver intermediate-care services to the people of this province in the most economical, most sensible, most personal way possible.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we will have a

[ Page 2029 ]

Many of the questions have already been answered, but I would like to say to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), if you'd like to pass this on to him, that I am not aware of the situation he describes with his ambulance. We'll look into it and if there's something that we can do, we'll do it.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I'd like to get on with the estimates.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to congratulate the minister for his statement that he's going to set up an intermediate-care programme, which is certainly greatly needed in the north country. We're certainly very pleased to hear about it.

The thing I wish to say a few words on this evening is the need for a chiropractor service in the Kitimat area. I would point out that at the present time people who require this service have to travel either all the way to Prince Rupert or Smithers, and occasionally there's one comes as far as Terrace. It isn't really fair as far as I'm concerned that people should have to travel this far for this type of service.

The mayor and council of Kitimat have located a graduate in Toronto who wishes to come to the Kitimat area. The only problem standing in the way is the fact that in a small centre such as this it's not possible for a person to buy his own x-ray machinery when he's first setting up. Why should he, when there's an x-ray unit in the hospital which is paid for by the taxpayers of the province? Why can't the x-ray technician do his work for him and charge him for these services?

I'm told that it's government policy — and has been for many years — that a chiropractor can't use the x-ray machinery in a hospital. In a rural area such as we have in many areas of the north, with small centres, it's not practical to buy an x-ray machine just for one chiropractor. Now I don't think the doctors or anyone else should have control of the x-ray machinery. I hope they don't, because if it's the doctors who are standing in the way of the use of these machines, then I would say they should pay for it themselves.

I would like to get assurance from the minister that there will be a change in government policy and that chiropractors in these rural areas can use the x-ray machinery in the smaller hospitals. All of the northern communities are in the same sort of a position. It just isn't right that people should have to travel so far for this service, and a change such as I'm recommending doesn't cost any money at all. I would say that the people certainly deserve this service, especially when they can find someone who wishes to move to the area and get started.

I think we should do everything possible to assist people in these smaller communities, especially the professionals, to get started. We did it in the veterinarian field through the Department of Agriculture by subsidizing veterinarians by a certain amount until they got up to a certain income level, and then we dropped the subsidy. I must say it worked very well in getting professional vets into rural areas.

What I'm suggesting here doesn't even cost the subsidy. All it costs is a change in policy to allow chiropractors to use the services of technicians in these smaller hospitals.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to a slightly different area in the Health estimates tonight, an area that hasn't been canvassed too greatly. That is to deal with the business which I feel is perhaps the most important business and certainly one that, in the long run, would cause the greatest possibility for cutting costs in the health arena, and that is the business of keeping people well.

I think that we should not let go uncommended the efforts of the former Minister of Health. To my knowledge, at least, he was the first and only Minister of Health who really moved in the direction of pinpointing and drawing attention to the need to keep people well by some very innovative and demonstrative programmes that he initiated.

Out on the front lines of this very business of keeping people well is the whole service group of public-health nurses and public-health personnel. I'm sure that the present Minister of Health is very aware of the number of letters that have come in on this very subject of the proposed reductions in the public-health nursing field. I know that it is copies of letters to this minister that I have received, and I have here just a sheaf of letters that have come in from the public-health nurses in the Cowichan-Malahat constituency. So if that has been repeated throughout the whole of the province, I'm sure the Minister of Health is quite aware of how the public-health nurses are feeling about the proposed cutbacks, the proposed attrition, in the public-health nursing field.

I'm somewhat hopeful, in rising to speak about this question, that the minister will perhaps make some move in this direction because he has proven that he is subject to public opinion, that he is responsive. The change of mind, the second look that he took in regard to the arthritic association and the arthritics in this province, the change of policy that he brought about in regard to the charges for extended care do show that he is responsive to suggestion. I am suggesting to him tonight that he

[ Page 2030 ]

Just as an example of what is happening, in the little town of Ladysmith, where I am from, the whole nursing staff has consisted of three nurses, two of whom are going to be leaving this spring and this summer. Now if the policy of attrition is carried out, that leaves one public-health nurse to carry on all the programmes in that area. This includes the home-nursing care, the school coverage of some 17 schools, the prenatal classes, the child-health clinics, the 4-year-olds screening programme and so on.

