[ Page 8917 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Site C land. Mrs. Wallace –– 8917

Dome LNG contract award. Mr. D'Arcy –– 8918

Mr. Leggatt

Use of 2,4-D in Okanagan lakes. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 8919

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Gardom)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8919

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 55 –– 8924

Hon. Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Division

On vote 56: intergovernmental relations –– 8925

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 56 –– 8925

Division

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

On vote 45: minister's office –– 8926

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Brummet

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Bennett

Introduction and first reading –– 8939

Appendix –– 8939

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: I'm very pleased to see in the gallery opposite today a representative from the city council of the city of North Vancouver. I ask this House to welcome Alderman Frank Marcino and his lovely daughter Kathy to the Legislature and to Victoria.

MR. RITCHIE: I also see a good friend and constituent of mine in the gallery, Mr. Bryan Hambley. Mr. Hambley is past chairman of the Abbotsford and district school board and is presently active on our Fraser Valley College board — a very dedicated community worker. Would the members please welcome Mr. Hambley.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to add my words of welcome to Frank Marcino from North Vancouver. He's an old friend of mine and of many others on this side as well.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would be pleased if all members of the House would welcome Mrs. Sharon Douglas from Victoria, who is in the gallery today and visiting our House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know that Bruce Eriksen, when he was here on Monday, was saddened to see his member absent from the House. It's not often that I have the opportunity of introducing people, but on behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is absent on holidays, I'd like to introduce a resident of Vancouver Centre, Jennifer Jones.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm especially honoured today to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House eight Girl Scouts from Los Angeles. They are from the Las Monteguis troop and they come as guests of Canada and British Columbia. I would also like to mention that the Girl Scouts' sister organization in Canada is known as the Girl Guides.

MR. STRACHAN: I just noticed a friend in the gallery. Would the House please welcome from the College of New Caledonia, Dr. Jan Cioe.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the French wine industry, I'd like to extend a welcome to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) for being with us today.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the House delegates from the B.C. School Trustees Association, the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. Association of Colleges and the College-Institute Educators Association who are here in gallery today and who will be attending a meeting shortly after question period.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome a citizen of Prince George, Bob Sebastian, who is a visitor in the gallery today. He is a well-known painter of Indian culture and history and is now known right across the country. I'd like the House to extend him a particularly warm welcome.

Oral Questions

SITE C LAND

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister explain why B.C. Hydro has subdivided agricultural land at Site C without the approval of the Agricultural Land Commission?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: That's surprising; I thought B.C. Hydro was his responsibility. B.C. Hydro has said to the Utilities Commission that it anticipates it can bypass the Agricultural Land Commission and go directly to cabinet to get the land out of the reserve. Can the minister advise whether the cabinet has given a commitment to B.C. Hydro that it will be able to go directly to cabinet and bypass the Land Commission?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'll try the Minister of Agriculture. The Agricultural Land Commission indicated that they were going to intervene in the Site C hearings. Did the minister advise the Agricultural Land Commission that it would not be appropriate for them to take that action?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat will probably recall that there were technical documents filed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at the Site C hearings to give the information that they required to carry out the hearings. The member is also aware, I'm sure, that there is no question that there is some land there that is classed as agricultural land. The issue was not whether or not it was agriculturally viable; the question was what the use was going to be, either agriculture or energy.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the minister has told me a lot of things I already knew, but he didn't answer my question. Did the minister contact the Agricultural Land Commission and advise them that they should not intervene at those hearings, after they had indicated that they were going to intervene?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker. to clarify — because I think it's important that it is on the record — B.C. Hydro is not questioning the agricultural capability of some of the land within the pondage area. The approach to the Utilities Commission is to determine the need for energy and whether or not the recommendation from the Utilities Commission to cabinet would be for energy or for retaining land in the agricultural land reserve for agricultural production.

As I said before, there is no question as to some of the capability of the land. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the decision was made that there was not a need for the Agricultural Land Commission to state the capability of the land in question, because even B.C. Hydro knew that there was some agricultural land within the pondage area.

[ Page 8918 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Very slowly: did the minister intervene with the Agricultural Land Commission and ask them not to appear at the Site C hearings?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to answer the member opposite....

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The determination in regard to whether or not the Land Commission would file intervention was made in discussion with the commissioners, my staff and my ministry months and months ago. If you're asking did I come down with a heavy hand as the minister and say "Do not," the answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE: Was the Minister of Agriculture aware of the subdividing of land by B.C. Hydro? If so, did he take any action to prevent that subdivision?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I was not, and am not, aware of the subdivision of land owned by Hydro.

MRS. WALLACE: Will the minister make a commitment to this House and the people of British Columbia that the question of the withdrawal of Site C lands from the agricultural land reserve will be referred to the Agricultural Land Commission? I assume the answer is no, but I would like to know.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter is future policy of the government, if that determination were proceeded with. The member knows that the Agricultural Land Commission Act stipulates that subdivisions within the ALR have to be approved by the Agricultural Land Commission. The member also knows — because her party, when it was government, had a section which is still in the act that says so — that the cabinet can exclude land from the agricultural land reserve.

As I see the situation developing, should a decision be made to proceed with Site C, then the land in question, which would be flooded.... The Utilities Commission would recommend to cabinet, and cabinet would decide either to proceed with an energy facility or to keep the land within the ALR and have it for agriculture. The subdivision, if we're talking about Site C, in my opinion would not be relevant. It would be a determination whether or not to proceed with an energy facility.

MRS. WALLACE: The subdivisions have taken place. The land has been divided by B.C. Hydro without reference to the Agricultural Land Commission. You yourself indicated that it had to go to the Agricultural Land Commission before it could be approved. Will you now take immediate steps to ensure that those subdivisions are revoked, here and now, so that if in fact the Site C doesn't go ahead, the land will still remain in viable units?

MR. SPEAKER: The question as to what steps have been taken would be in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not aware of the subdivisions taking place; therefore I'll take that part of her question as notice.

DOME LNG CONTRACT AWARD

MR. D'ARCY: Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources please tell the House why he has decided on a coverup regarding the applications for the LNG project, resulting in the fact that the industry, the competitive bidders, the petrochemical industry and the people of B.C. find it impossible to decide for themselves whether or not an intelligent choice was made on the LNG export proposal?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There is no coverup.

MR. D'ARCY: I did not ask the minister whether or not there had been a coverup. Obviously there is a coverup, so we don't need to ask him that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have the question.

MR. D'ARCY: What I asked the minister, and I will ask him again, is this: since he has decided to cover up and conceal the application, will he now decide to table the relative merits of the various applications so that the industry and the people of B.C. can decide whether he knows what he's doing regarding B.C. gas?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said at the press conference when I announced the successful LNG proponent that further details would be released in a couple of weeks, and that still holds true.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the same minister. The original proposal — the initial proposal of the Dome group — was that Canadian ships would be constructed and used for the transport of LNG to Japan. The proposal that the minister has tentatively accepted contains no such provision. Will the minister explain to the House why he didn't insist on Canadian ships, for at least part of this project, before he gave his approval?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The proposal of Dome, or any of the other proponents, never contained any proposal to build ships in Canada. At one time Dome Petroleum suggested that it might build ships in Canada, but it wasn't part of the proposals. Nor did any of the other proponents even mention building ships in Canada.

The estimated cost of LNG carriers in Europe and Japan is about $160 million per vessel in U.S. dollars. In the United States it's about $200 million. In Canada it's over $220 million per vessel, after applying the present federal subsidy, which, I understand, is somewhere around 7 percent — down quite considerably from the 20 percent it was at one time. The current world market price for existing surplus LNG carriers — and there are now about 24 ships not being used, which are considered surplus and are up for sale — is $90 million. Dome's original thought, which was subsequently withdrawn, was to build a brand new shipyard, perhaps two. At the present time none of the shipyards in Canada is big enough to build these vessels. The only proposal that was even suggested was to build only the hulls in Canada for four of the five carriers needed. The cryogenic vessels that would go with those hulls would still have been built and installed in Japan.

[ Page 8919 ]

The subsidization of the ships themselves would have been bad enough, but there would have been massive subsidies necessary for the shipyards. Over the life of the project, the added cost to the taxpayers by using Canadian-built vessels, even with the cost of the vessels, would have averaged about $75 million a year. This would have very seriously reduced the B.C. and Alberta revenues; or, again, it would have required a very high front-end capital subsidy, with no assurance of the longevity of the shipyard. In fact, we would probably have been stuck with one, perhaps two, shipyards that would have no work following the construction of these vessels. It was thought by all of the proponents, and by the government, that that kind of taxpayer subsidy just wasn't worth it to the Canadian taxpayer.

