[ Page 817 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates.

On vote 128.

Mr. Cocke –– 817

On the amendment.

Mrs. Dailly –– 818

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 820

Mr. Howard –– 821

Mr. Kempf –– 823

Mr. Passarell –– 824

Mr. Heinrich –– 825

Mr. Barber –– 826

Mr. Hyndman –– 829

Ms. Brown –– 830

Mr. Ritchie –– 832

Mr. Nicolson –– 832

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome some guests from the British Columbia Health Association who are in the gallery today: Mrs. Pat Wadsworth, the executive director, who is accompanied by three of her staff, Kathy Jang, Lori Smith and Susan Keye. I would like you to welcome them all.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that that's the best applause I'm going to get all night, so I should possibly sit down. [Applause.] You see, I knew I could do better.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions that I think we should be discussing tonight. One of the things that occurs to me is the minister's short tirade before the dinner break. I have heard some holier-than-thou presentations in this House, and the only problem I have with this one is that I have real difficulty with its credibility. The minister stood up earlier this evening and told us how great things were in the health field, and how responsible he was. [Applause.] I note the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) leading the applause. That being the case, his credibility has gone down another couple of notches.

Mr. Chairman, every headline, every hospital, every health facility and every health group in this province says: "What is going on in health care?" They're not prepared to take the member for North Okanagan's (Mrs. Jordan's) word that all is healthy in the garden and all is lovely in the garden.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's Swinburne.

MR. COCKE: The Attorney-General should not use that kind of language in this House. In any event you should not call your colleague a swindler.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Okanagan got up and told us that she resented those words — and I'm paraphrasing — and that she was unhappy about the fact that the administrator at her hospital was paid $53,000 a year for carrying on that rather, I gather, token responsibility. No one is worth it in health care, she says. Well, we know that they're worth it in ICBC. Sherrell is worth $80,000. Your government is paying him $80,000 to run ICBC. Is it more important to run a major hospital in this province, or is it more important to run ICBC at the expense of everybody, incidentally, and by bringing in the $80,000 person from the great United States of America by way of Europe?

On the other hand, we have that great giveaway program, BCRIC, run by a guy named Helliwell.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: I am comparing salaries with this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To all members of the House, please. There has been some degree of latitude granted, of course, during these debates. But we are discussing the administrative actions of the Minister of Health.

MR. COCKE: I am amazed that latitude has been given us to speak in the most general way about the minister's estimates.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Next you'll want longitude.

MR. COCKE: The Attorney-General has suddenly become a geographer. That's the first time he's made any kind of sense since he's been sitting in on that side of the House.

I won't talk about the fact that Helliwell has an income of over $119,000 from BCRIC. But I will say that the member for North Peace River talks about a $53,000 administrator running a hospital in North Okanagan. Shocking!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's the member for North Okanagan!

MR. COCKE: I wonder if I've got this right. Can the member identify one Dr. L.T. Jordan?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wouldn't say it was $93,000, but I bet you the member could. I know a doctor practising in Vernon is worth an awful lot more than the administrator of the hospital. We are kidding ourselves about the whole question of services to people, of the importance of services to people, and of the priority people set on looking after our own health care.

The doctors had a negotiation and a non-negotiation with the minister. Finally, just before the election, during the campaign, the minister suddenly said: "Well, I guess I'd better do something. I haven't done anything up to now." What did he do? He settled. That's the way that minister operates. You've got to put him right under the gun, and then, finally, he sort of drifts into a situation where he's able to, at least, partially remedy a situation.

Mr. Chairman, after the minister was placed under the gun he agreed that the doctors in this province were maybe correct in asking for what everybody else does in a society that's involved with inflation. And so he settled. But when did he settle? During the election campaign. When did he bring in the 7.5 percent? At roughly the same time. When did he bring in: "I'll pick up your deficit."? Just before the estimates of the Minister of Health. Oh, boy, put him under the gun and he'll deliver. But he delivers too little and too late. Our health-care system in this province is in chaos because of this minister.

I suggest that there is a group of people out there in the medical field and in the health field who would desperately

[ Page 818 ]

like to put themselves in a position where they could offer more service or as much service as they have in the past. I'm dealing now with Physiotherapists and with chiropractors. You know what their increases have meant over the period that that's minister has been minister? They've meant a decrease in service to your patients, you members of the back bench.

MR. RITCHIE: That's wrong.

MR. COCKE: Is it, Mr. Member for Central Fraser Valley? Let me explain it to you — and I know it's going to take me some time to explain it to you, of all people. But let me explain it this way. If a patient has a maximum that's available in terms of money that can be expended on his behalf — such as $75 or $100 or whatever — and if the minister gives an increase in fee to the person that's delivering the service without giving an increase in the maximum, I ask you this, — and I know that it's going to be somewhat difficult for you to figure this out: is this not a reduction in service to that patient?

That has been going on in those areas for the last three and a half years, period. Amen.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: There goes the budworm squeaking again. You're early; you're not supposed to become a moth until at least three weeks from now.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the Minister of Health doesn't have control over what he's doing. I now know why all those members of the back bench have been sitting there smiling during his estimates. They think he's vulnerable, and I don't blame them. Every one of you has an opportunity to fill his shoes. As a matter of fact, I suggest to you that you don't have to have feet at all to fill his shoes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you filling?

MR. COCKE: I'm filling a very responsible position as critic of that ministry.

Mr. Chairman, all afternoon we've asked some questions, and I'm going to ask some questions later this evening — questions around the priority on health care in this province. We've gotten absolutely no satisfaction from that minister. We have nothing in terms of any kind of understanding or of responsible answers. I have no reluctance whatsoever in moving the following motion. He expects this motion, and so he should — the first and only motion of non-confidence in this House this year. The motion is as follows: that the salary of the hon. Minister of Health, as provided for in vote 128, be reduced by $1. Mr. Chairman, I so move.

On the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion seems to be in order, is there a seconder?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I'm the seconder, Mr. Chairman. The reason I'm seconding this motion is that I've listened very carefully to the debate so far and listened particularly to what the minister had to say in reply to some of the points made by our critic for Health and also made very ably by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who represents the same area as I do. We have experienced some very serious problems in health care in our Burnaby hospital.

When the minister spoke this afternoon his only defence to the criticisms which were brought forward here from this side of the House seemed to be that he just dragged out a few old quotes from the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke). He seemed very pleased to be able to state to the House that the former Minister of Health, under the NDP government, had a number of times actually stated that we have to be careful about rising health costs. Mr. Chairman, that is true.

Any responsible government has that job every so often to send out a warning when they are concerned about rising costs. But the difference between the actions of the NDP government and the actions of the Social Credit government in the field of health is very clear. Even though the warnings may have been sent out to be careful of the public purse at the time we were in government also, the difference with the Social Credit government is they have not only sent out warnings.... This minister has imposed an arbitrary ceiling on the hospital costs in this province with the result, Mr. Chairman, that health care in this province — care to the patients in this province — has seriously deteriorated under this government. That is not something that could be said about the state of health care under the NDP government. So there is a very basic difference.

The three Burnaby MLAs have met a number of times on the situation in Burnaby. We've met with a number of the people in Burnaby, and not just for the purpose of presenting ourselves here in the Legislature to be prepared to discuss the estimates with the minister and to make a few political points. We gathered that information from concerned citizens and workers in Burnaby. They came to us with sincere concerns about the situation and the state of health in the Burnaby Hospital. That is why I am standing here to second this motion. Nothing the minister has said to us today gives us any hope that he has any real awareness or that he has any intention of alleviating the very serious condition which exists in many of our hospitals in this province.

At most of the meetings we had there was one question which we always asked of the people who were concerned. We were talking to workers in the hospitals: "Could you say, with the budget restrictions imposed upon you by the Social Credit Minister of Health, that patient care is indeed deteriorating?" The answer was yes. We fought for many years, and I'm proud to belong to the party which fought to bring about comprehensive health care in the whole country. I found it very ironic, listening to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who seems to feel somehow or other that the Social Credit Party had been a pioneer in this field. We are well aware that it was one of our former national leaders of the CCF-NDP, Tommy Douglas, who was the pioneer for health care for all, so that no one in our country would be deprived of health care because of cost.

We have a proud history, and we have been very proud that other governments, no matter what their political stripe, have seen fit to endorse comprehensive health care. We are well aware of the situation in the United States today, Mr. Chairman, where people still face disaster with large hospital bills and medicare costs. The United States has not yet seen fit to endorse the basic principle of health care,

[ Page 819 ]

medicare and hospitalization which was pioneered by our party and which is now all across Canada.

To this party particularly it is very sad to see a state of affairs in this province where comprehensive health care is obviously deteriorating. May I just say that in our meetings with people in Burnaby we have some very specific examples of how this care is suffering. I listened to the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) who stood up and did her usual flim-flam speech all around the ball park trying to defend this government. I listened very carefully and I really couldn't find one basic statement which she made which showed she really had any defence for the deteriorating health care. The only point she did make was about the high cost of administration. We all can get concerned about that, but that is just putting up a straw person at this time. If that is her only defence for the fact that many people in this province are suffering from lack of proper care in our hospitals because of this government it is a pretty weak defence.