I would just like to draw the House's attention at this moment, to the fact that the women are very much in control of the official opposition at this point in time....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In their absence, division!

MRS. WALLACE: To go on with my story about the Ladysmith situation and the public-health nurses, another thing that will cause some problems to the nursing staff there is the restraints regarding cars. I notice in the budget there's quite a reduction in the amount of money provided for transportation and for provision of vehicles. The nurses are very concerned about the fact that they will be limited to one car, or perhaps no car, and will be expected to use their own vehicles at a mileage rate which will work a hardship on them.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the mileage rate?

MRS. WALLACE: I don't know whether I have the figures here or not. It is in some of these letters, but I don't have it at my fingertips.

MR. CHABOT: It's 23 cents. That's pretty high!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the debate would be better if you addressed the Chair.

MRS. WALLACE: If the government is prepared, Mr. Chairman, to pay a mileage rate, it is obvious that they are not going to provide it at a cost that would be greater to the government than having a car. This is simply a means of reducing the immediate costs, and in the long term it does work a hardship on the person who has to use his car, particularly if he has to provide a car.

Here are some of the things that will result from the reduction in the nursing staff in the Ladysmith area. There are several programmes, but some of the ones that I'm concerned about are things like home-nursing care, which we have been talking about, and the home-care programme, because it does mean that it is putting pressure on institutions. If this kind of service is not available, then these people are going to have to go into an institution, and that is, of course, a much more expensive proposition for the government to keep people in an institution than it is to keep them in the home. By not providing this kind of service in the home-care programme, it is going to create a situation where those people are not maintaining the standards of care that should be maintained for them and they will end up in an institution.

The school health service is another case where I am very concerned. We've had recently in that area an outbreak of diphtheria. There is now the swine flu scare. With those kinds of epidemics in the offing, certainly we need to concentrate on preventive forms of medicine, and if you have only one nurse to serve 17 schools, that kind of service is not going to be forthcoming.

The prenatal classes are another thing that will have to fall by the wayside. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that these kinds of programmes are very short-sighted, not only from the point of view of the health standards. But if, as it seems to be, the economic aspect is so very important to this government, then I would suggest that cutting back on this kind of preventive medicine, as provided by the public-health nursing service, is a very short-sighted approach from an economic point of view as well as from the health point of view.

I would urge the minister to take a second look at that particular phase of health care and to move in a direction that in the long run will alleviate the overall need for institutionalizing people. I know we will always have people in institutions — it is only natural. But the degree to which we can improve our health level in the inverse ratio and decrease people in institutions is a great economic saving to the province and to the Department of Health. I would urge the minister to take a second look at this problem of public-health nurses.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points I want to raise here to the Minister of Health, vis-à-vis my constituency and vis-à-vis another constituency. The first point I want to raise is the growing concern within my constituency, at least within School District 41 because of the lack of psychological assessment existing within that school district. There is concern and there has been correspondence. I've written to the minister, on May 6, and I know the minister's been busy, but I haven't had a reply as to when we can expect those services within my constituency. Formerly it was provided by psychologists from the Foothills Hospital in that great community of Calgary, that burgeoning community in the province of Alberta.

[ Page 2031 ]

MR. WALLACE: That's where you go to buy your suits.

MR. CHABOT: No, that isn't where I buy my suits. That's where I bought one suit just prior to the campaign, because I live 180 miles from Calgary, and Vancouver is 600 miles away.

But it had been provided and it is no longer available from Foothills Hospital. I'm wondering whether we can expect some consideration from the Cranbrook Mental Health Unit, what kind of assistance we I can expect from that unit. There is concern, and I hope the minister will give us serious consideration.