MR. LEGGATT: In view of the fact that this government can subsidize a railroad for the Japanese on the Anzac line, why can't it subsidize Canadian shipping for workers in this province? Perhaps the minister can answer that question and the next one.

Did the minister receive any representation from the Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon. Mr. Phillips) with respect to the Dome proposal, or with respect to any of the other applicants for the project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The selection of the successful proponent was a joint recommendation to cabinet by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It was a joint operation from the beginning; the recommendation to cabinet was a joint recommendation, and that recommendation was accepted by cabinet.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to reply to some questions taken on notice during yesterday's question period.

Leave granted.

USE OF 2,4-D IN OKANAGAN LAKES

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) asked whether the United States Army Corps of Engineers consulted "with the minister or the Ministry of the Environment with respect to drift conditions, concentrations, water intakes and recreation-use areas on Osoyoos Lake prior to applying 2,4-D." I replied yesterday that they did not consult with me, but they may have consulted with staff in my regional office.

I have now checked, and ministry personnel were not aware of, and had not been consulted on, the treatment that caused the 2,4-D contamination of the water in the British Columbia portion of Osoyoos Lake. The first knowledge of the potential 2,4-D contamination of our water was received in the Vernon offices of the aquatic studies branch on Friday, July 16, 1982, when a representative of the United States Army Corps of Engineers warned that there was a possibility of a drift into Canada. In response to that, I have drafted a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers expressing the hope that in future, when they are applying 2,4-D in an attempt to eradicate Eurasian water milfoil, they advise us when they are doing it on a transboundary water question.

The second question I took on notice was one regarding Eurasian water milfoil and "a complete review of the progress of Okanagan Lake 2,4-D program." That's really not the case. No review has ever specifically been done on that. However, my colleague. Hon. James Nielsen, when he was the Minister of Environment, struck an advisory committee involving the University of British Columbia. We now have their seventh interim report, and are acting on those recommendations.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

On vote 55: ministers office, $138,000.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, this is the very moment, I'm sure, the whole assembly has been waiting for. It's indeed a great pleasure for me to call vote 55: resolved that a sum not exceeding 138,000 meagre little dollars be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations and my humble little office.

Mr. Chairman. In opening these estimates I wish to make it abundantly clear that I have resisted the siren song of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I have turned down candy-apples, half-smoked cigars. nights at the movies and days at the race-track, and try as they will, Mr. Chairman, I categorically refuse to accept so much as a farthing increase in these estimates; like Grant, I stand fast. I do hope, though, that in the furtherance of our restraint program we may well contemplate savings throughout the whole of the year, notwithstanding the prophecy of the Province newspaper.

I also trust, Mr. Chairman, that the press will sharpen their pencils, gird their cameras and burnish their recorders, as wonderous items of current interest and bodings of things to come dance before their eager little eyes during these debates. But I would like to make one thing very clear: I do not agree with the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who. I'm told, is unavoidably not with us today; but for a chap, Mr. Chairman. who knocks a bank, creates a run and hives off to Switzerland, it's a little like an eighteenth-century whodunit. The question has to be: did he sell short? But I agree not with him that this gallery is all bad, for some of them aren't good enough to be bad, and a few of them aren't bad enough to be good. But in Russia, Mr. Chairman, the dissidents end up in Siberia, and I suppose in British Columbia the less fortunate in the media end up in Disneyland North — in the press gallery in Victoria — with about similar fringe benefits, bearing in mind that which they usually have to face that is repetitious, sometimes boring, and dull, and that which is not certainly seems to escape the attention of several members of the assembly, and yet they are compelled to write about it. So they indeed do have their difficulties.

I think a lot of compliment, Mr. Chairman, is due to everyone involved in the ministry. It does have a small staff: a total of 46, of whom 12 are based in B.C. Houses in London and in Ottawa. By way of general comparison, the Alberta ministry has about 80, with Quebec in the neighbourhood of about 500. A lot of compliment is due to everyone involved in

[ Page 8920 ]

its endeavours, the very capable secretariat led by Mr. Mark Krasnick; the constitutional side and its great accomplishment led by Mr. Mel Smith; my efficient staff with Mr. Jim Matkin at the general helm. I'd also pay my respects to the great capacities of Mr. Alex Hart, QC, our outstanding B.C. agent-general in London, truly an agent-general nonpareil; and further to Mr. David McPhee and Miss Ann Vice, our most efficient and charming representatives in Ottawa. For their dedication, their hard work and their continuing capacity to be innovative and helpful in the interest of all of the people of this province I offer everyone in the ministry the best of thanks and the sincerest of congratulations.

I wish to make a number of points as concisely as I'm able to in these opening remarks, which I shall endeavour to compress. I would like to talk a little bit about my view of our current state of federal-provincial affairs — i.e. Canadian democratic federalism, which is a unique dynamic — and of where we may find it going over the short and long haul; my views of Canadian governance insofar as it relates to our capacity to operate individually and collectively how it became that way, and how it may and should change. I'd also like to make a short assessment of the Canadian constitutional journey over 1982 — what was averted, and what we may see in store and realizable — plus say a few words about the operational aspect of the good people in this ministry.

I'd say it's very far from comforting for everybody to note in the country these days that our principal growth industries are unemployment, UIC claims, high interests rates, bankruptcies, soaring federal deficits, the crippling of the Canadian dollar and a malaise of confidence of capital. I think the most regrettable aspects of the country today are the questions about the continuance of Canada as we economically, geographically and, indeed, politically know it, as well as the crisis at the centre of leadership and the will to provide Canadian leadership. All of that notwithstanding, I — as most Canadians are, as well as, I'm sure, pretty well everybody in this House — am very much an optimist and have great faith in our country and in the Canadian people's capacity to rise above all of this. It goes without saying that we have to recognize that in Canada we live in a truly heaven-blessed area of the world. We have to reflect upon how fortunate we are, with the abundance of our resources, freedoms and opportunities, and most of all upon the fact that we live in peace — witness the horror that happened in the United Kingdom yesterday. Thank God that is not a lifestyle for us. Indeed, it should not be a lifestyle over there.

With all of that first and foremost in mind, what we in Canada have to do is start working our way out of where we now are. The words to stress are "work," "Canadian commitment" and "Canadian dedication." It's certainly not going to happen by drift; nothing is bound to turn up. Perhaps it was best stated by the late President Kennedy when he said: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." That has to be the call across our country today. This is going to mean some burdens and some sacrifice, and most importantly, sharing of those. But I'd say that with that kind of attitude and action, providing it is positive action, there is no question that Canada can and will make it. How long it will take will depend upon our degree of commitment.

A lot has been said recently about the federal budget, but I wonder whether or not its true ramifications are effectively and properly understood across the nation. It seems to be an attempt to continue — and I stress the word "continue" — to mistrack our national fiscal presence until events overtake the players or some presently unforeseeable western world economic miracle emerges. Taking it at its faceless value, it is mostly, regrettably, without hope or the capacity for any truly significant, long-range, positive impact. It's very clear that within existing Ottawa philosophical parameters, Mr. MaeEachen had very little room to move. But it is no Liberal budget in the historic liberal sense, or even in the Liberal sense. I'd say it's just another shuffle of the cards — a little jiggery here, a little pokery there — a technocratic exercise. It's more third-level bureaucratic control and more clobbering of the middle class. We see leeching of the indexing of income tax and the results of that be larded onto pensioners and the elderly — in fact, penalizing those who got the country into the good shape that we were enjoying yesterday. Once again, they're sucking up more tax dollars, distilling them through the public service until they have been regulated and eroded to the point that merely dribbles can be distributed, like Oliver's first bowl, to all of those they probably categorize as the expectant grateful. Some benevolence!

Without a marked shift in economic philosophy, the more to come would have to be more of the same, more bad news and more red ink. "The country is close to being on its economic knees," said fellow British Columbian, the federal auditor-general, Mr. Kenneth Dye. "We're going down the bloody drain if we don't do something about it," said Mr. James Macdonell, who held the post from 1973 to 1980. "Essential, desirable, non-essential — that's how to develop program activity," he stated, "and some of that activity should be stopped. Where the call is to stop, stop — for God's sake, stop." Sure, some worthwhile endeavours may well have to be shelved during these economic times, until Canada can work its way out of this. If such measures are good, society will readily see that they can re-emerge later when Canada can afford it. If they are not any good, fine, excellent; and what better time than this to effect that kind of pruning? But from Mr. MacEachen we can forecast more debt. It went from $10 billion to $20 billion in the last nine months, and that $20 billion, Mr. Chairman, was at 82 cents. With the dollar drop it's probably much closer to $22 billion or $23 billion today. No doubt it's going to be way beyond that by Christmas — some present! — and with no apparent longrange federal strategy for reduction. Thirty cents out of every federal dollar now goes to service debt. Canada is paying $25 million a day, and if Mr. Dye's predictions are correct we're going to be facing 50 cents out of every buck for debt: $40 million to $50 million a day to keep afloat, and that's positively scary.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, under the current economic philosophical parameters of the federal administration, and assuming, as I said, there are no western world miracles — there don't appear to be any coming down the track — one can only expect more and worse of the same: more tinkering; probably a national slicing of the social cost big-hitters — health, education and human resources; drastically cutting back on EPF and transfer payments; shifting of dollar costs onto the provinces, which, because of B.C.'s being a payer and not a receiver of equalization, would mean an even tougher load for British Columbia. That is what these MacPierres have produced, with Canada facing the greatest capital outflow

[ Page 8921 ]

and the least capital inflow, the greatest capital economic dearth in decades.