In the Burnaby General Hospital we have nurses who are so concerned that they've almost prepared daily diaries of the situation as a result of the cutbacks. I know the minister has stood up through many question periods this session and said there are not real cutbacks. What he is trying to suggest is that if there are any problems in these hospitals, it all rests with the hospital administration or board. That is absolutely not true, Mr. Chairman. When any minister, in these times of inflation, imposes 5 percent ceilings on hospital costs there are bound to be problems. There has been no choice for many of these hospitals but to cut back.

Perhaps there are some cutbacks that won't really affect patient care, and if you are a responsible administrator and a responsible hospital board, it is your duty, every so often, to check and make sure that the moneys you are using are being employed responsibly. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss briefly some of the actual things which have happened in the Burnaby General Hospital. Then I hope that you will agree with me that there are definite cutbacks imposed by this government which are severely curtailing care to our patients in the hospitals.

In Burnaby General Hospital there are cutbacks in nursing orderlies in acute care, in case room aides, in patient transport aides, in extended-care nurse aides, dietary aides, physiotherapy clerks, maintenance clerks, laboratory assistants, stores and transportation. What does this actually mean when it gets down to the actual patient in that hospital bed? If the nurses find themselves, because of these cutbacks, with a lot of unnecessary duties, which before could be taken up by the nurses' aides and other personnel, it is obvious they don't have the time to spend with their patients the way they should.

Because there are no orderlies in some of the wings in the hospital, many of the female nurses now have to do the catheterization for males. This is very detrimental to the mental health of male patients, and I can assure you that the nurses themselves are not pleased that they're put in this position. They have been put in this position because of the cutback in orderlies in Burnaby General Hospital. There are a lot of details here on some rather sad situations that have happened which I won't go into now in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me one moment, Madam Member. I wonder if we could pay attention to the member speaking, please, and if there could be some quiet in the House.

MRS. DAILLY: There have been cutbacks in the physiotherapy staff. Nurses are now expected, at Burnaby General Hospital, to do physiotherapy treatments, such as ventolin treatments, chest physio and so on, which take up more of the nurse's time and often require the nurse to make extra trips to various parts of the hospital for equipment.

Then they have a note here with reference to taking bodies to the morgue. This is a problem, on nights especially, when a body has to be removed to the morgue because at least two female nurses are needed, and there are only three staff altogether on one particular ward. Therefore one nurse has to cover 37 patients alone in the interim.

Mr. Chairman, I'm mentioning this in detail to point out to this House that these cutbacks are affecting what happens to the patient in our hospitals.

Another rather sad thing in the Burnaby hospital is that due to dietary cutbacks, there will be no hot breakfast available. This is detrimental. Mr. Chairman, particularly to the elderly patients, for many of whom hot cereal and toast are the mainstay of their diet. Instead, the nurses are now given prepackaged cereals which they have to open; a nurse has to waste her time doing this. Then she has to add water, and then I don't know if any of you have tried those instant cereals out of the boxes, but they are not the most palatable thing anyone would want to try. For old people, particularly, their breakfast is often the one meal which they do enjoy; they're used to having at least a hot, pleasant meal. That's been taken away from them because this minister and the Social Credit government have seen fit to make cutbacks.

While I'm talking about this, Mr. Chairman, I always find the priorities of this government rather astounding. We see ministers stand up recommending $25 million for stadiums and more money for convention centres, and at the same time they are cutting back on basic things in the hospitals in this province which affect the health and security of the patients in the hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, I have pages and pages in front of me of things which have happened in the Burnaby hospital which have severely affected the morale, not only of the nursing staff and the other Burnaby staff.... Most important of all, if their morale is affected, what does it do to the patients? They have attempted. I think, to protest to the Minister of Health. These problems have been brought to his attention. Yet when we listened to the minister in his reply to the debate this afternoon. again he took a completely negative tack. He gives us no hope: no positive action seems to be suggested to alleviate this.

We know that there has been a statement made that he is going to release more money. But I think that's very cynical. It's needed, Mr. Chairman, but do things always have to reach a point where the people of our province have to suffer unnecessarily before this government very politically decides the time has come to hand a bit of money out? In health care you can't afford that kind of spasmodic handing out of money at the political whim of a minister or government. Health care, as I said a few moments back, is one of the greatest things that we have in Canada, at least the way it has been handled to date. I think it's very sad to have a government that is trying to bolster up other areas of

[ Page 820 ]

their ministries — Highways, et cetera — but which has no care at all for the people in our hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to that minister. Again, in his defence, all he could talk about was not only what the former Minister of Health had said but the fear which the NDP had created with some of their election commercials. You know, the reason I'm up here supporting this motion of no confidence in the handling of this ministry by this minister is that if anyone has created the fear of health security in this province being taken away, it is that minister and this Social Credit government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote against this motion. I wasn't going to speak, and I was going to allow some of the other people to speak, but there are a couple of questions that perhaps deserve answering.

First of all, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has his dates mixed up again, Mr. Chairman. There was no settlement between the government and the British Columbia Medical Association on the eve of the election, or during the election, or at any other time. The government made its settlement after the election, and long after the election, when the Treasury Board finally made that settlement.

Mr. Chairman, I am getting sick and tired of the phoniness that comes from those members on the other side of this House. I was prepared to even offer some congratulations to the two members from Burnaby who spoke earlier for their willingness to sit down and meet with the members of their hospitals and talk about the problems. I think that's what MLAs are supposed to do. But obviously, if they met they didn't listen, because the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) sat in this House before the supper break and talked for an hour. No, she didn't talk for an hour, Mr. Chairman, she read from two or three letters for an hour, and complained about services which weren't being provided at Burnaby General Hospital. Who did you talk to? You didn't talk to anyone who knew what was going on in that hospital. You talked about the EEG program, and read some old letter from a doctor about not providing that program. The program was approved on March 30. Months ago the program was approved, and a letter of approval went out to Mr. Norman Barth, the administrator of the hospital. She talked about nuclear medicine as though that program was not in the works. That program was approved by a letter to the administrator of the hospital, and if she had met with anyone who had anything to do with the hospital at all, she'd have known that. All I can assume is that she sat in her office in Burnaby, and said she met with somebody. But she didn't meet with the people who were responsible for making those programs available. They'd been approved by Hospital Programs.

Mr. Chairman, you talk about priorities, and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned our priorities for health care in this province. I'm extremely proud of the fact that we've been able to convince this government, through Treasury Board and through its members, to spend more than 25 percent of its total budget on providing health care for the people of British Columbia. Over 25 percent is more than any other province in this country provides.

Talk about cutbacks! There haven't been any cutbacks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There haven't been any cutbacks. Mr. Chairman, I challenge that member to get up and tell me where these people are who've been laid off at Burnaby General Hospital. You tell me who those people are — you can't do it. You talk about cutbacks. Do you know how many staff there were in Burnaby General Hospital in 1975 when, thank God, your government left office? There were 615 staff — that's how many. Do you know how many staff there are at Burnaby General today? Almost 1,000. What kind of a cutback is that? Some cutback. You want to know how the budgets have been going on the hospitals you're so concerned about. Do you know what the budget was for Burnaby General Hospital in 1975, when your government left office? It was $10 million. Do you know what it is today? It's $18 million — almost double in less than four years. Some cutback. And there's been practically no difference in the numbers of patients served.

Mr. Chairman, there's a lot of phony stuff going on around here about the so-called cutbacks in health care. Do you know what the total cost of operating our hospitals was in 1975 and 1976? It was about $380 million. Do you know what it is this year? It'll be over $650 million — almost doubled in four years. What kind of a cutback is that? Let's at least get these debates back on a plane of honesty, and get away from the phoniness we're getting from that side of the House.

You talk about history, and that pious attitude you have of being the saviours of the country, and having introduced medicare to this country. Baloney! Do you know how medicare came into this country? I'll tell you. I'I give you a little bit of history. Sure, T.C. Douglas introduced medicare in Saskatchewan. He had a terrible fight to do it. He had a revolution on his hands with his medical profession. And he was not able to expand medicare beyond Saskatchewan because nobody had the guts to do any more until the mid-1960s, when W.A.C. Bennett brought medicare to British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, you read your history books and you'll find out why....

MS. BROWN: You are not serious.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I beg your pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Do you know when medicare was introduced in Canada? It was introduced in the sixties, my friend, mainly because the doctors got together with the government in British Columbia and put forward a program that could be accepted, and went across Canada with it. You phony, pious people on the other side don't even know your history. You'll sit there and wallow in that piety. That's okay — it keeps you off the streets.

You talk about cutbacks. This government is the only government in Canada in the last three years that has been able to build the resources to introduce new social programs. Every other government in Canada is cutting back. This government introduced major, new social programs. Who introduced air ambulance service in this province? The Social Credit government in the spring of 1977. Let me ask some of your members from the north

[ Page 821 ]

about air ambulance service, and what it used to cost. When you were government of this province, to fly from Fort St. John to Vancouver cost $1,000 or $1,200 for six seats in an airplane. What does it cost today, Mr. Member for North Peace? It costs $100 maximum. What did it used to cost to fly from Skeena down to Vancouver — $800, $900, $1,000? Today it costs $100 maximum, and you get your escort and your nurse and whoever else you need to come with you. Who introduced that program to British Columbia? I told you earlier today that that's program now transports eight people every day in this province.