Now I want to commend the minister for not listening to the tremendous pressures put on you by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). You know, the member for Oak Bay apparently has some personal initiative in recommending that you purchase a particular Douglas Street site for an acute-care hospital in this community. I want to commend you for choosing the site....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking to the minister through you, and I want to commend his department for watching the costs for the establishment of an acute-care hospital in the community of Victoria at a cost of $15,000 an acre rather than accepting the recommendations and the pressures put upon you, Mr. Chairman, by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) to purchase from one of his personal friends a site that would have cost $100,000 an acre. It would have made a profit of approximately $2 million for one Fraser McColl, a former executive of the Oak Bay Conservative Party Association. I want to thank you, Mr. Minister, for not listening to the member for Oak Bay and looking after the taxpayers' dollars and forgetting the recommendation that had been put to you by the member for Oak Bay, who is looking after his personal friend, Fraser McColl.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to briefly answer the question the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) put to me regarding the staff vacancies in public-health nursing. I think I went over what the problem is with the directive of a 15 per cent cutback. It isn't as bad as it might look on a province-wide basis at the present time. The latest information I have is that we have around 24.5 vacancies in the province out of 441 positions at the present time. I recognize that those vacancies may occur in areas where they can't be tolerated, and that doesn't include either the capital region or Vancouver and the metro board of health there. But I recognize that and so does the government. Here is an area that we have to move in in preventive health and looking after well people. We've said that right from the beginning, but you can't wave a magic wand and have it happen.

Yes, we will look at that staffing restraint policy. We are looking at it; I hope we can come up with some answers to it, again, as quickly as possible.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

(continued)

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the previous speakers in this debate on Bill 16 have set out clearly the need for this legislation. This bill is necessary because the time has come for British Columbia to do its part in the emergent national fight against inflation. The province of British Columbia has no measures legally in place joining this province in that fight. Steps are required specifically to enable an agreement with the Government of Canada whereby our public sector will be brought under those same controls which are presently in place nationally over the private sector. As clearly set forth, Bill 16 would allow the provincial government to investigate, to review and to regulate prices and to enter into agreements with the federal anti-inflation programme, which is already established.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has told the House that the government "agrees entirely with the suggestion that any call for wage restraints must be echoed just as strongly by a call for restraint in prices. We want the ability to keep prices under review to be stated unequivocably in the statute books. We don't want any doubts on that score such as might have been the case in the last price freeze." To these ends Bill 16 provides a procedure for reviewing prices of commodities and services and, if necessary, for fixing maximum prices and establishing price restraint guidelines in British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance told the House:

"This government intends to continue the present programme limiting rent increases, and the preparation of guidelines is in its final stages, whereby the B.C. marketing board" — again I'm quoting the minister — "will be instructed to review carefully any pricing decisions by the various individual marketing boards to ensure that only fair and reasonable price increases on farm products are

[ Page 2032 ]

permitted."

The Minister of Labour has presented to this House the heartening results of collective bargaining in the private sector, under the federal guidelines, where 92 per cent of some 6,100 cases submitted to the Anti-Inflation Board have been within the guidelines. The minister, in a most excellent speech, told this House of the crucial need for equity between the workers in the private sector of this province and workers in the public sector.

It was a great revelation indeed — for me, at least — that 45 per cent of all the organized workers in this province, some 198,000 workers are in the public sector. It's particularly so when we consider the impact of government spending on inflation. Today in Canada, government spending represents a total of 42 per cent of the gross national product, and that proportion is rising rapidly. We've seen in the federal government budgeting a doubling of government spending in less than four years.

In the case of government spending, not only has this government gone on record with this bill for restraint in government spending, but the government has also indicated, through the introduction of legislation for an auditor-general, that the spending policies and programmes of all aspects of government in this province will be under close scrutiny. At the same time, the Premier, in a statement on February 27, set forth the position that the pricing policies of all Crown corporations in this province will come under a review process to ensure that not only are those corporations being run on a financially sound basis, but the pricing reflects the realities facing the people of this province in the most reasonable possible way.

Now these policies for the control of government spending in the province of British Columbia have been met with criticism from across the floor, Mr. Speaker. In fact, during the previous debate on this bill, the word "hypocrisy" has been used on several occasions. It would appear that the opposition are content to criticize this government for its measures on the basis that this government has had to increase, for example, rates for medicare and, at the same time, it has had to increase ferry fares.