But rather than emphasizing the incestuous dictates of regulatory debility, Mr. MacEachen should have drastically altered, or better still abandoned, the NEP. He should have tied FIRA into a sack with several heavy stones and sent it to its reward in the Rideau Canal. He should have eliminated the capital gains tax for the present, and initiated, as we have proposed, income tax free investment bonds with fair and manageable interest rates for borrowers, and massively infuse these back into the marketplace as low-cost mortgages, loans to small businesses, to fishermen and farmers, and provide startup depreciation and profit-sharing incentives for business. Plus, and more importantly, he should rationalize our tax jungle. I listened with a great deal of interest to the member for Surrey and my colleague the Minister of Finance when they skirted around this during the estimates of the Ministry of Finance yesterday. We should be providing reliefs and incentives by tax points or allowances, or something like them — by lines on income tax returns.

Those are the ways and the light to economic recovery in this country, instead of maintaining once again and proliferating once again legions of bureaucracy and restrictive regulation which would serve little but to perpetuate and fuel our economic erosion.

Mr. Trudeau's principal thrust for solution down the line appears to be economic martial law. What I'm advocating is economic freedom. But unless the country somehow, sometime, somewhere, finds its own solution, Mr. Trudeau could well impose his solution — economic martial law. Canada does not deserve that. It needs freedom to grow, freedom to prosper. It needs economic freedom, not economic martial law. I say we have to develop a right climate for capital, to work effectively, function, give value, deregulate, attain our potential; that's the appropriate route to take. Because if you look at the history of our country, that is the proven and the workable formula. It's always been the modus operandi for Canadian success. When Canada has not succeeded throughout our history, it's because we have taken a course different than that. So for goodness sake, can we not at least learn from history.

As I mentioned earlier, some good can come from this. Until this point there has not seemed to be a ready, willing and able capacity in the nation to assess and sunset that which is redundant — the overlapping and the duplicating. We became creatures of habit. We became very grudgingly acquiescent to the inefficient. Instead of working as hard as we could to eliminate red tape throughout the whole of our country, Canadians either passively succumbed to it, or they went elsewhere. Neither course is being assistive to the nation. We can't do that anymore. We have faced the day and the time of truth. It's not an end that is in sight: it is right here right now. I say that for this nation to thrive and survive we have to take a 180 degree turn and return to how the country has best operated and can best operate.

I'd like now to talk about commitment to our country and back to the....

MR. MACDONALD: Back to the eighteenth century, the seventeenth century, the sixteenth century....

HON. MR. GARDOM: There's the difference between a man who lacks vision, like my friend over there, and a person who is speaking to you from the perspective of a great future for a great country. We are not trying to debilitate our country. We are not trying to shackle it with mountains of red tape and bureaucracy, as would be your mould. We think that is completely wrong.

We have to commit ourselves to our country and to its overall well-being. There is no question that the separatist talk that we've been hearing, as it is being continuously espoused by the socialist PQ in Quebec, by the hard-right WestFeds out west, or by those centralists who would separate us from federalism, the unitary statistics who roam around Ottawa and central Canada, and by the Waffle Manifestoers, has hurt and is continuing to hurt our national and international economic and capital capacity and credibility. Who, in the name of the good Lord, would wish to invest in a country that is proposing to dissolve? Nobody in their right mind. Right of self-determination: I'd say, less than my royal backside: it was called treason when I was a child.

Some self-designed. self-serving, irresponsible member in this assembly a few days ago created a bank run, and some very rightful waves of indignation spread across the country. But where is the national outrage against those who would sever Canada and make far worse the economic fortunes of even those who support them, as well as the whole of the nation and the overall future of every Canadian? Perhaps this is a good thing, I don't know that, I don't have much Scottish blood in me. What I do have recoils at having to finance these kinds of separatist endeavours in any way. It's an excess nobody can afford now.

A few years ago, I said that maybe equalization payments should be lodged in trust rather than paid to those who receive Canadian benefits but use them to finance, and conspire to finance, the departure from the Canadian scene. I looked upon that from the perspective of unity within the Canadian family. Yet some chose, for political advantage, I guess, to brand me as heretic against Quebec. That's absolute nonsense. I am for Quebec in Canada. I am for Alberta and B.C. in Canada. But more and more, I think that equalization payments should not be plunked into the hands of governments but should find their way to the citizens in the recipient provinces by decreased tax points or what have you.

I think W.A. C. was miles ahead of his time on this score. He saw the danger of all Canadian dollars becoming capable of provincial political manipulation. I want the people in the Maritimes, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan to know that this is money from a Canadian to a Canadian, and not to any government or group who may be working to leave our country and who is against our country. It's just not right; it's just not Canadian. If anybody wishes to categorize that type of activity as the luxury of a tolerant society, it's a luxury that Canada can just not afford today.

The equalization formula mode of payment — certainly not its concept or principle, which is one of sharing and providing standards of service across a country, which is the Canadian way and in the Canadian interest, and which is great.... But that formula and mode of payment should be changed, and now is the time to do it, without any question.

About the process of governance: there are too many, too restrictive, too overlapping and there are four levels. How did this come about? I suppose there's nothing that bureaucracy will favour or cling to more than turf. They'll fight to the death over turf. Pay and the rate of pay depend upon turf. The proliferation of restrictive turf-enhancing legislation over the

[ Page 8922 ]

past half a century — I'd say very specifically over the past 25 years — has produced where we're at now.

We're really so overgoverned throughout the whole of our country, it's preposterous. I'd say it very juicily fits the mould of my friends across the way. It well fits the socialistic mould, and indeed complements the designs of the structurists and of the Cartesian dialecticians who unfortunately seem to envelop us in just about every quarter. But how wrong it is. It isn't productive. It hampers initiative. It restricts development. It scares capital. Its appetite for dollars is insatiable and it's always self-perpetuating. But be it by luxury or by laissez-faire, we've got it. But for Canada to survive, we cannot carry on with this current mould.

A few years ago I suggested that it would be a demonstration of national will and purpose if all governments — all emanations of government, federal, provincial, regional and municipal, universally, throughout the country, all of them; not one by one, but all of them at one time — established the 40-hour work week. "Well, he wants to send children back to the mines," said certain of our political and labour leaders. No way, Mr. Chairman. I only wanted the country to best function.... How one can effectively run an institution — and one knows that government's operations are institutional, all taxpayer-paid, all dollar-open-ended — how you can possibly run a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, 365 day-a-year institution except with an eight-hour shift is ludicrous. Had we as a nation taken a course such as that a few years back, I think we might well not have been in the degree of soup we're in today.

I'd like to say a couple of words about accountability. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) yesterday, when they were talking about accountability and that which had been discussed at the meetings of the public accounts committee of the country. Specifically, by way of illustration, about the national media.... I may have trouble getting out of caucus tonight, Mr. Chairman, but I like the CBC. But what I like about it is its concept, not necessarily how it's run. I say that all organs and emanations of government — the Crown corporations, all recipients of tax money, professionals and so on — have to be subject to effective accountability. We cannot permit them to operate as economic fiefdoms unto themselves. Their tax revenues and expenditures should be under the same kind of accountability and scrutiny as the direct expenditures of senior governments. That would include disclosure of hours of work, payments for services, and goods and materials at all levels. There's a right to know, and if there is fat it should be trimmed. If there are gross mistakes they should be bared.

My colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is indicating from his seat: are we getting value in Canada from the CBC? It's $500 million in the glue. Well, if that is considered to be value, okay. But if it isn't — and I would think that most of the Canadian public surely think it is not — pare it. Let's do something about it. But for goodness' sake, Mr. Chairman, let it become accountable.