Who introduced the most major construction program in the history of this province to rebuild the city hospitals? The Vancouver General Hospital, which had been neglected for years; St. Paul's Hospital; Victoria General Hospital and Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria are being rebuilt. Who introduced those programs to rebuild those city hospitals? Those programs are underway now. There's $100 million a year committed to the reconstruction of the facilities in this province which are necessary to deliver those health-care programs you talked about.

Which government finally got the architects off the track?

MS. BROWN: Off the track, all right. You better believe you got them off the track. You got everybody off the track.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When I came into this office, your Ministry of Health had a world-famous architect on retainer at $50,000 a month. But was he building anything? No way. Somebody called the British Columbia Medical Centre a Taj Mahal, but I think it was supposed to be the medical centre for the world. He never built a hospital bed. We scrapped all those things; I'm proud of that. Now we're rebuilding the Vancouver General Hospital. We're building the Children's Hospital. We're rebuilding Grace Hospital. We're building a hospital at UBC, and we're doubling the output of the medical school so that more of our British Columbia children can have an education in the medical field. We're doing that. We're not paying somebody retainers of $50,000 a month. We're doing it. Which government is that? The Social Credit government.

After years and years of frustration and delay, which government finally brought in a comprehensive long-term care program to this province? That member laughs, but perhaps that member doesn't recall those people in our province who went through two world wars, and who went through a Depression, and who had saved all of their lives what little money they could through those tough times, and t who raised a family — times that you've never seen, Madam Member — and then had to see their savings all dribble away to pay $600, $700 or $800 a month for nursing-home care. Those are the people we're talking about. Do you know how much those people are paying for their care today? They're paying $6.50 a day. Which government brought that in? Was it the pious, socially conscious NDP government? No. They sat on their hands for three and a half years. The Social Credit government brought in long-term care.

The people of British Columbia saw through the piety and the phoniness. They don't accept your scare tactics in attempting to convince the people of this province that we have anything less than the best health-care program in this country. For that reason, I oppose this motion.

MR. HOWARD: After listening to that defensive display by the minister, if I didn't know better I'd be almost tempted to bow down to this self-appointed god that we have over there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me for a moment, Mr. Member. I wonder if we could all listen to the member for Skeena. I'm enjoying his comments, and I hope the whole House can. Please carry on.

MR. HOWARD: I am really amazed at the unctuousness we have on the Social Credit benches — we heard it this afternoon as well as this evening — which identifies only Social Credit with purity, honourableness and honesty, but blasphemes and decries everything that everybody else has to say. That's not a very Christian or charitable approach, as far as I'm concerned. As far as the minister is concerned, it indicates that the blackness of his heart is still there, and he's trying to cover it up with bombast by painting everybody else, except his own crowd, in an unkind light.

I want to talk about this question of fear in the hearts of people who are in hospitals. The first impression I got about, striking fear into the hearts of individuals came from your own Minister of Health. On January 18 or 19 of this year — or something of that sort — when he came to Terrace he surprised the whole community by declaring that Skeenaview Hospital was going to be out in 18 months.

For those of you who don't know what Skeenaview is, it's a facility where there are elderly residents who require the full range of hospital care — extended care, intermediate care, personal care and psychogeriatric care. I had the opportunity, after the minister had come to Terrace and made that declaration, of visiting Skeenaview and talking to some of the people up there. When you see and talk with older people in their 70s and 80s and older, pioneers in this country — people who. yes, went through the First World War and through the Depression and through the Second World War that the minister talked about — and when you see them with tears running down their cheeks and asking the question: "What's going to happen to us now?".... Talk about striking fear in the hearts of people! There's the guy who did it on January 18 of this year. He's sitting as your minister right over there, and he's got the unmitigated gall to stand up in this House and talk about others doing hat sort of thing.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Were you in Terrace at that time?

MR. HOWARD: When the minister wants to know where I am at any given time I'll tell him, if it's any of his business.

The only thing that's before this House right now is whether we should vote for the salary of the person who would play upon the fears of those older citizens in that community and in Skeenaview. That, Mr. Chairman, is a bloody shameful record.

[ Page 822 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's unparliamentary, sir. I'll have to ask you to withdraw that word.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in doing that. I only apologize to the minister that the rules prevent me from identifying him for what he is exactly with respect to care for older people and his cavalier treatment of them.

Sure, he comes along later and, sure, he sets up a committee representing people in the community to examine what's going to happen to this facility at Skeenaview. That committee certainly came along and made certain recommendations. And the minister was in Terrace later in April sometime — I don't know the exact date, but I can get it here if he wants it. That committee made some recommendations about replacing the buildings that are identified as Skeenaview with another building, a 40-bed intermediate-care type of hospital with opportunity for ten outpatients. But that didn't satisfy the question as to what is going to happen to the other 80 or 90 people who are residents in Skeenaview, who require care and attention above and beyond intermediate care. That's still a nagging question with them. They still say: "What's going to happen to us when Skeenaview as it's known now is to be phased out?"

The minister made reference earlier today to an assistant deputy minister — Mrs. Kelly, I believe, was the person he referred to. Mrs. Kelly — if it's the same one — wrote to the workers in Skeenaview on May 22, and revived the fear in the hearts of those older people there as to what's going to happen to them by reiterating that the phase-down period — as she calls it in her letter — is expected to be approximately 18 months.

Sure, they're going to have another new building — at a cost of $1 million, I believe is what the minister said. It's going to be operated by a society, as is the facility in Smithers, Bulkley Lodge. There's another example of older people needing care and attention, and wondering what was going to happen to them as a result of actions of this minister and this government.

MR. KEMPF: You're totally wrong.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, my friend says I'm totally wrong.

MR. KEMPF: And I'm no friend.

MR. HOWARD: Well, Mr. Chairman, without you asking me to do it, I'I gladly withdraw that reference to the member for Omineca as a friend.

If he feels that it's appropriate to stand up in this House and say something, instead of chattering away from his seat, then let him do so at the appropriate time. So far all we hear is a sort of barreling and chattering on like a monkey yapping for peanuts.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down and I'll tell you about our health care in Terrace.

MR. HOWARD: All right, you can tell me. In the meantime, have the common courtesy to listen to what other people have to say without bellowing and belching like someone who's got indigestion all the time.

Bulkley Lodge has within it a number of old-timers from the north, a number of lovely people, many of whom have lived there all their lives. In that time of their life when they are frail and need additional care, sure, Bulkley Lodge is there. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows many of the people who are in Bulkley Lodge, and so do I. During the course of the election campaign, in the normal activity of visiting different groups and different people, I had occasion to drop in at the Bulkley Lodge and visit the staff and the residents there. I no sooner got in the door than an elderly lady whom I've known for many, many years was in the foyer and in the common room at the entrance to Bulkley Lodge. I said hello to her, she said hello to me, and she said: "Mr. Howard, they're going to take away our night nurse. " I asked her what she meant by it, and she reiterated. I said: "Well, I don't know anything about it, but we'll see what she means.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

I asked different people, asked some of the staff and so on, and it was then that I discovered that that's very day Bulkley Lodge had received the word from Victoria that the amount of money allotted to them would be $30.10 per patient a day or something of that sort. The administrator of the hospital felt that as a result of that, a budgetary approval far below what he had anticipated, he would have to lay off somewhere between three and five positions, and one of them was contemplated to be the night nurse. That word was spread throughout Bulkley Lodge by the residents themselves, talking one with the other.

There was no indication of the NDP saying anything, but an automatic fearful response about nursing care and attention in their hours of sleep brought about because this government, niggardly in its approach, arbitrary in its approach, had said to Bulkley Lodge administrators: "$30.10 a day, period — like it or lump it. " And there has been a raging discussion in the community about that ever since.

I raised the matter during the estimates of the Premier. At that time he said: "Yes, a meeting will be held." I understand that a meeting has been held between the administrator of the lodge — and I don't know if the minister was at the meeting, but certainly the administrator of Bulkley Lodge came here to Victoria and he talked with officials in the ministry at least. I don't know what came about as a result of that particular meeting, but there is another example, another instance, of a facility serving older residents of this province establishing in their mind and in their emotion a fearful state, because they were not sure what was going to happen to them and what was going to happen to the care and attention that they should normally expect to receive. That's upsetting.

People who are in an acute-care hospital for acute purposes — people in their younger or their middle years — normally are able to withstand indications of that nature, concerns about whether or not the hospital treatment and the health care that they're entitled to is going to be of a sufficient standard and up to par. But when people get older, when they become more frail, when they require the care and attention and love and affection that should be available to them, when they are faced with the unknown and the uncertainty about that care and attention, there is a tendency for them to feel much, much more upset. I'I never

[ Page 823 ]

forgot having someone with tears in their eyes, with tears streaming down their cheeks, after the minister had been to Terrace that time and said Skeenaview was going to be closed, asking me what was going to happen to them. I couldn't answer the question because the hit-and-run minister had come and gone like a flash....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You weren't there.