It's apparent that that same party which was in government, and which is responsible for a $50 million drain in the medicare plan, which is responsible for a major escalation in the cost of operating the ferries, doesn't want to take any share of the responsibility. They simply want to be able to criticize, Mr. Speaker. So we find ourselves faced with this word "hypocrisy," and I think we would do well for a moment to measure that party — the former government — with that same word.

The record speaks for itself. If we have a problem in Canada today with government spending spurring inflation, let's examine for a moment the record of that government. We heard, just a short while ago, the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talk about the war chest for election year, and how he was so concerned — so concerned, Mr. Speaker — that this government did not accumulate a war chest for spending during the election year.

Well, let's just look at the situation. In the fiscal year 1971-72, there was an 11 per cent increase in budgeted spending by the former Social Credit government. Does that sound like a war chest — an 11 per cent increase in spending? Let's try the first year the NDP were in government, Mr. Speaker. In 1972-73, there was an 18 per cent increase in spending — a modest increase, they might say. Well, fair enough, let's go on to the next year. We went from $1.45 billion in 1972-73 to, in the subsequent year, $2.17 billion — a 26 per cent increase in spending. But perhaps the most telling figure in the increase of spending is the year 1975-76, because in that year, which just happened to be an election year, Mr. Speaker, the NDP increased their spending as a government by 58 per cent. Now does that sound like war-chest spending, Mr. Speaker — 58 per cent in one year?

Let's just consider for a moment the implication of this kind of spending trend. Eighteen per cent, 26 per cent, 58 per cent: if that isn't an escalating curve, if that isn't an exponential increase in spending, I don't know what is.

Let's give the former government the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker. Let's average that increase. Let's not see it as a rising curve. Let's just see it as a straight-line trend, averaging 30 per cent per annum. Now where would that 30 per cent per annum take us and take the people of the province over a 10-year period?

Well, the budget today is $3.6 billion in this province. Now if we had allowed that trend to continue — 30 per cent per annum — we would have a budget in 10 years, with a not very different population, which would be 800 per cent higher, $27 billion in this province.

Now just where would that $27 billion come from? Oh, the members opposite, now that they are in opposition, don't want to be concerned with how we're going to control spending. No, sir.

So we have the prospect, the spectre, that that government would have continued that trend, and that 10 years down the road we would be facing a $27 billion budget in this province. This must be what the members opposite mean when they talk about hypocrisy in relation to inflation. Here was a government that went into its last year in office and increased its spending 58 per cent. I think the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) coined a very appropriate phrase for election year. That's exactly what that was.

Now we're criticized, Mr. Speaker, as the incoming

[ Page 2033 ]

Then we have a government, having trotted out their war chest in the election year, suddenly discovering inflation in October of last year. Or shall we say the inflation bandwagon? And how the former Premier must have agonized over that decision.

When he was in Ottawa, he was all for fighting inflation. Then he got on the plane and he got off here, and he wasn't sure he was for fighting inflation any more. Then maybe a week or so later, yes he was. I guess it took him a little while counting the votes and figuring out where the most opportune stance lay.

So when we got the announcement that the former government was going to deal with inflation, how did they deal with it? Did they deal with it by putting legislation in place, by giving it legal status? No, they came out with some trumped-up announcements that wouldn't have stood up in court.

They brought it out and made a great fanfare and a week or two later announced an election. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who is hypocritical about inflation?

Now we find that we have a bill before us, a very responsible piece of legislation — a piece of legislation which puts this province in its rightful place in joining the federal government in fighting inflation. And where do we find the opposition? Oh, they're not in favour of fighting inflation. They're not in favour of this bill for one reason — because they are afraid of organized labour, and they are afraid of that particular segment of organized labour that's in the public sector. They do not know where to jump this time to get the vote. So they are sitting on the fence again. I don't know which side of the fence they have been on more, but they have been on both sides more than we can count.