In passing, I would note that the courts seem to have found that organization to be the all-Canadian libellor last year. That was never its mandate. Canadian taxpayers and, I'm sure, by far the majority in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation greatly resent that national communications medium becoming involved in that kind of exercise, with the taxpayer footing the bill for both the libel and the libellor. Let them return to ethical standards as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about tenure. Have we not today come to the point in time in our history that we should not continue to have two rules for the game — essentially, one in the public sector and one in the private sector? Apart from the very ancient arguments from the towers of learning about academic freedom, the tenure system is a throwback and carryover from the Great Depression, when lower salaries were accepted upon the understanding of security of payment and continuity of service. Now the pay on balance is good, and the security of payment is excellent, but surely we have outlived the concept of tenure. Wouldn't society be better served by the thousands of truly dedicated public servants who put out, as most do, if they did not have to always suffer those who won't pull their fair share, and if we perhaps considered some form of merit return for good performance? There is precious little tenure in the private sector. There one can't have more dollars in than out — if so, it's game over. It's a big issue and it's certainly controversial. But can Canada afford to carry on the way it has? I doubt it.

When discussing public-sector leadership, one cannot escape reflecting upon the private sector. It has to give value; it's got to shore up its productivity. It's certainly got to contribute its energy and its counsel to the public milieu. In a democratic society, like it or not we're all in the kitchen. There has to be a partnership of effort. Neither the private sector alone nor the public sector alone can do the complete job; both are required.

I very much welcome recent remarks about belt-tightening from some of our very high-level corporate leaders. We heard lots of sound and well-chronicled statements. But I'd say to some of them that society also expects them to practise what they preach. In these kinds of times those leaders who happen to be in the stratospheric $200,000 and $300,000 and $400,000 per year bracket should move down as well.

Now I want to take a look at the constitutional arena. This will be my last topic, Mr. Chairman.

The year 1982 was a remarkable year. It was an historic one for our country, and I'm very happy to say that this ministry was able to play a considerable part. What was initially proposed by the federal administration for Canada, and all but thrust down its throat, through the nostrils of the United Kingdom, was a proposal that would have all but ended Canadian federalism as we now know it and as we have known it. It would have perpetuated economic, political and institutional power in central Canada, contrary to the natural evolution of our country. It would have seen enshrined a veto capacity upon a non-elected, nationally appointed, ill-representative institution, the hoary old Senate; it would have even more tilted against the capacity of the west and the hinterlands to achieve their rightful potential. Perhaps it would have lessened, if not eventually eliminated, the role of the monarchy as well. In retrospect, it would have opened up divisions far, far greater than those that exist at the present time.

So that juggernaut had to be stopped. In that endeavour the national New Democratic Party and the provincial NDP were of no assistance whatsoever; but to the contrary, and, indeed, fully supportive of Mr. Trudeau's neo-Canadian designs. It was wrong, it was dangerous, it was patently antifederalist, and we could have become a unitary state. It all but succeeded, but for five provinces, at first, opposing and offering constructive alternatives; and slowly their numbers increased to eight. That was followed by the very clearly and soundly expressed resentment of the Canadian public to the

[ Page 8923 ]

federal NDP-supported unilateral process. Next, it was buttressed by the decision of the three courts of appeal and, finally, by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. Even as late as then, tremendous effort was still required, because notwithstanding the eight provinces, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian public there was still very clear articulation that the majority in the Canadian Parliament would have forced the measure through, with the United Kingdom, as the Prime Minister rather indelicately stated, being expected to hold her nose and jump to his bidding. Fortunately, mounting opposition at Westminster also became more apparent and, at long last, thanks primarily to the efforts of B.C. and our Premier, the Prime Minister and his supporters were compelled, much contrary to their wishes and intellectual designs, to come to the table and negotiate.

When all of this was going on, as I said over and over again at that time, Canadian energies and Canadian efforts could have been so much better utilized by practising cooperative federalism, as opposed to confrontational federalism, and to address the far more commanding and more crucial issues that were then besetting us, and which are even more greatly besetting us today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, are you about to conclude, or would you like leave to continue, as your time as expired?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would appreciate five minutes, but it's entirely up to the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Eventually a bargain was struck. With a better exercise of reason, I think, on their part, and a better exercise of reason on the part of the federal administration; Quebec might well have been a party to that bargain, with compensation for opting-out and mobility rights appearing to be their final objection at that point in time.

Thank the good Lord that the exercise initiated by the provinces begat a formula that does recognize the individuality of the provinces of our country and the capacities of its regions. The amending formula developed by eight provinces offers mechanisms for adjustment and amendment; it dispenses with Senate veto; it affirms that, constitutionally, we are still a federation; it affirms the monarchical system of government; it enshrines our national parliamentary and judicial institutions; it permits federal and provincial initiative for constitutional change, yet it maintains the capacity for strong national presence. Without qualification, I'd like to say that something of value resulted. from which, over the years, much can be developed to continue to improve the working structure of our country.

Had Mr. Trudeau's central Canada power grab, aided and abetted, most regretfully, by the federal NDP.... I suppose you'd have to say that the provincial NDP were either supportive of the federal NDP and Mr. Trudeau or passive, take your pick. One can rest assured that the likelihood of Canada being able to work its way out of our current economic morass would have been even more difficult now, if not well nigh impossible, because an increased centralistic constitutional hold would have been all the more putty for just those chosen few in that part of the country to mould. I'd say that's pretty scary stuff, but it was prevented.

My final point is that the constitution in Canada will and should change, but I hope very gradually and only when clearly necessary. A constitution has to be of strong stuff. It has to provide certainty and it's not supposed to be altered at whim, but some change will be faced and soon. There's the conference that has been called under section 37 regarding the Indian community, and apart from that I'd say the provinces and the federal administration have the capacity — next year, I think — to achieve something which may now be realizable. But if it's not realizable, I'd say we should not attempt to achieve it. It may be realizable, because I don't think that Canadians should lose profit from their constitutional labours over the past two years. It should not require a lot of constitutional jawboning, because the work has been done. It just requires the will to agree failing that, continue to leave matters on the back burner until accord can be reached. I'm speaking of matters such as property rights within the charter, agreeing to a consultative process between the Attorneys and the Minister of Justice for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, clarifying provincial authority over inland fisheries, honing into some aspects of communications, and seeing how we can make all aspect of family law more available and of easier and less expensive access to all Canadians.

In the last rounds there was pretty well universal agreement reached on these points; and precious little work, in my view, would be needed to bring about these sorts of improvements, providing the will is there, because I think the cost of constitutional reform and the time involved is today, under the economic stress the country's suffering, something that we can't afford. So if the will is there, get to it. If the will is not there, let's not vet to it at all.

Finally, reform of or complete abandonment of the upper house has to continue to be addressed.

I would very much like to express my appreciation to the hon. members once again for granting me this bit of extra time, and I welcome your questions.

MR. HALL: The last half an hour plus has been a very interesting experience for many of us, particulary those who have been here for some time. The minister was obviously burning to make that speech. I'm not too sure whether it was the last speech he's going to make in the chamber or whether he's writing a book, but he made a long speech. Very little of it was in order, if I may be so bold as to say so; very little of it had anything to do with his administrative responsibilities as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations — just the beginning and the end did. However, it was interesting, from a historical perspective, to listen to the member's economic theories, to listen to cliche upon cliche, to listen to another round of Ottawa-bashing, and to realize that that member himself was a member of the party that has been the government party in Ottawa for many years. However, had that member been loyal to his political principles and remained in the Liberal Party, he might have caused some effort and redirection of the federal Liberal Party and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Instead, he ran away. I still think that western Liberals who deserted and went to the government party for personal reasons did a greater disservice than ever, when one looks at that action in 1974 in the fullness of time and we see the kind of mess we're in today. Therefore I listened to the member's speech with a great deal of interest.

He had one supporter throughout his speech, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). who applauded his

[ Page 8924 ]

every remark until he mentioned the CBC, and then the minister lost him.

He's got a selective view of the role of the New Democratic Party regarding the constitution, a selective view of the role played by the government of Saskatchewan and a definite selective, if not faulty, hindsight view of the role played by the federal party and membership of the New Democratic Party — and that's fair enough, I suppose. But let me say this to you, and then I think I'll get back in order: whatever the member's view is, they were there. When the final deal was made in the kitchen, they were there; our two principal members were in bed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'd already made the agreement.

MR. HALL: Oh, come on — our two guys were in bed.

He talks about debt, and the 30 cents on every dollar the federal Liberals have got to pay. My goodness me! I'll take second place to nobody in fighting federal Liberals, but let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that every time you and your wife spend a dollar at B.C. Hydro, 50 cents of it goes to pay debt. That's worse than federal Liberalism; that's B.C. Social Credit's energy policy — 50 cents debt on every dollar.

Now we get to order.