MR. HOWARD: The minister keeps yapping on about something that I can't hear. I don't really know what it is, but maybe he'll stand up and say what it is. All I'm trying to point out to this House is that all that oily superciliousness that we heard a while ago is just a lot of bunk and doesn't fit the facts of the situation. It doesn't fit the facts of the situation when you come to talk about those people who are in Skeenaview and those people who are in Bulkley Lodge.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to stand and enter into this debate, but after having listened to the bunk and the innuendo and the lies coming from that side of the floor....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! All three words must be withdrawn.

MR. KEMPF: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman, and I'll change it to untruths. Sit down, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). You've been up all day. Give us a chance, Let the backbenchers talk; we'll talk. You bet we'll talk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Mr. Member for Omineca, all three words must be withdrawn, please.

MR. KEMPF: If those words are offensive to the member for New Westminster, I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They're offensive to the Chair. Will you withdraw those words?

MR. KEMPF: I'I withdraw those words, yes.

I didn't rise this evening to enter into a verbal debate with members on the opposite side of the floor, but after hearing from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who spent the last two years living in Quebec then came piously to this House to speak of the health-care system in the province of British Columbia, I had to get up.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, would you please bring those members over there to order so that I can speak?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call all members to order. The member for Omineca has the floor.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I got up this evening and it was hard for me to do so, because I'd like to tell you of a personal experience that I had. The members opposite talk about fear. Well, they don't know what real fear is, because real fear is when you find that you have a loved one who really is going to have to be dependent upon a system such as the health-care system in British Columbia.

I want to tell you a story this evening, and I want to say again that it is very difficult for me to tell this story. But it has to be told in support of a Health minister and in support of an administration that has spent a great deal of time and taxpayers' money looking after the people of British Columbia with one of the best health-care systems in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: This story starts, would you believe, about two and a half months ago, during an election campaign. My wife found that she had a swelling on the right side of her neck, and it was getting larger. She didn't want to bring any problems to me at that time. Having to fight an election campaign, she didn't want me to have any more worries than I was having at the time.

I insisted that she go to a local doctor, which she did. She was immediately told to see a specialist in Prince George. Please understand that we live 180 miles from Prince George, which is the largest local centre with a fairly large hospital with the facilities needed to look into her particular problem.

On investigating the possible problem that my wife had, the specialist there immediately put her into the Prince George Regional Hospital where she underwent an operation to find out exactly what the swelling in her neck was.

After that surgery, and subsequent to spending a week in that hospital, she was told that she had Hodgkin 's disease. For those members who don't know what that is, it's cancer of the lymph glands. On May 13, this year, she was admitted to the A. Maxwell Evans Cancer Clinic in Vancouver where she underwent a week of very intensive testing and consequently spent another week in that clinic. To complete that testing she returned on June 11, last month, to that hospital to have abdominal surgery to find out exactly how far this disease, this cancer, had progressed. She is now here in Victoria, taking cobalt treatments at Royal Jubilee Hospital.

Mr. Chairman, I've given you a bit of this background just to instil in your mind the fact that I have gone through the system in the last two and a half months.

The members opposite talked about fear. They don't know what fear is, because they've had nothing to do with the system. They talk about the health-care programs....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, I would be quiet if I were you. Have you ever been in one of our hospitals?

MR. BARBER: I am a patient at the cancer clinic, you dunce!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Then you know what I'm talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes that this is a very sensitive and, at this point, personal discussion. But could we please maintain respect in this House and also

[ Page 824 ]

continue our comments with regard to the administrative actions of the ministry?

MR. KEMPF: As I said before, it is very difficult for me to get up this evening and tell this story, but it had to be told. Through the whole system, from the time that my wife saw a local doctor to the time that she was referred to Prince George Regional Hospital, to the week that she spent in the cancer clinic in Vancouver and subsequently the Vancouver General Hospital, and now the Royal Jubilee Hospital here in Victoria, never once in that two and a half months did either she or myself see anything lacking in the health-care system of this province. There were many more in her particular circumstance who went through those particular facilities at the same time. Never once was there anything lacking in the health-care system or in the service that she obtained from that system in this province.

During my visits to those facilities, I talked to many of the doctors — many very good doctors — and many nurses, and never once did I find one that had anything bad to say about the healthcare system in this province. Never once did I hear any one of them say that they were not receiving from the government what was needed for them to give the proper services to the people of the province.

I would like to tell you another story that took place at the same time as my wife and I were having these problems in the last two and a half months. On May 11, one day after the election in this province, my father had a stroke and has since that time been in a coma in another one of our health facilities, the Canyon Hospital at Hope. I have spent many hours in that facility, talking to the people that work there and the people looking after my father while he is in that coma. Again, for the information of the members opposite, never once have I seen or heard of any lack of funds or anything else, for that matter, in the provision of the necessary services to the people of this province.

I just thought that this very personal story had to be told this evening. I'm sick and tired of sitting here and listening to the innuendo — the member didn't want me to call them lies. They have seen the untruths that we've heard and untruths that we not only heard but saw in print in their Mickey Mouse advertisements and their Walt Disney advertisements on television during the election campaign. I would just like to say that all I can do is speak from experience.

MR. PASSARELL: I've some concerns about the health service in the north, and specifically in my constituency. During this talk tonight, I'm going to intersperse it with some of the quotes the minister made this afternoon.

The first quote is: "The sincere commitment to one of the best health-care systems in the western world...." Well I'm pleased the minister is going to Atlin next month. I think he's going to Dease Lake, Eddontenajon, and down south to see first-hand the neglected health care services we have in our constituency — which is in the western world.

If the minister would like, I could set up some meetings for him up in the constituency. I know the organization's pretty poor up there, but some of our party workers could set up some kind of a meeting for him if he would like.

I have two concerns about two communities in health care — the first one's Dease Lake. Dease Lake is the third-largest community in our constituency, and there's no hospital there. It's only 300 people. I don't think there should be a hospital there, but I think there should be a first-aid station. You can't even buy an aspirin in Dease Lake if the man who operates the only store goes out fishing, or if he's gone on holidays. The people of Dease Lake have no medical facility. If somebody in Dease Lake gets hurt, they have to go up to a first aid station in Cassiar, which can be a three- to four-hour drive — if the road's in good condition. For a number of years the people have asked the minister if some type of arrangement could be made for a first-aid station of some sort to be set up to help the people. I'm speaking of the 300 people who are totally isolated when it comes to health care.

The second community I'd like to talk about is Cassiar. Cassiar is the largest community in our constituency. It has a first-aid station operated by a private company, Cassiar mine. The people who live around Cassiar have to use the first-aid station for their health needs. In many senses, the first-aid station leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to health-care services. If you're sick, and can afford it, you don't take health-care services in B.C. You go to Whitehorse, Yukon, or you fly to Edmonton, Alberta, if you can afford it, to receive proper medical attention.

Another quote. "If there are any easy answers, they would be in place," the minister said this afternoon. I think there's an easy answer for the neglected health-care service we have up there: put in some type of a medical facility, a first-aid station, in Dease Lake. I can see that the minister is concerned about this — and the people up there. I certainly hope he comes back into the House.

At the present time the federal government and private companies provide the majority of medical services in northwestern B.C. They provide more of a medical service than the province does. In a sense, we're getting the short end of the deal. We pay the same taxes. We have sales tax up there. We pay the same provincial income tax, but we receive less in service when it comes to health care.

The minister said hospitals are an essential service. Well, what about the north? We should have a public hospital in Cassiar. It has 1,500 people. If you take in the surrounding communities, that goes up to 2,500.

The minister also said: "We will not run away from medical problems facing us, but have a realistic approach. " Well, Mr. Chairman, what is it? How much more realistic can you be to provide medical facilities for people who have nothing now? Is it unrealistic to build a first-aid station for people who have no health services?

Another aspect that has to be taken into consideration is trained personnel. The minister this afternoon mentioned "the use of nurse practitioners in rural areas...." This might be one benefit that could be used in the Atlin constituency. It would be nice, too, to get some trained Canadian doctors to come into the constituency and into the north to work.

The Minister of Education provides housing for teachers who go up into the north. But doctors who go up into the north are often left to find accommodation for themselves. I think if something could be arranged to provide some type of proper housing for doctors who come up, they would stay longer than two or three months in the north.

One of the major problems facing the health services in the north is the problem between the federal government — that being Indian Affairs — and the province. At the present time they're not working together. I would like to see them

[ Page 825 ]

work closer together to help alleviate the problems we're facing up there.

As an example, a doctor has to come from Vancouver to Eddontenajon, a small community that is mainly native. He gets a fee for services as a doctor, and in the two or three days that he's at Eddontenajon he will see between 100 and 150 patients, if he's lucky. One man, one doctor has to confront 150 people who haven't seen a doctor for many months. What happens to a patient if your number is 70 and above? You have to go to see a doctor who has been working for three days straight, who has been having his dinner and lunch inside the little room that's provided for him to provide medical services. The man becomes overworked, he becomes depressed, and he doesn't provide the proper medical services to these people.