Let us go back to that 58 per cent increase in spending last year. Now how does that government expect that they can sustain that, or anything like that kind of an increase? The real economic growth of this country is 5 per cent per annum. In terms of adjusting for inflation, the spending policies of that government were rapidly outstripping the ability of the economy to sustain them.

The only possible conclusion would be that government spending as compared to productivity of this province would increase rapidly — that instead of 40 per cent of the GNP or 45 per cent we would get 60 then 70 per cent, taking dollars from industries that provide that basic income and productivity to this province, taking them to sustain programmes and whims on a spendthrift basis.

It's obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that this opposition, which stands here and talks about hypocrisy and flails around and tries to decide where the least exposure in taking a responsible stand in terms of leadership, are simply doing their best to mislead the people of this province both about their record in government and about their stands today. Mr. Speaker, I think this government's position is very clear. I think it's one that is heartily in favour of fighting inflation, combatting inflation, joining the federal government in that task. At the same time, this is not a government which is hanging its hat on permanent steps against inflation, permanent controls.

But I'd like to just take a moment and read to you from a speech which I received in the mail, as I'm sure most of the members did the other day, from a Mr. Young, the senior vice-president and director of Imperial Oil Ltd. That ought to raise some hackles on the other side of the House. But let's just consider his thoughts. Let's not become obsessed with the usual partisan stuff about corporations and corporate citizens. Let's just consider his remarks for a moment:

"There are two fundamental causes of inflation in this country. The first is a rise in government spending in recent years, considerably in excess of the nation's ability to provide the necessary funds without causing inflation. The success of anti-inflation programmes will largely hinge on the government's credibility in this area and whether it is willing to abide by the rules that it expects others to follow and is willing to set an example to business, labour and the general public.

"The other area in which Ottawa's policy" — and this is a concern to us in this government — "is incomplete is the critical one of productivity. At the present time, the anti-inflation guidelines permit companies to increase profits as a result of what are termed unusual productivity increases. But to date, no one in Ottawa has been able to define precisely what is meant by unusual productivity increases."

There's a problem there. But the problem isn't solved by backing away from some positive steps to deal with it. I go on quoting this gentleman:

"The success or failure of the anti-inflation programme will ultimately hinge on the acceptance by all sectors of the economy of the need for interim measures and the need to improve productivity. It will call for more careful co-ordination between all levels of government of the policies and decisions necessary to implement the programme. It will

[ Page 2034 ]

call for the support of business, of labour and of all Canadians. Any individual group possesses the power, if it wishes to exercise it, to scuttle or at least seriously jeopardize the anti-inflation programme."

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the opposition want to be counted as one of those groups. Well I know that this government is prepared to stand and vote for this very responsible legislation and I think that any responsible member of this House will. I hope that the opposition will see fit to join with the government in a show of solidarity for the sake of this province and vote for this bill.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, has had a lengthy debate in this House and yet we've still to determine that opposition's position. They're not prepared to stand up and say that the 45 per cent of the organized labour force in this province who are in the public sector should get preferential treatment over the 55 per cent of the organized labour force who are in the private sector. They're not prepared to say that. Oh, they're prepared to slide into discussion about bank interest rates, something which of course is due to the British North America Act and entirely out of the purview of the province. They'll talk about "we aren't doing this and we're not doing that" with regard to the private sector, ignoring that the national government has assumed sole responsibility for anti-inflation measures in the private sector.

So we're dodging around the real issue in this bill. I'm speaking, of course, of the opposition in this regard. We're getting a long song and dance from them that deals with things that aren't even in the jurisdiction of this bill and at the present time have been dealt with by the senior government — but certainly no stance, nothing we can get hold of.

What about the voters of this province, Mr. Speaker? I wonder if they would like to know where they stood before the election. They saw the incredible spending spree that that government was on. I wonder if they know where they stand now, because it's not evident in this House.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Let's go door-to-door. You take one side of the street and I'll take the other.

MR. BAWLF: It would be very helpful if the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) would stand up and tell us where he stands on this bill.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I see now that the members opposite are most anxious to stand up and make their views known. Apparently they have now repented and they're prepared to get off the fence and find their way back down to one side or the other — whichever side is most familiar from their many trips to both sides — and we'll find out where they stand. We'll find out whether they're for inflation in this province or whether they're against it. I suggest to you they haven't been prepared to say so up until now.

Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to yield the floor to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who is ready to leap up and tell us all about his party's strong stance on this subject. Before I do, I just want to say that this is one member here who is very strongly in favour of this bill. I have watched the effects in the capital city of a huge expansion of government spending and services directly on a community which consists in large measure of people on fixed incomes. People on fixed incomes have written me by the hundreds and spoken to me by the hundreds to complain of the direct impact of that former government's spending policies on their livelihood here in this city in every respect. So on their behalf, Mr. Speaker, I rise to say simply that I support this bill wholeheartedly.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think the government has a lot of nerve to ask the opposition and the people of British Columbia to support Bill 16 after the way that they have socked it to the people of this province since they were elected.

What they have asked the people of this province to do is to accept one increase after another: 40 per cent sales tax, 50 per cent medicare, 100 per cent, 200 per cent, 300 per cent ICBC, 400 per cent hospitalization, 700 per cent hospitalization. These are the increases they've asked the people of this province to support in the last six months. Then they turn around and ask us in the opposition to support this Bill 16.

Mr. Speaker, we have at least one minister on the other side of the House who does support us in what we are saying with respect to Bill 16. He does support us. Although he hasn't said it in the House, he has said it at a meeting which has been well publicized in the community of Campbell River. I know that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), when he was in Campbell River, got himself into a lot of trouble and had to do a lot of backtracking and clarifying for the people of the province as to what he had said that night about ferry rates. But he did also, Mr. Speaker, make some comments about inflation in this country. There were some things that he said — and I don't know whether he wants to get up and clarify this later or backtrack or set the record straight — which I have checked out, Mr. Minister, with several of the people who were there.

I know that when he was speaking in the estimates on the Consumer Services department he indicated at that time that the people who were attending the meeting in Campbell River — that is, representatives of

[ Page 2035 ]

In fact it obviously does. In fact this was told to 150 delegates at that meeting. He was saying that you won't get rid of inflation by imposing either wage or price controls. Unless you control the money supply you cannot hope to control inflation. Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with him; I have to agree with him that you can't control inflation.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: No, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair). This is at the meeting in Campbell River — you know, the one where he was quoted widely about his comments with respect to ferries, and then had to backtrack, clarify and set the record straight. But I am pleased that that minister agrees with the viewpoint taken by the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, when the NDP was in office we heard a great deal from the members on the other side of the House about alleged invasions of freedom. This was discussed at length by members of the Social Credit Party, then in opposition, with respect to the Land Commission Act and with respect to the Energy Act — how this was an invasion of the freedom of the people of the province. But always it was the freedom of the "haves" that they were concerned about — the land speculators and the business tycoons that they so vigorously defended. But now, when it is primarily the freedom of working people to get their fair share of the financial pie that is being jeopardized, what do we hear? That it is peace, order and good government that are paramount considerations. We don't hear anything about freedom from any of those people in this particular issue. It is only when it applies to the land speculators, as was the case under the Land Commission Act, or in the other case, the Energy Act.

They are asking this House to okay a reduction of freedom with respect to B.C.'s cooperation with the federal statute that contains grave inequities, shortcomings and discrepancies. They are asking us to support it. It is an unfair approach to the problem of inflation, and it is one that we cannot support.

When the Premier first announced that B.C. was going to become part of this anti-inflation programme on April 9, he referred to the public sector. One of the things that he said at that time was: "We want nothing less than full acceptance of the principle of accountability to the people of B.C." The flim-flam regarding Bill 3 and the weird ICBC financial arrangements seem to run counter to those sentiments, Mr. Speaker. They run counter to those sentiments of full accountability in the public sector.

We reject this bill as well as the federal government programme because it is founded on such gross inequities — there is no doubt about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just not for the little guy.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline, and I will do this at a subsequent sitting....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I will adjourn. I would like to outline some of those things that can be done and should be done both federally and provincially, but at a subsequent sitting.

Ms. Sanford moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.