I listened, and I was pleased to give an extra extension because I wanted to listen to the member's speech. Really, it was a speech that should have been made during the more formal debates on the budget or the throne speech, because it dealt with a kind of reminiscent, longing look at things long ago, yesteryear; if we only could turn back the clock and have things nicely arranged — a sort of a pale-blue Conservative viewpoint. It won't work any more. No matter how much we may personally like this minister — the long-serving member for Vancouver–Point Grey — we've really got to look at his performance here and look at the vote we're dealing with, vote 55.

We on this side have got serious doubts about this portfolio. For instance, in his opening remarks he pointed out that the people who are on this list.... If we look in our records, they all work for somebody else; they're all at somebody else's beck and call; they're doing work for other ministers, other departments. We feet, Mr. Chairman, that this portfolio — and I want to put as kind a view on it as I can — has been constructed as a pre-retirement home for this ebullient, effusive, egregious member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and we cannot support the expenditure, Mr. Chairman. Therefore I'm going to move the following: that vote 55 be reduced by $137, 999. In explanation, that means that the vote will remain at $1, and that's because we just don't think this portfolio should exist. Technically we have to leave one dollar there, otherwise I'd send a dollar across myself. But that really sums up the viewpoint of the opposition that this is a manufactured arrangement, and one which we can't support.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm not too sure whether it's a speck of dust or something else, but I've got a wife and family, and maybe I could check with the Salvation Army as to whether they will have a little benefit for me before the day is out, if this vote carries.

MR. HALL: This is restraint with a capital R.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll say!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it has become popular for members of the opposition who haven't taken the time to do their homework in the debates in Committee of Supply to make up for their lack of careful consideration of the matters which are before this committee by the presentation of facetious amendments to reduce the vote. I can remember years gone by in this assembly — and the second member for Surrey was present during those years — when the reduction of a minister's vote was a serious criticism, a want of confidence in the way in which that minister discharged his responsibility; it had its purpose in those days and it provoked some significant debate. Now, however, this lazy opposition has so destroyed that traditional method of expressing criticism that it is no longer of any value. But those of us who've been here for a few years still remember. Therefore I can't let this occasion go by in case some person reading the proceedings of this committee should think that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was correct in expressing want of confidence in the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

He criticized the ministry and said there shouldn't be a ministry. The business of government unfortunately has become much greater, and there is the need within government itself to have the opportunity to interrelate the responsibilities of the various ministries. The Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations discharges that responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, even if it were not for that ongoing responsibility, I wish to say, and I can say without fear of criticism, that this minister and members of his ministry during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, in the question of the constitutional debates which have taken place in this country, have discharged themselves on the part of the government of British Columbia, the province and all its citizens, and indeed on the part of all Canadians, in such a manner as to justify credit and distinction to this minister and to this government. To suggest in 1982 in this facetious manner that there should be some criticism of that responsibility is not acceptable to me.

The member refers to the meetings in the kitchen. If you want to read the papers and base your debates upon that kind of information, then you'll get that kind of debate. The fact of the matter is that I was present, not so often as my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, when for hour after hour, day after day, and late into the night, struggling with the problems of constitutional reform and revision in this country, this minister and the members of his staff discharged their responsibility, as I say, to the credit of this province and the benefit of the people of Canada.

I wish to make it abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that I will be voting against this facetious, ridiculous, ill-informed and untimely amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The minister seeks his vote. I can't understand it. I would like to address this amendment.

One shouldn't judge the importance of a ministry by the size of its budget. If that's all we used to judge anything in this House, then ministers would be ranked by the amount of

[ Page 8925 ]

dollars spent in their ministry, and not by what they contribute to the good of the province and to the overall strength of our political process.

I want to inform this House and the members of this committee that the changes that have taken place in the professional attitude in B.C. House in London and in Ottawa in dealings on the international level and on the national have been phenomenal since this minister has taken over. The watching brief, the staff of professional services that are provided for ministers and other members when they are in Ottawa, is as good a service as you could expect to get in this House as a minister. Instead of being in a hotel room at the mercy of whatever services may be available and being at the whim of Ottawa, all of a sudden you have some professional people who are able to assist in all of those matters that Ottawa is discussing without our having to be there ourselves. The briefing papers and the other information presented by the staff in the Ottawa office are absolutely invaluable.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Before the member for Surrey made the motion. I perhaps should have reminded him that one of the issues that have been plaguing this province since before I was born, and one of the issues which we had hoped to resolve this year, is the issue of the International Joint Commission in our relations with the United States over the Skagit River Valley. The efforts and the work put into it by the minister and his staff are clearly something to be highly commended. We also have negotiations with Washington state and the state of Alaska on fisheries matters. We are now getting, in my ministry and other ministries of government, services of a minister who is able to give us that type of professionalism which we have never had before.

There may be a time when ministries are realigned. I suspect that what will happen has happened from time to time. But I expect that my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, or his successor, will be there to ably represent his very worthy portfolio.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

Hon. Mr. Williams requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 55 approved.

On vote 56: intergovernmental relations, $2,775,693

MR. HALL: I would like to ask the minister one question. Could the minister tell us now if he's staffed B.C. House in Ottawa and, if so, who are the people representing us there?

HON. MR. GARDOM: There are four people in B.C. House in Ottawa: Mr. David McPhee, Miss Ann Vice, and two secretaries — I've forgotten their names. My apologies to each of them.

MR. HALL: We've examined this vote and we find there are the usual two touches of profligacy that we've noticed in almost every ministry. whereby office expenditures have gone up well beyond inflation, well beyond the guidelines laid down by the Premier and the Minister of Finance. In this particular case office expenses are going up 112 percent and office furniture is going up 114 percent.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: No. they're going up $101.000 in one case and $53,000 in the other. That's a lot of Windsor chairs, Mr. Minister of Finance: chairs, wooden, four-legged, ministers, for the use of.

I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that vote 56 be reduced by the sum of $154,400.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I contemplated a movement for reduction from the hon. member — it's been a practice of the opposition in this session. For his information, in vote 56 the total increase this year over last year is 8 percent.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2 1

NAYS — 28

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 8926 ]

Vote 56 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 45: minister's office, $222,410.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I think the Ministry of Health, along with other government ministries, gives you an idea of the paper war we fight. By even preparing notes for our estimates today, we find it necessary to bring reams and reams of information, files, paper releases and additional information in anticipation of inquiries which may be made by members of this assembly.

The Ministry of Health represents the largest expenditure within the provincial budget in the approximate range of 30 percent of the provincial budget, and it has stayed within that range for the last number of years. It is reasonably representative of the portion of budgets offered at the provincial level by the various governments across Canada. In British Columbia the dollar figure approaches the $2.5 billion mark. It is somewhat shy of that this year, but rapidly approaching it.

The concept of health care in Canada, at this time in our history, is under tremendous attack by the people of our nation and by those who observe the activities of governments within Canada and within the provinces. The people of our country and our province have enjoyed an outstanding health-care system for a great number of years. There are those who have been students of the health-care system, those who have been students of economics and those who have been students of government and government measures and procedures over the years, who are now openly questioning the capacity of the country, of the people of the nation, to maintain the level of health care that has been available and accepted by the citizens for a large number of years. Some prominent Canadians are questioning the impact of the cost of maintaining health programs in our country, combined with other social services, be they education, welfare or other measures included under the general heading of social services. Many prominent Canadians are speaking out and asking whether the nation has the capacity to maintain that level of social service. Some citizens who have held elective office, some who have been involved in the medical or health side of the nation, some who in the past have been strong proponents of the medical programs we know as medicare or hospitalization or whatever, are beginning to seriously question whether those programs can be maintained in their present form, or at least for how long. It's even been suggested by some that perhaps the huge impost of health care in our country could bankrupt the nation. That's an extreme point of view put forward by some, and I believe a view not shared by that many at this time.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Ministers of health across Canada, at the various meetings which have taken place over the past few years, have increasingly been concerned about the capacity of their respective provinces to maintain the high level of service which Canadians have enjoyed for so long. Many ministers of health have expressed concern about the capacity within their jurisdiction to expand services beyond what is already in place. As you will know, in the province of British Columbia, the programs offered to citizens by way of health services are in excess of similar programs offered in other provinces. I might mention that one of the latest expansions of our health-care program in British Columbia is the denticare program. Immediately prior to that came the long-term care program.

These features are not enjoyed by all citizens of Canada through their provincial health ministries. Many of the services offered in British Columbia are unique to this province. British Columbia has, for many, many years, enjoyed a position of considerable affluence. Some other provinces, particularly in the Maritimes — and Saskatchewan, perhaps, years ago — were considered to be in the "have-not" category. They were not able to expand their health-care programs to the same extent as those provinces considered to be "have" provinces. The factors we face in the Ministry of Health are shared by almost all the provinces and territories in Canada. The problems of one province seem to parallel, to a very large degree, the problems in the other provinces. From the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, even the federal government is beginning to appreciate, understand or sympathize with some of those problems.