I have another quote I'd like to state from the minister this afternoon: "Every member of this House should be proud of the health program of this province." I'm not going to speak about the province, but personally, I'm not proud of the health services that are being provided in Atlin. We have to drive in the dead of winter to Cassiar, if we have a medical problem, because in the other communities there is nothing. There is not a public health nurse, because she's also stationed in Cassiar. You drive in the dead of winter maybe four or five hours with a child who is sick and find that the doctor has gone for the weekend, or he's on holidays. Another problem is to see people in critical condition who have to wait for the air ambulance service. As I stated two weeks ago, a friend of mine who was in critical condition had to wait eleven and a half hours to get flown to Vancouver.

The minister stated today that the air ambulance service is taking up to eight patients a day, and I'd like to see the air ambulance service work and become a positive thing. I think it can be, but I'd like to see something set up, perhaps an auxiliary air service. At the present time, when the air service comes to Atlin, it has to land in the Yukon at Watson Lake. People who are sick in B.C. have to be driven on pretty poor roads up to the airport to be picked up by the government jet.

In the community that I live in, Good Hope Lake, which is a highway maintenance camp, there's a regulation that says the Ministry of Highways cannot provide an ambulance service for the people if they live less than 25 miles from a first-aid station. Good Hope Lake is about 24.87 miles from Cassiar. We're not entitled to an ambulance, and it's not like driving 25 miles from here to Sooke and getting in there in a half hour or so. Driving on that road, it can take you an hour or an hour and a half to go 25 miles. One of the problems the native people face in Good Hope Lake is that there is no proper ambulance service. They have to find somebody to give them a ride into Cassiar, and if they're hurt, sometimes these people have to put up $50 to find someone to start their truck to take them in.

There is a need to start a proper medical service for the north, and the needs of the north have to be met when it comes to medical services. I was looking at the summary of the estimates here, and one of the problems that we face, being small, is that there's not enough money. But going through some of the estimates here, I see $12 million allocated for an Alcohol and Drug Commission; $2 million for computer charges. There is an increase in health promotion and information to $2,400,000; $36,000 for advertisement and publication for Alcohol and Drug

Commission; $1 million for new motor vehicles. But there is not a penny to Dease Lake to provide medical services. The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) spoke earlier about the tier system in Europe. There's a tier system when it comes to health services in Atlin, when native people must be classified as second-class citizens. Since they do not have money to pay for rides, because in many communities there are no health services, they have to pay private individuals to take them to a hospital somewhere even if it's in Whitehorse, Cassiar, or down to Terrace. The minister talks of the cost of medical services as not always being the main factor. Then why doesn't he develop proper and humane medical services to the people of northwestern B.C.? There is a need for these health services, and there's no excuse for the Minister of Health in not providing basic and humane medical services to the people of the north.

MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I too was somewhat reluctant to be involved in the debate this evening, but I think there are some things that perhaps ought to be brought home to the House.

MR, COCKE: Like what?

MR. HEINRICH: Well, to the hon. member for New Westminster, you show, the usual style — men like ships when lost in the fog make the most noise.

I thought that perhaps I would read something from the regional hospital administrator for Prince George. It arrived in the mail today. There are a lot of things that have been said. But, you know, the Prince George Regional Hospital has, ever since I arrived in Prince George 15 years ago, been under constant construction and reconstruction. We've had our problems for a long, long time: but it takes a lot of money, and we've been successful.

I have just one comment from this particular letter:

"Since the time that we've moved into phase two of our building program, which basically encompasses completion of facilities to provide a regional referral centre of approximately 500 beds...."

Interjection.

MR. HEINRICH: Well, we're moving towards that; we're moving well.

And he says:

"Summarizing briefly our construction activity, I believe it accurate to say that plans are developing well and that, in accordance with the minister's response to our brief last year, the government has been working positively with us to accelerate the completion of our regional facility. We will certainly keep you advised of developments. "

He goes on in his letter, Mr. Chairman, to say this: "There is one problem which we have and it involves parking." I mentioned earlier, when I first spoke in this House, that there was a problem with an operating deficit. But I notice in the letter that there was something like threequarters of a million dollars sent to the hospital, and that has helped eliminate most of that deficit. And that was a commitment which was made.

[ Page 826 ]

You know, in the last two and a half to three years in our area we have seen an extended-care unit completed, a health clinic which will be completed in the fall, and we're presently undertaking an addition for surgery and radiology in the Prince George Regional Hospital. The total cost is something like $24 million.

There are certain things that we don't have and we hope that we will get, but they take funds as well — one of which is a renal dialysis machine. Of course, there are people in our area who have to leave Prince George and perhaps reside in the lower mainland to receive proper treatment. But one of these days we'll receive it. Last week when I was home the CAT scanner had arrived. It takes a long time and it takes a lot of community activity to raise the funds for it, but it does happen.

I have to commend the minister. We have had an excellent relationship over the last three years, and he's done an excellent job. I thought that it would perhaps lend some credibility to my comments if I had a letter from the regional administrator of the hospital. I'I just conclude with one comment, something I have believed for a long, long time. A social conscience is not the private preserve of the members opposite.

MR. BARBER: As my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has pointed out, this is the one and only motion of non-confidence to be presented by the official opposition this session. It is the only one because it indicates, in as serious a way as we can, the very serious criticisms we have of this minister's performance. It is the traditional way in the British system to register the displeasure of the official opposition at the performance of any minister. And it's not usually undertaken lightly. If it is, it loses its weight, it loses its authority. Done too often or too frivolously, it no longer has any meaning in the parliamentary sense.

One minister only this session is the subject of a non-confidence motion, because it isn't simply the official opposition who lacks confidence in this minister. A great many health professionals, medical professionals and persons involved in the provision of quality health care in British Columbia have also lost confidence in this Minister of Health. If it was only the official opposition that had no respect for his performance, it might be reasonable to discredit or disallow or ignore the criticisms of the official opposition. That would be fair — it's politics, it's partisan, it's expected, maybe. But it's not just the official opposition. It is literally dozens upon dozens of health professionals who, for the first time in their careers, have made public and political statements condemning Social Credit for what they've done to health care.

Medicine is principally and traditionally a conservative profession. Very few medical practitioners, I expect, have been active in politics at any time in their careers; if so, I doubt very much they've been active in a left-wing party. That would surprise me a great deal; it's a very conservative profession. But we have seen in this last year, for the first time in many years in this province — certainly in my own short life of experience in this province — medical professionals, nurses and people in the health community who also join us in moving non-confidence in this minister.

Let me illustrate. When the medical staff at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, having never before done such a thing, take out an advertisement at their own expense in the daily newspapers and condemn this government, that minister and his cutbacks, and go on as well to warn their own patients, "Watch out, we can no longer guarantee health care," what does that mean? What mark of confidence is that by the medical profession in this minister? It is no mark of confidence at all. Were those physicians from Royal Jubilee Hospital here tonight in this Legislature, they'd be voting for us in favour of this motion.

When in the Memorial Pavilion, formerly the Veterans' Pavilion, of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, registered nurses are replaced by licensed practical nurses because they don't have the budget to provide the quality care that only registered nurses can provide, what sign of confidence is that in this minister and his cutbacks? If those registered nurses were here tonight in this House, they'd be voting for this motion as well. They have no confidence.

I had a registered nurse from the Memorial Pavilion come to my office a couple of weeks ago. She formerly had 32 patients under her care; she now has 61. That woman has lost confidence in that ministry and the person occupying its chair. She can't do the job that is expected of her. It was tough enough to do the job she wanted to do when she was responsible for 32 elderly patients; she is now responsible for 61. If that isn't a cutback in care as a result of budget constraints, what is? Does the word "cutback" mean anything to this government? If that isn't a cutback, there are never any cutbacks and the word has no meaning. It is a cutback, care has been reduced, and if that registered nurse were here tonight she would be voting with us.

The announcements that the minister makes from time to time, his grandiose announcements about improvements to the physical plant.... When are these announcements made, and for what purpose? Was it or was it not a coincidence that the former first member for Victoria announced, during the campaign, seven days before the election, a $35 million renovation program at the Royal Jubilee Hospital? Maybe it was just a happy coincidence which was not intended to shore up his failing political fortunes. Maybe, in fact, it was a typically cynical ploy of that minister in whom the people of Victoria, by the way they voted, have lost confidence. Those who could be here. tonight, those who voted for us and saw through the sham and the charade of this much-announced improvement, might wonder about the politics behind it. They, too, have lost confidence in this minister.

When the staff of the Glengarry Hospital for the first time ever walked off their jobs weeks ago, protesting cuts, working conditions and the problems they have doing the job they want to do, in which minister were they demonstrating confidence — this one? Were they demonstrating confidence in his cuts, his constraints, his budget limits? Hardly. Those staff are committed to quality care; they are committed in a highly professional and disciplined way to doing the best job they can for their patients. They were moved to the point where they walked out one afternoon. Does the minister take that as a sign of confidence in his policies? He shouldn't. We don't. They don't either. If they were here they would be voting to support this resolution; they have no confidence in this minister either.

The board of directors of the Victoria General Hospital, including the government appointees, voted unanimously to condemn the stupid and artificial budget restraints of that minister — unanimously, including the government's own members on the board. Why did they do that? Did they do it

[ Page 827 ]

because they think this is the finest minister B.C. has ever had, that his policies are generous and decent and fair, practical, workable and responsible? Or did they do it because they're having a tough time guaranteeing, here in the capital city, first-class treatment, care and medical services for the people who have been entrusted to their care while they stay as patients in that hospital?