One of the problems facing British Columbia is the demographics of our population. On many occasions the province has brought to the attention of the federal government what we in British Columbia consider to be a very legitimate request: that is that when considering federal-provincial arrangements for health benefits, the demographics of our population be taken into consideration. British Columbia is a very attractive area for citizens of our country to retire to. We attract a lot of people from various parts of Canada who come here to spend their retirement years, particularly in cities such as Victoria. There is no argument that the cost of maintaining health increases considerably as citizens reach the senior citizen age level. It's suggested that those people over 65 years of age, on average, cost approximately three and a half times as much as a person under 65, and when a person reaches age 80 the cost is approximately seven times the average for all citizens.

In British Columbia the Ministry of Health provides approximately $800 per citizen this year for health care, which includes services directly received from a health professional, services available by way of intermediate-care and other facilities which combine housing and nursing, and, of course, the procedures that take place at our hospitals.

With respect to health, the topical subject before us today is the situation in the province's hospitals. In early April of this year the hospitals were advised as to what their budgets would be. The budgets, which were developed by the hospitals and the Ministry of Health, were delivered to the administrators or boards of the hospitals in the first week of April. The first week of April is significant in that it's probably the earliest that the hospitals had received firm budget figures. It may be difficult for people to accept or to understand why, for many years, hospitals had not received their budget figures until well into their fiscal year. Well, the situation was somewhat different: certain factors of cost were not always considered in the budget, but were reconciled at the end of the fiscal year. The system seemed to work for a period of time, with varying degrees of success.

A couple of years ago, a year and a half ago, or perhaps a year ago — in that time-frame — an effort was made to better inform the hospitals as to what their fiscal situation would be. As I said, this year they were advised in the first part of April as to what their budgets were. The reaction from the hospitals

[ Page 8927 ]

was immediate and expected. I think almost all of the hospitals — there were a few exceptions — advised the Ministry of Health that they were underfunded, that they would require more money to maintain the service level they had reached.

The hospitals had to, and still do, take into account certain figures and factors which are not yet calculable, as to wage settlements. Even to this day, the hospitals are unaware of what moneys will be required to resolve wage settlements that are still under negotiation. Many hospitals have set aside money in reserve in anticipation of certain wage-level results. Each hospital has not necessarily set aside the same percentage.

Every hospital in our province is unique. By way of representation to the ministry, each hospital has expressed to us why they are unique and what their specific problems are.

On a number of occasions, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health and requests by the hospitals, the ministry has appointed operational auditors or other teams to go into a hospital and look at specific factors which have been identified either by the Ministry of Health or the hospitals themselves to try to determine the validity of claims made by either the hospital administration or the Ministry of Health. In some circumstances, I'm sure such investigations will provide us with a great deal more information rather than what we have at the moment, which in many cases is opinion.

Times are changing very rapidly in our nation and in the province, and times are changing very rapidly in what officials of the B.C. Health Association refer to as their industry. The hospitals in our province provide excellent service to hundreds of thousands of citizens a year. If you spend time speaking with administrators of hospitals, representatives of hospital boards, representatives of regional districts' hospital component, representatives of the medical fraternity, and those in the BCMA or other associations, you come away with a great many attitudes and opinions as to where the problems are and how they can be modified or rectified. Within the membership of those organizations you will find strong differences of opinion. You will find that usually the majority will agree to most of the opinions expressed. You will always find a minority who will totally disagree with that in which the others concur, and in all circumstances within these groups of people you will find at least one or two or maybe three who have a totally separate attitude and idea. In meeting with the people who are in the front line — the doctors, nurses and others who are directly treating patients in the hospitals — you will find some very strong opinions and attitudes.

Unfortunately, in what some refer to as this health industry there seems to be a very human trait, which is to point out where the other factor is in error. It's not uncommon to have medical people suggest that the major problem in the hospitals is at the administrative level and to find the administrative level indicating the problem basically is at the medical level. It is not uncommon to speak to people who suggest the problem really is at the board level, and in speaking to board members you find that the problem can be identified elsewhere. As well, all of these people who are involved in this so-called industry indicate that part of the problem is at the Ministry of Health level. People in the Ministry of Health can identify, at least to their satisfaction, that the problems may lie right across the board.

The Health ministry services are extremely complex. Government has taken upon itself a very active role in the delivery of health care to the citizens of our province. Primarily that role has been one of fiscal responsibility: of collecting and providing the necessary dollars to permit the system to function. There's a tendency in some quarters of our society which would suggest that government take on a greater role than that of a fiscal agent, in effect: that is, to start interfering in the medical side of health by making decisions which I believe more properly should be left in the hands of those who are expert in medicine. Frequently an example comes before us by way of a combination of events which basically is suggesting that the Ministry of Health, Minister of Health or provincial government should, in some way, make a decision as to whether an individual citizen in this province should or should not receive certain treatment. I would think that few people would agree that government at any level should ever be making medical decisions, particularly in an individual case or problem.

In April, by way of advice in our budget letter to the hospitals, it was clearly indicated that restraint would be necessary to maintain our system. That was in April. Since the April letter the economic situation of Canada and the economic situation of British Columbia has certainly not shown many signs of improvement. I think all citizens of the province now, fully admit. without any hesitation, that we're indeed in a serious recession. I believe that all working people in the province, whether they be in the health area or not, understand that the time has come to try to make the system work with somewhat less fuel than was previously demanded.

There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the provincial government, the Ministry of Health and those agencies who are responsible for delivering health care are doing a very good job in British Columbia. There have, I suppose, always been situations, which can be identified, which would indicate that in that particular case the person who has demanded or has expected service was not satisfied. I do not anticipate any time in the future when that will not be so. It's pretty obvious that no system will ever be in a position to satisfy all the people all the time.

One of the perplexing problems that citizens have a great deal of difficulty in appreciating or understanding is why, in any time in any given situation, a citizen of the province who requires treatment for a medical matter, a person who apparently is in serious need of health care, should not have the facilities available to him almost upon demand, or certainly within a very reasonable period of time, when it is obvious and well known that other people who are in less serious condition, and perhaps not in a condition which in any way is life-threatening, are receiving treatment. In attempting to offer explanations to citizens who, in corresponding with the ministry, put it in very clear terms as to why they or members of their families have been unable to receive surgery for a serious ailment — when they ask: "Why is it that someone else who is in much less pain and discomfort and in no danger of losing his life is receiving such service...?" Well, that problem is very difficult to explain to a person, because we in the Ministry of Health and the provincial government certainly do not, nor do we wish to, have the responsibility of assigning those facilities to an individual person based on need. The hospitals, of course, accept that responsibility; the medical fraternity accepts that responsibility.

If a person is in a life-threatening situation, emergency services are readily available. If a person falls into what is known as "elective surgery," then decisions are made by a

[ Page 8928 ]

number of people: by the persons themselves as to when they feet they would be available for such treatment; the physician and the surgeon as to when they feel they would be available; the hospital itself as to when facilities would be available. And it's different from hospital to hospital; the administration of each hospital is not necessarily the same as the other.

Decisions are made. In fact, thousands of decisions are made each day; the health program in British Columbia comes in contact with hundreds of thousands of people every day. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of those citizens receive the treatment they expect, they demand and require; the vast majority of those people are totally satisfied with the delivery of health care. It's a fact of life that the practice of medicine and health treatment is imperfect, and not all citizens who anticipate treatment, a cure, a resolution of their problems, are going to be satisfied. There are so many contributing factors to what can be the end result — frequently a tragic result in the eyes of the individuals most closely associated with it. There are always going to be factors which can be or can't be explained. Emotionalism plays a very large part in the criticism of health care in British Columbia, or in any other jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, statements can be made by people who are informed, who are not informed or who are ill-informed; statements can be made by people who are genuinely concerned, who are not concerned, and who are playing a game for various reasons. Those statements can arouse in the citizens of the province a certain attitude about health-care availability in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of time can be taken in investigating the emotional stories which come before us. A factual explanation may be offered soon thereafter. However, I suppose in the world of the media and in the world of entertainment, of which the media are a part, that which is emotional and immediate has a lot more attraction than that which is factual and perhaps not immediate. We have had a series of situations in the province which are brought to the attention of the Ministry of Health in a routine way, where a report has developed about an incident involving an individual. Sometimes conclusions which are included in that initial report sound very grave indeed. A lot of staff and a lot of staff time are taken in investigating these reports.