Did they take such a step lightly? Hardly. They knew what happened at the Vancouver General Hospital. The minister dismissed the whole board. In fact, the chairman of the board of Victoria General Hospital, Mr. Patterson, who is hardly a New Democrat, if you know him in Victoria — he's a well-respected man who has got nothing to do with our party or any other to my knowledge — himself said: "Look, if you don't respect the position we've taken and our refusal to abide by your stupid and dangerous cuts, then get rid of us and appoint your own board. Because we, in conscience, will not go along with the heartless cuts that are being imposed, through us, by the Social Credit government. "

Did they do that lightly? Did they do that irresponsibly? If so, fire the board. Tell the people that they're lying. Tell the board of Victoria General Hospital that they're making it up. Tell the doctors at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, who took out an advertisement condemning the Social Credit Party, that they are lying too. It is reasonable enough, I suppose, that you accused the former Minister of Health of lying. Would you have the guts to accuse the same doctors who say the same thing at Victoria General Hospital and Royal Jubilee Hospital? Are you going to call them liars? Would you have the guts to do out there, unprotected by the provisions regarding libel, what you are protected by in this House?

The doctors and the board at one major hospital and the doctors at another unanimously, publicly and repeatedly have condemned this minister and his government for their cuts in health care. Now either they're fibbing — either they're engaged in some vast commie plot — or maybe it's just possible they're telling the truth about what it really means to live with a 5 percent ceiling, revised to 7.5 for election purposes some months later. I have a document; I'll be willing to table it. It was written on April 25 of this year written by Mr. Worthington, director of financial services, addressed to Mr. Morrison, executive director of Gorge Road Hospital. This document has not been previously released. This document, an internal memo at the hospital, describes what it's been like for one hospital in Victoria to try to live with the stupid and artificial restraints, the totally unrealistic and unnecessary restraints, on hospital budgeting here in Victoria.

I want to talk about what it's been like for these guys to try to live with this Minister of Health. In section 2 of this document, which is a memo again from the director of financial services to the executive director of the hospital, he talks about how they can obtain — by cuts in service — such relief from financial obligations as to reduce their deficit. He talks in a practical way about what it means to live with 5 percent or, now, 7.5 percent. I'll table the whole document, if the minister wishes. Here is what he says on page 2:

"Our hospital revised budget projects expenditures of $8,585,530, but we have several very viable program changes that can provide some financial relief. These program changes are:

And here is what they've had to do, thanks to this Minister of Health:

a) Activation: staff reduced from three professionals and nine licensed practical nurses to five professionals and four LPNs. This could be fully operative by September '79 and, consequently, we might be able to save one-half of the annual projection: $20,000.

Now if the committee is aware, the activation unit at Gorge Road is one of the principal treatment instruments used by that really very first-class long-term care hospital, a hospital that attempts to deal with people who've been very severely disabled, some of whom are permanent residents there, others of whom are in for months and months as the result of accidents or disease of some sort of another. The activation program is one the principal medical means of helping these people restore their vitality and their lives and their limbs. The activation program is most important. What do they do because of Social Credit? They have to cut it. Here is the memo from the administrator, proposing how they have to cut it to live within his cuts. And the minister tells us there have been no reductions.

b) The dietary department — here is what they're doing in there. He proposes a reduction in hours of dietitians, also reduced shift positions for food-line production. This could be in effect by mid-July '79. Consequently we could effect three-quarters of annual savings for a total of $15,000.

c) Nursing cuts at the George Road Hospital — the minister tells us there have been no cutbacks. He advises a reduction of CSR operation and reduced hours attributable to nursing supervision — reduction of the nursing supervision — approximately three-quarters of the annual projected reduction could be recognized this year for a saving of $15,000.

He goes on and on to list further reductions in staff in the field of social workers, speech therapy, activation, rehabilitation assessment, driver training and decrease in other expenses, including laboratory work, X-ray work, purchase service and laundry-purchase service.

The total anticipated savings, as proposed on April 25 of this year by Mr. Worthington, are in the order of $74,500. However, he goes on to propose other attempts to deal with the stupid and artificial restraints imposed by Social Credit this is on page 3. He goes on to comment:

"Also there are always delays in rehiring employees, which provides for some economy of savings. This saving is never built into the budget, but it is very difficult to guesstimate."

He's hoping, obviously, now from the quote, of course, to effect further delays in order to further reduce their obligations because of the impossible-to-live-with cuts and restraints imposed by Social Credit. However, he goes on to propose cuts in sick time and WCB relief. This is one honest administrator trying to live within the rules imposed by Social Credit. Here is what he proposed on April 25 of this year:

"Every effect is being made to reduce relief-paid hours for sick time and WCB cases. A policy governing relief-paid hours is in the planning stage, but it should be pointed out that, due to the many types of flu going around, accompanied by the everyday illnesses, it is almost impossible to monitor the situation and at the same time budget for a reasonable savings in salary and wages."

[ Page 828 ]

The next page of the memorandum is the most pathetic explanation yet of what it's like to deal with budget cuts under Social Credit. Imagine a first-class administrator — and Mr. Worthington certainly is — in this province being reduced to make the following comment:

"At a meeting held in Vancouver two weeks ago, the Hon. Bob McClelland, Minister of Health, informed the BCHA and hospital boards and senior hospital staff that existing deficit '78-'79 would be picked up in part, or in whole, depending how far $10 million would stretch. Hopefully, we will be one of the fortunate ones and our deficit will be reduced."

How can these people run a hospital when they have to go begging, cap in hand, to this group, hoping and praying that "we will be one of the fortunate ones, and our deficit will be reduced."?

The minister has announced another policy, of course, realizing at long last that the heartlessness and ruthlessness of these cutbacks has impaired the political popularity of Social Credit. He's got a new policy: now he's going to pick up all the deficits, as soon as he finds out what they are. But since last November conscientious administrators in British Columbia, writing memos like this to one another, have given the lie to what the Minister of Health has been saying all day. There have been cuts. Here's the proof of them. Do you want more proof? My colleagues will provide it.

There have been cuts that have endangered health care in British Columbia. The Gorge Road Hospital is cutting staff. With any luck, such staff as have been let go might be rehired in the next while if we, by virtue of this debate, and I the public, by virtue of their pressure, can persuade this group of skinflints to spend the kind of money they should in order to provide quality health care in British Columbia.

We live in hope that these kinds of proposals won't become real. This in fact is what one hospital, well administered and well respected in the health community, was reduced to getting ready for, thanks to what this government does.

In mid-November Social Credit imposed a 5 percent budget ceiling on allowable increases for the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves. The ceiling then was totally naive and unrealistic, because inflation was carrying the cost of running a hospital to 9 and 10 percent. The cost of salaries, wage settlements arbitrated, supplies and other materials was running at well above 5 percent. Surely even this minister wouldn't pretend that Social Credit has reduced inflation to less than 5 percent in British Columbia. When they introduced it, it was stupid and wrong. It would not work; it could not work; it has not worked. But it has resulted in the most massive attack on Social Credit from the health community in British Columbia that we've ever seen: paid ads, doctors going on hot-line shows, people walking off their jobs, staff writing letters to the editor attacking this government for its cuts.

This 5 percent ceiling — now 7.5 — has, reduced and endangered the quality of health care in British Columbia, period. Pure and simple. When costs are going up 8, 9 and 10 percent, and you only allow 5 or 7.5 percent, what else can they do? They reduce service — that's what they do.

The policies of this minister betray more vividly than do those of any other minister the utter heartlessness of this coalition. Were the policy of 5 percent imposed on all ministries of government, then it might be a bit easier to understand. Were Social Credit's commitment to reduce the cost of all government matters in British Columbia genuine and universal and not simply applied to health care, it would be a little harder to debate the point.

Unfortunately that is not true. When it comes to the Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways, there's no 5 percent limit and there's no 10 percent limit. Do you want to know what happened last year? While they were busy imposing 5 percent on hospitals, here's what was happening to Highways. I'I read from the report of the director of financial services, highways division, at page 209 of this year's annual report of the Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways. Here's what Social Credit will do for Highways: "The total gross expenditure of $415 million for the period represents an increase of $136 million or 48.7 percent over the preceding fiscal period. " That's what they gave to Highways. They were over their total budget by 48.7 percent last year. And that's not the only overrun in that ministry.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Do you want to hear more? Here's what their own report says: "The highway maintenance costs have increased $25 million or 21.4 percent over the preceding fiscal period." Now for highway maintenance they found 21.4 percent an allowable increase. For hospitals and human beings they found 5 percent, thank you very much, as the allowable increase.

However, the worst overrun of all is in the field of highway construction. Here's what they do. Mr. Price, director of financial services, says: "Highway construction. Capital costs have greatly increased, due to an expanded highway construction program, resulting in an increase of $101 million or 64.5 percent over the preceding fiscal period."

Now what does that demonstrate about the real commitment of Social Credit? Apparently it demonstrates that Highways can have anything they want anytime they want it. Hospitals. What do they get? Five percent. Highways are allowed 48.7 percent, 21.4 percent and 64.5 percent overruns, over expenditure, over the budget. That's what Social Credit does for Highways. Who can have confidence in a minister who imposes a 5 percent ceiling on health care, while his colleague over expends his budget by 48.7 percent?

If this minister had any conscience and knowing what was going on in his own government, he would have resigned. No minister of conscience would have put up with these increases for highways while he could only get 5 percent for hospitals. But he has seen fit not to resign. Any government that cares more about highways than they care about human beings, and allow greater increases in highways, should resign. They have no decent conscience. They have no decent respect for the priority that health care must be paid. They have no decent understanding of the simple fact that in today's civilization human beings just maybe are a little more important than highways — just maybe they account for a little more in the long run of things. Social Credit will do anything at all and pay anything at all anytime they wish for highways. These ridiculous and ruthless 5 percent restrictions on health care are totally unacceptable to this or any other opposition.

[ Page 829 ]

The only non-confidence motion of this session is more than amply justified by all of the documentation that has been presented so far and will be presented in the next several hours. This minister stands condemned by a medical profession that for the first time has gone political and public, taking out ads at their own expense. The minister stands condemned by patients who have personally been the victim of staff cuts. They can't get into the hospitals or once they're in they can't see the nurses the way they used to. Where they used to see an RN, they now see an LPN; or where they used to see an LPN, they now see an orderly.

This minister stands condemned by health staff who have been laid off in hospital after hospital after hospital across British Columbia. The minister finally stands condemned in this motion by any decent person who supports guaranteed health care in British Columbia. The motion should pass because the facts are clear. The motion should pass because the priority this government gives to highways is 20 times greater than what they give to human beings who need health care. The motion should pass and I pray it does.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, we've just heard some comment about the question of priorities. I think this government's and this minister's question of priority for health care is well reflected in a budget that sees Health ranked as the number one priority with the spending of $1.2 billion. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this government places health care as the number one priority and spends more money on health care than any other ministry in the government.

There are some problems in health care that are common to all jurisdictions, as we've heard today. It's interesting if we're to consider a motion of non-confidence in the minister — to perhaps judge his policies and his actions on a comparative basis by looking elsewhere.

If you look next door to oil-rich Alberta, you will find something very interesting, Mr. Chairman. We've heard a lot from the official opposition about constraints and cutbacks, and it's interesting that in oil-rich Alberta there is a ceiling on permitted hospital expenditure increases. Isn't it interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the challenge in 1979 of grappling with health-care costs by government is so great that even oil-rich Alberta has to consider limits on spending in the health-care field. Alberta is 7.5 percent — 7 percent on supplies, 8 percent on salaries.

It seems to me that if we are to consider a motion of non-confidence in this minister and look comparatively at other jurisdictions to see the kind of job he is doing.... I think the fair-minded public would agree that across this continent all levels of government face the difficult challenge of how to deal with skyrocketing health-care costs. Even oil-rich Alberta has to consider the imposition of ceilings at the rate of 7.5 percent. I think a minister who is doing his best to grapple with the problem and comes up with a formula that compares favourably with that is to be commended for doing a pretty good job at a difficult time.

I'm sure we'd all love it if government had unlimited resources and a blank cheque book to keep writing the cheques for all the needs in health care. It would be great if we could, but there has to be some effort, I think, by government to put some practical limit on a budget on how far government can go.

We're now considering a motion of non-confidence in this minister. I am observing, Mr. Chairman, first of all, that this minister has seen to it — and he's battled his way through Treasury Board and budget preparation — that health is the number one priority of this government. That is a fact. Secondly. at a time when even oil-rich Alberta is having to place a 7.5 percent limitation on growth in hospital spending. If in British Columbia there's a limitation, and it too is 7.5 percent, that sounds to me like the minister is doing a pretty good job of dealing with a pretty challenging difficulty.

There are some other things we take for granted in the question of health care in British Columbia. I think they're worth pointing out, because a motion of non-confidence has been placed on this minister. It's a serious motion, and I think British Columbians, if they're being asked to consider whether this House lacks confidence in this minister, should pause and take stock of what we in British Columbia enjoy in terms of our health-care delivery system. There's no extra billing for doctors' services in British Columbia; there is in virtually every other province of Canada today. What has happened is that in most other provinces doctors are now sending out a premium or extra or special billing to the patient for the service rendered to the patient over and above what is normally picked up by medicare. That's not happening in British Columbia today, Mr. Chairman. Our citizens are not subject to extra billing or premium billing. Once again, they certainly are next door now in oil-rich Alberta, and they are in many other provinces.

Mr. Chairman, if we pause and take stock, we can, I think, give thanks to a minister who has seen to it that hospital service in this province is not going to be impaired by the fact or the threat of strikes. I think it does a great deal for the peace of mind of people in hospitals, or relatives and close friends of those in hospitals, to know that they're not going to have to worry or consider the prospect of what happens if there is a strike or a threat of a strike in a hospital. That's not going to happen in British Columbia, thanks to this minister.

You know, we hear a lot in other provinces about doctors opting out of medicare, doctors leaving the system, doctors leaving the country. Once again, in virtually every other province in this country, Mr. Chairman, doctors are resigning from and opting out of the provincial medicare systems, and there are predictions in those provinces of grave crises to come in health care.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, in British Columbia — thanks to the job this minister is doing — not a single doctor has opted out of our provincial medicare system. That is important enough to have been a front-page, special article in the Toronto Globe and Mail about two months ago. The article addressed itself to this fact: why is it British Columbia is the only province where the doctors are not opting out? The answer given was that for doctors, British Columbia has got the best medical-care system in Canada; it's the best place to practise.

If somebody suggests the question should be considered of whether this House, this province, lacks confidence in the minister.... If we pause and take stock, I think the facts are these, Mr. Chairman: we have a minister who has seen to it that health is the number one spending priority of the government. That's a fact. This government spends more money on health care than on any other ministry or department. Health care is number one. That's a result of

[ Page 830 ]

the work the minister has done in cabinet and in Treasury Board. It's his work, and he's responsible for the fact that health care is the number one priority of this government.

He's also responsible for the fact that our hospitals are open, they are functioning, and they are neither strikebound nor threatened to be strikebound. He's also responsible for the fact that British Columbians, unique in Canada, do not face the worry of doctors opting out of medicare. He's also responsible for the important fact that British Columbia citizens do not face the burden of extra billing or premium billings from doctors. That's a pretty impressive record, Mr. Chairman, if we stop and take stock of the things we enjoy.

There's something else that's important about hospitals in this province, Mr. Chairman. This motion of no confidence goes to the minister, and it also goes to the government, because it's motion of no confidence in the minister and the ministry which is the number one priority of this government.

Our hospitals enjoy ample and adequate power with which to operate. That's something we take for granted in British Columbia. We don't know brownouts and we don't know blackouts, but let me tell you, lots of people in eastern Canada who have been in hospital have known some very anxious moments during power shortages, brownouts and blackouts. That's something we've never had to worry about in B.C. This minister is part of a cabinet responsible for power policy in this province and, thanks to the energy policy of this province, our citizens don't face the worry or the prospect of what a shortage of power might do to the capacity of hospitals to operate.

I think the report card is pretty impressive, Mr. Chairman, if you want to take stock. At a time when every government in this continent is having to do something about skyrocketing health costs, we're comparing pretty favourably with Alberta as to the degree to which we can go to allow some increases in expenditure and yet have some protection for the public purse.

The kinds of problems they've seen in Ontario, in this whole area of the developing costs in the health-care field.... In Ontario many of these issues are now being settled in the courts, if you can believe it. There was a case recently where a hospital board and the Minister of Health were engaged in a court action in the Supreme Court of Ontario as to whether or not a court order would issue to reopen a hospital. In this province, we haven't, fortunately, had to become embroiled in that kind of regrettable controversy, and again that goes to the approach being taken by this minister to his duties.

If you want to talk about a vote of confidence or no-confidence in this minister, I think what we end up concluding, if we're fair-minded, is a vote of confidence in this minister. We have a Health minister who is keeping our hospitals open with no threat of strikes to shut them down. He's keeping our doctors in the medicare program, not opting out. He's protecting our citizens from premium billing or balanced billing. He's seeing to it that the problems we have that need resolution in the health-care field are not being resolved in the courts but discussed and resolved between his staff and the appropriate hospital boards. We take for granted the ample power we have with which to run our hospitals, and as our envious friends in Toronto read in the Toronto Globe and Mail, we have one of the finest health-care systems in North America. All of that, Mr. Chairman, is, I think, a vote of confidence in this minister.

If we found that health was ranking third, fourth or fifth in the priorities of spending of this government, it might be different. If we found our hospitals were being shut down by strikes all over the province, it might be different. If we found our citizens were being subjected to extra or premium billings, like most citizens in other parts of Canada, it might be different. If we found our doctors were opting out of our medicare system, it might be different. But unique in Canada, none of that is happening. I think, Mr. Chairman, it's time to pause and take stock of some of the things that we enjoy. On that basis this minister deserves a large vote of confidence.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman I'm very sorry that the last speaker compared us to what he refers to as "oil-rich Alberta." "Oil-rich Alberta" has the worst record in the delivery of human services of any province in Canada. It's worst in the delivery of health, education or human resources. It is a disgrace to Canada — oil-rich Alberta. The thing that terrifies me, and the reason why I am supporting this vote of non-confidence in this minister, is that I fear that we are going to degenerate into the abysmal condition that oil-rich Alberta is in its delivery of health services to its people. Heaven forbid that we should ever reach the state of oil-rich Alberta — that disgraceful province. It reminds me of when the ex-Minister of Human Resources used to compare us to Texas; it's an insult to British Columbia. We're bad, the Minister of Health is bad, but we're not as bad as oil-rich Alberta. I certainly hope we never become as bad. If that member was hoping to become Minister of Health he just blew it with that speech.