Mr. Chairman, I'm always pleased to recognize that in the very large majority of cases most of the charges are unfounded or incorrect. Frequently, and I think almost always, there is another side to the story and more information. Recognizing the confidentiality of health matters, it's not hard to understand why the initial stories are frequently inaccurate. It's because the information is very hard to obtain. The doctors, hospitals and others associated with health are very reluctant to release information relative to a patient, because of the confidentiality of such matters. So frequently the information which comes before the ministry is second-hand, third-hand, and frequently the product of rumours or stories that they hear. There are motivations behind it. There are reasons why many of these stories begin. Some of them are genuine expressions of concern by citizens. Others are mischievous, by people with various motives, one of which is political. I don't necessarily mean in the classic partisan political sense, as we know it in this House, but for political motives at whichever level — large P, small p, or in between. Some people, unfortunately, are misinformed and mean no malice, but the damage can be done.

Mr. Chairman, I find it very difficult at times to bring to this House certain information relating to a specific case in which it appears that the disclosure of the information continues to add to the discomfort of the citizen involved. Failing to bring forward the information unfortunately leads to suggestions that a coverup is underway. So reluctantly, on occasion, specific information must come forward. I don't consider that a violation of the confidentiality if the patient or the patient's doctor has already taken part in a public discussion of the case.

Mr. Chairman, many of those who practise medicine in our province have told me personally on more than one occasion that they are getting a little bit tired of some of the statements which are made, some of the stories which are circulating, and some of the attitudes which people are attempting to persuade others to have. I have invited each and every one of them to please express themselves publicly. They have suggested to me that it is not good enough that one doctor be quoted and be considered to be speaking on behalf of the entire medical profession. I've suggested to them that I certainly can't speak on their behalf, but they can. If they disagree with statements which may be made by some of their colleagues, then I feel that they have an obligation to offer their opinion on the matter to the citizens of the province.

Mr. Chairman, there's a certain magic associated with the terms "doctor" and "MD." It's a certain magic that perhaps has been gained quite properly over the years by those people who have dedicated themselves to that healing profession, but even a doctor can be in error on occasion. I think of four occasions historically when they've been proved to be wrong. Sometimes their colleagues are the first to recognize it, although for professional reasons they're reluctant to go public about it. I've said to many doctors in recent days that I feel that they have an obligation to assist the public in understanding the facts of certain matters. I believe that perhaps that may occur.

Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Health is a widespread ministry, employing many thousands of people directly, and indirectly affecting several tens of thousands of other citizens in our province. About 75,000 people work in what's referred to as the "health industry" — hospitals, institutions, doctors' offices and all the obvious areas of contact in health. The Ministry of Health has attempted to establish over the years, and particularly recently, a philosophy of priority. The first philosophy would be in the preventive area. I think most people agree, and it's been the philosophy of health ministries since day one that preventive services should receive top priority, whether it be public health nursing, health inspections, speech and hearing programs, nutrition advice, epidemiology, occupational health, dental health, labs, TB control, VD control — that should be at the beginning. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could start from the beginning? The emphasis, historically, in British Columbia and elsewhere has been at the other end. Let's assist people by curing them of their problem rather than preventing the condition.

Our second grouping is community-care services. Community-care services, alternatives to the acute-care system.... Of course we always will have our acute-care facilities.

A great deal has been done, Mr. Chairman, over the last while. A great deal has been done to assist many, many people in this province with their health problems. There's been a major expansion in the field of intermediate care, a major expansion in the field of preventive dental health; that

[ Page 8929 ]

will continue. We're in a soft time now, a difficult time from an economic point of view, which is going to continue for some time. Every person associated with health care delivery in the province is going to have to recognize that they have a responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the minister request a little more time?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Does the red light mean that my time is over, sir?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think with consent....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps two minutes, and then we could hear comments.

The economic realities of today are very severe. The Ministry of Health expends the largest sum of provincial funds; the pressure is very real and very obvious in the ministry. I have asked all of those who are involved in health care to take upon themselves some responsibility. In the main, we have had very good cooperation. The majority of hospital boards, the majority of administrators, the majority of those who are involved in health care have at least attempted to cooperate. A great number of initiatives have been offered by these people in the field. We work as closely as we possibly can, through the Ministry of Health, with them. I've given them a relatively simple message: if we work together we can get through this very difficult time. I believe they believe that, and I really believe the citizens of the province believe that.

MR. COCKE: I noted that when the minister's estimates came up he was greeted with thunderous applause from his colleagues in the House. They mostly have departed this chamber. Those that are here are having some difficulty in staying awake, I note.

The thunderous applause is not shared by the people in this province. Despite everything that we have heard this afternoon from the Minister of Health — "what a great health-care system we have; however, we have a capacity to go only go so far, " and so on and so forth — the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the health-care delivery system that the NDP and its CCF predecessors fought so hard to achieve is under attack by every conservative, every pseudo-conservative, and every right-wing organization in this country today.

MR. BRUMMET: Every ghoul.

MR. COCKE: The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) reminds me of a ghost. "Every ghoul, " he says. I agree that he is here, and I am sure those people who sent him here will think twice before they send him again. All he can do is sit back and make rude remarks and not really contribute much of anything.

We are asked whether the nation has the capacity to maintain our present level of health care. Fm sure that the minister, who reads widely, has by now read the reports of not only the Economic Council of Canada, but of others doing economic studies of our country, in dictating just what portion of our gross national product or, for that matter, our gross provincial product is spent on the delivery of health care. In Canada we're presently spending something in the order of 7.1 percent of our gross national product on the delivery of health care. In that great free-enterprise country to the south, they are spending 9.2 percent of their gross national product on the delivery of health care.

It strikes me that while there are flaws in our system of delivering health care, we are far more efficient than most jurisdictions in the world. And we do have, even though it is under attack, a system of health care that's accessible. When I say accessible, I don't mean accessible to the wealthy. They've always had accessibility to health-care delivery. I'm talking about the ordinary people in this country — the people who require the defence mechanisms of government in order to protect their interests and rights.

One of the things that has come through loud and clear is that this minister and this government do not believe that health care is a right. The minister himself, in a speech to the B.C. Medical Association, said it is a privilege. Obviously, something is happening. If we go back to those bad old days, all of the things our predecessors and the forward-thinking politicians in this country fought for such a long time will be destroyed. I stand in this House, along with my colleagues, and tell you that we will defend the accessible universal health system as long as we have breath to defend it.

The minister talks about bankrupting the nation because of the expense of delivering health care, and then later in his speech tells us that some people are raising the emotions and instilling fear by the presentation of individual situations that have arisen. I wonder what strikes more fear into me and the average person than having a minister of health of this province stand up in this House and say the huge impost of health care could bankrupt the nation. We spend 7.1 percent of our gross national product on the delivery of health care, and he talks about bankrupting the nation? I suggest to you that ve're a long, long way from bankrupting the nation. Can they all be wrong and this government be right?

There are stories every day — story after story, example after example — of people being denied access to one level or another of our health-care delivery system. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that we are in a very sensitive time. It's up to an opposition, if they have any kind of dedication whatsoever, to see to it that we do everything within our power to preserve the health-care system in Canada and, in particular, in British Columbia. Despite charges of raising emotions, raising fear and all the rest of it, I will not stop doing what I consider to be necessary to bring the attention of the people to what I consider to be a potentially very tragic situation. As politicians we have all made innumerable tests of people's feelings, of where their heads are at and so on. We talked to people in our constituencies, we talked to people throughout the province — and I am particularly interested in health care and have been for the past 13 years that I've been in this House. People who talk to me say loud and clear that they're prepared to pay for a well-organized, universally accessible health-care system. That is what I am prepared to defend.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

The minister made another remark during the course of his introduction. He said, of that early budget that he provided the hospitals at the beginning of April — and that's remarkable, I will admit; but when you consider how elementary it was, I guess it wasn't quite so remarkable as one might at first think — that the hospitals' reaction was immediate and expected. So, Mr. Chairman, the minister has admitted, standing on the floor of this House, when he said that it

[ Page 8930 ]

was expected, that he intended to raise a furor; otherwise, surely a minister who wants some kind of peace in his constituency....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Buy them off.

MR. COCKE: The minister says: "Buy them off." I say, consult — not buy them off, consult. This minister has been totally isolated from the health community in this province. That's the biggest mistake of the Social Credit government over the years. They have been isolated to the extent that they don't know what's going on out there. They decide in this ivory tower that all the wit and all the wisdom abides in Victoria — with all those health professionals out there, all the highly skilled, well-trained, highly motivated, experienced people. My Lord, in this province we have thousands and thousands of years of experience. And who is consulted? When I go out and I talk to the health community, which I've been doing for years, I find the same old expression of concern: "We weren't consulted." But the minister can say: "Well, they were warned that we weren't going to pick up their surpluses." They've been warned since day one that they weren't going to have their surpluses picked up. Yet every year, somehow or other, surpluses are picked up — sometimes at random and sometimes in total. In any event, there has never been real consultation with the grass roots, with the delivery system, since this new government took power.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the reactions were immediate, I believe that they were expected, and I think it's a darned shame that the Minister of Health gets up on his feet in this House and admits having started a war with the people out there in the delivery system.