The Minister of Health, at 8:30 this evening, stood on the floor of this House and said there have been no cutbacks. If there are any cutbacks we should tell him about them. On May 28 he received a telegram from Jack Gerow, Secretary of the Hospital Employees Union, and again I'm going to read it, because he's complimented me on my reading. Here we go:

RE BURNABY GENERAL HOSPITAL. THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION NOTED RECENTLY YOUR PUBLIC STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT NO EMPLOYEES WOULD BE LAID OFF AT THE BURNABY GENERAL HOSPITAL ARISING FROM THE HOSPITAL'S BUDGET APPROVED BY YOUR MINISTRY. THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES' UNION REQUESTS THAT YOU MEET WITH A COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS LAYOFFS AT THE HOSPITAL THAT ARE CONTRARY TO YOUR PUBLIC STATEMENTS....

The fact of the matter is that those people at the Burnaby General Hospital were receiving layoff notices from the hospital. The difference between a layoff notice and a layoff is not clear to me. If you get a notice that you are laid off, does that mean you are laid off or does it mean you're laid off? What does it mean? The Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, doesn't seem to know the difference between a notice telling you that you are laid off and a cutback in the delivery of the hospital services. The telegram goes on to say:

A NUMBER OF HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ARE BEING LAID OFF INCLUDING EIGHT FROM NURSING ALONE, SEVEN HEAD NURSES....

Eight from the nursing area alone. Seven head nurses at the Burnaby General Hospital lost their jobs. They were told they could become general-duty nurses if that was what they

[ Page 831 ]

wanted. Failing that, they were laid off. That was a cutback. The administrator at the Burnaby General Hospital told us that the head nurses were going from being responsible for 20-bed pods to being responsible for 40-bed pods. That is a cutback. That is a layoff, and those who wanted to go to general duty did so, and others left.

The local unit representatives met with the hospital on May 24, 1979, and it was indicated that the deletion of nursing orderlies, nursing service aides, et cetera, was due solely to budgetary problems. Those are cutbacks. Every single member of the opposition who stood on the floor of this House has itemized cutbacks for that minister, and he insists on standing on the floor of this House and saying there are not cutbacks. As a result of your financial and budgetary stinginess there have been cutbacks in Burnaby General Hospital, as there have been in every other hospital in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not every hospital — you're wrong.

MS. BROWN: Wrong about what? Well, I am speaking for Burnaby General Hospital, and this....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister received that telegram and he responded to it. He said:

"This will acknowledge with thanks your Telex of today regarding Burnaby General Hospital. Your concerns are appreciated, but they must be advanced to the management of the hospital rather than with my ministry. I would suggest that your request for a meeting be relayed to the administrator of the hospital for appropriate action. "

The minister cannot say that he did not know, because he acknowledged the receipt of that Telex. The Telex stated very clearly that there were cutbacks in that hospital. As a result of the budgetary restraints of this government that happened on June 15, the hospital union, Local 180 of the Burnaby General Hospital, has gone before the Labour Relations Board about the fact that people are being laid off and are not protected according to the contract which was negotiated with that hospital. Now in the beginning of his speech the minister stated that earlier in the evening, at 5 o'clock or thereabouts, when I read into the record letters from doctors on the attending staff at Burnaby General about the EEG service being cut off.... He said they were old letters, that the EEG had been reinstated in March, I think.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I said it had been approved.

MS. BROWN: Did you say it had been reinstated in March?

MR. COCKE: Not even now!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Well, if it had been reinstated in March, Mr. Chairman, I wish he would start out by first of all notifying the administrator of the Burnaby General that it has been reinstated. Because this letter to Mr. Glenwright was sent on April 10, so if it was reinstated on March 28, or whatever the date is that the minister claims it was reinstated.... Incidentally, that's a date he didn't know at 5 o'clock this afternoon when I raised the issue on the floor. He wasn't able to respond to it until he came back at 8:30, and when he came, he came with incorrect information. That's the reason why there are problems in health care in this province, because the minister cannot even get information correctly. The administrator of that hospital wrote on April 10 asking that that's service be allowed to go through.

The neurologist, who has a full-time affiliation with the Burnaby General Hospital, on May 28.... The doctor who is supposed to use that EEG machine is writing to the chairman of the board of governors of Burnaby General saying that the EEG is not there. Now I would not dare to stand on the floor of the House and say those kinds of things about Burnaby General Hospital without having met with those people, Mr. Chairman. I am reading from letters which are public documents. This is not a secret; this is not a letter addressed to me. It's a carbon copy of a letter dated May 28 to the chairman of the board, Mr. Acheson. You contact Mr. Acheson and he'll pass on this document to you. If the EEG is operating at Burnaby General tell Mr. Acheson about it — he's the chairman of the board — so that he can tell this neurologist who is a full-time affiliate of that hospital and doesn't know that the machine is there. He knows the machine is there but he didn't know that the part-time technician to operate it was there.

The administrator didn't know on April 10. Yet you stand on the floor of this House and tell us that I sat in my office and brought out some old letters because that EEG had been reinstituted in March of that year.

May 1979 — Dr. Pacey doesn't know. You didn't know either at 5 o'clock this afternoon. On July 15 there was another letter from another resident staff member of the Burnaby General Hospital.

Who knows that the EEG has been reinstated? I am the happiest person in the world to know that people in the Burnaby community who need to have electroencephalography done are now able to have it done. Don't keep it a secret. If it was possible for you to have that done since March, the administrator should have been told. The neurologist should have been told. The administrator and the chairman of the board should have been told. They weren't told, because the machine has not been in operation since March. Now you get your dates straight, Mr. Minister.

You ask for further evidence about cutbacks. You brag about your long-term care. Do you know the first thing that happened to Shaughnessy General Hospital when it came under long-term care? That is public knowledge. They made a TV program about it. The disabled veterans who used to run the elevator, some of them for 17 years, were the first people to be notified that they were being laid off at that hospital as a result of your policies.

Interjection.

[ Page 832 ]

MS. BROWN: You don't consider that a cutback? What is a cutback to you? You are the worst Minister of Health this province has had for a long time, simply because you will not even admit, Mr. Minister, that your policies are jeopardizing the delivery of health care in this province and because you will not put up half the fight for people that the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) put up for blacktop in this province. It's very simple why the minister is being faced with this vote of non-confidence, something that no other minister of that government has had to face, as inept and incompetent as they all are. He's not even as good as the other incompetent ministers over there. If that Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways had been the Minister of Health, the hospitals budget would have been up by over 60 percent, because he would have fought for the people of this province in the same way that he's fighting for the highways. That is one of the problems that we face in this province — not only an uncaring government, but an incompetent minister.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, my constituency has had some health-care problems in the past; but those problems were solved when in 1975 we kicked the NDP out of office. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggested that the back bench here make a few comments about our constituencies, and I'm very happy to do that. I would like to tell you, hon. member, that in my constituency we have a $7 million hospital expansion program authorized. Plans are now complete and, hopefully, the construction will start sometime in September.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell that hon. member and the previous speaker that we have not had any staff cutbacks at our hospital. In fact, we have had an increase in staff because of increased patient-days at the hospital.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief. But I would like to say that, contrary to what some commercials would have us believe, things did not go better with Cocke.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the excellent performance of our Minister of Health and therefore will vote against this silly motion of non-confidence. I would also like to tell you that during the campaign I had the opportunity of talking to some of my constituents at meetings, as they would stand up with tears in their eyes too and say: "Do your best to keep that socialist government out of power. We can't stand their squandering, because we know what will happen to our health services. "

I would also like to tell you, hon. member, that I have come from a country where we had your type of socialism and your socialistic services. I left because of them. And, again, I'm very proud to stand up and support our Minister of Health and vote against this motion of non-confidence.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the motion that we have before us is simply a reaffirmation of a decision that has already been taken in cabinet. When one looks at what this minister has been forced to do, and how dutifully he has carried it out without fighting, without any outcry, and obviously without offering his resignation, it shows that the decision of non-confidence in this minister has already been taken in cabinet. So what we're doing with this motion is reaffirming that action.

Early on in this session the minister got up, I believe, after the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) first brought up the business of the 5 percent budgetary limitation, and he said: "There is no 5 percent limitation; there was no 5 percent limitation; it never existed." For a while it didn't exist, until the member for New Westminster brought to his attention the memorandum that he had sent out, and his own words were sprung back on him.

It's rather interesting that some members would get up and say that there are no problems in their area. I know that there certainly are with some of the hospitals in the Nelson-Creston riding; we've seen evidence that there is in the Prince George riding. One in particular, the Arrow Lakes Hospital in Nakusp, is staffed at a cut-back and reduced level.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.