What do we feel we're going to gain by starting all these brush fires? I will admit that in the old days there was a master of divide and conquer sitting in that chair over there where the next member of the dynasty now sits. He was an expert at dividing and conquering. But until 1972 he usually took on just a few at a time. These people are taking on everybody. This minister seems to be going after everybody in the health community. But who does he find? Who he finds are the patients and people out there who are absolutely without defence.

I suggest that something we should all be thinking about when we assess this government's performance in health care is that a government in a time of "restraint" should start that restraint program in health care before anywhere else. I take you back to April 1981 — that's a year ago this last April. Who were the first under attack? The homemakers. They were the first cut back. The minister jumped up and said: "Oh, no, they're not being cut back." But they were, and still are. They will continue to be under attack until there's a change of policy or of government in this province.

Getting back to the hospitals for a moment, the minister said every hospital is unique. Why then, if every hospital is unique, the 7.9 percent across the board?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because they're all the same.

MR. COCKE: That's not unique. That was a slash across the whole face of health care. To me, that doesn't represent uniqueness.

Every time they have a real problem in a hospital they bring in their auditors. They have more private consultants out there looking at hospitals in trouble than Carter has pills.

Talk about money spent on observing, rather than delivering service. Who's ever heard the like of it?

Mr. Chairman, we're short of money to run our hospitals. Let me show you what we're not short of money for. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I'm sure, feels a great shame when he sees an expensive publication like this B.C. Day edition of Living Heritage. The title is in very small print. This expensive thing that anybody in the province can get as many of as they like, in living colour has "That's the B.C. Spirit" smeared all over it in large type. And we can't afford to pay for our health care in our province. This bunch of PR-addicted people will do anything to improve their image by the print, media or anything else. Yet they cannot provide for the health care of our people.

I would like to dispel the thoughts that some people might have in the back of their minds with respect to this gross amount that we're spending on health care here. Do you know what it says in my estimate book: $2,236,586,249. That's a massive sum, isn't it, my dear colleagues? You'd think it was all coming out of the minister's pocket, wouldn't you? Does anybody doubt it? Do you doubt it? Or is it coming from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of everybody's pocket.

MR. COCKE: Right, everybody's pocket.

One thing I've never heard the minister say is that he gets $969 million from the feds. I never heard him say that once: $969 million of the $2 billion.

MR. KEMPF: Whose pockets do you think that comes from?

MR. COCKE: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) can get up in his time and in his place. Let's hear you defend the health system we have at present.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Of the $2,236 million, $969 million comes from the feds. Secondly, $200 million comes from our donations to the medicare scheme. Now we're up over $1.1 billion, aren't we? The former Minister of Health started a little game; he said that a minimum of a third of medicare would come from the premiums paid by the people of B.C. So if you get a third of $600 million, I guess you have to have $200 million there somehow. Add them up.

User charges account for another very sizeable sum. I tried to add them up. You see, one of the problems we have around here is that we never get the annual report from the ministry until his estimates are over. Isn't it interesting how those annual reports roll off the presses — not early, always late; not so one can study it while going through his estimates. Here we are in July. Where's his annual report? Do you know when he's going to stand up and table that report? When he's through his estimates.

Anyway, I used last year's annual report, and worked out a few little bits with my calculator, thinking in terms of numbers of patient-days and numbers of utilizations of ambulances and so on, and I came up with a modest $80 million. I'm sure it's considerably more, but I couldn't work them all out. Now, of course, he's going to throw an inspection fee at people who want to.... That same minister said that preventive service should receive top priority, and he's going

[ Page 8931 ]

to charge $3 million for his inspection service for prevention. Well, well, well — schizophrenic.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Social Credit.

MR. COCKE: But they're one and the same, my friend. The Leader of the Opposition didn't quite recognize that they are one and the same.

We are not taking every nickel from the budget in this province. I suggest to you that these restraints in health care are to provide the Minister of Finance with extra funds for diversion into other areas. When the now Leader of the Opposition was in Ottawa, as the Premier and Minister of Finance, along with the then Minister of Health, we fought hard to stop the foolish new system of financial sharing with the feds. We wanted to continue with the fifty-fifty. We said that B.C. wasn't going to be particularly harmed in terms of actual dollars coming in, but that some of the poorer provinces would be very badly hurt. Now we can see that the rich provinces, because of the fact that those funds are not earmarked directly, can divert those funds elsewhere. I ask a question which may be somewhat rhetorical: could those funds be diverted to megaprojects? Could those funds be diverted to building highways in good old swing ridings?

AN HON. MEMBER: We could put hospital beds in the stadium.

MR. COCKE: That might be an idea: emergency ward in the stadium.

MR. KEMPF: A psychiatric ward for you.

MR. COCKE: That's one of the things I love about the member for Omineca. He comes out with such original stuff. "A psychiatric ward for you," he says. I love that member. He's comic relief for all of us. In serious times we need people like him around.

During his presentation the minister went on to tell us that the vast majority of people get the treatment they require. That really builds my confidence — "the vast majority." Is it 80 percent? Is it 90 percent? Is it 95 percent? What's the vast majority of people? I suggest to you that if people are being denied, and by this statement, obviously they are.... He's admitted it himself. If he says that only the vast majority of people get the treatment they require, what about the rest of them? Where are their rights? Again. we're getting back to the minister's feeling that health care is a privilege. I agree that driving a car is a privilege and that there are many things in terms of human endeavours that are privileges, but I'm not going back to that archaic position that health care's a privilege. I tell you, it's a human right. The accessibility to health care must be absolutely protected at all costs.

We went on listening to the minister in his introductory remarks, and we heard about emotionalism. Some people may be playing games — emotional stories. "Some are mischievous," he says, "Some are political." Holy doodle! Small p or big P, we couldn't quite distinguish which. "Some are misinformed."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's an interesting interjection from the Leader of the Opposition: "Some are hotlines." I can sure remember when, once in a while, I got masochistic in the old days and used to listen to that minister, who was then a hotliner, and he would let anybody say anything as long as it was an attack on what he perceived to be those terrible socialists — anything in the world; it was wide open.

MR. KEMPF: At least he had a job.

MR. COCKE: There was another original statement from the member for Omineca. The member for Omineca, "Two Story" Jack, has continually told us how hard he's worked all his life; but what we've seen here is him leaning back in his chair and making those ridiculous interjections. I don't believe he's ever worked a day in his life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we return to vote 45, please.

MR. COCKE: There was a discussion the other day about a little boy being denied access to Children's Hospital.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do? Who's dole were you on?

MR. COCKE: I think I'll probably just rest my throat while that member for Omineca comes to order.

There was a discussion the other day about little Jamie Woollard — he had front-page coverage in the Province, and he had coverage elsewhere, I gather. Jamie got into hospital. I guess that's one of the ways you get into hospital. The Children's Hospital — which, incidentally, was replacing 240 beds from the Health Centre for Children at VGH and the Children's Hospital at 59th and Cambie — now has 250 beds. But guess how many they're allowed to open? According to their budget level, 189. Quickly, of course, a consultant is sent in there to have a look. The report was due by July 15. I wonder if they've seen it yet.

I have another example, and they come fast and furious when the health-care system is in trouble. Here is the case of a little boy by the name of Michael, who lives in Kamloops. He was promised a bed in the Children's Hospital, and that he would be going in on July 19. So the family — in the Chairman's constituency — took a holiday, went to visit relatives in Ontario and rushed back before Michael's admission day. They have mother child who had to be left up there. The mother arrived down here only to find that Michael can't get into hospital. Michael needs to get into hospital, he has a very serious bladder problem, yet his mother was told that she may as well go back to Kamloops, because they don't know when he's going to get in. This is a little boy in considerable trouble — no bladder control whatsoever, a psychological problem building up in that child that, heaven only knows. could create irreparable harm in the future. "Elective," as far as I'm concerned, is in his case an absolute misnomer. That child should be operated on.

I wasn't going to bring this up at this point, and may never have, except that the minister was talking about these emotional stories and I've checked that one out pretty darned thoroughly. Anyway, I'll sit down while the red light sings at me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman, so that the committee is not be confused with respect to statements by the member for New Westminster

[ Page 8932 ]

(Mr. Cocke) that the Minister of Health said the health-care program could bankrupt the nation. A very quick review of the Blues, when they are available, will indicate that I said there are those in the country who have stated that the health program could bankrupt the nation, and I suggested that very few people probably agree. The person I had in mind is a former NDP member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, Morton Shulman, a general practitioner and former chief coroner in Toronto. I don't believe he's in public office now, but he's well known across Canada. Shulman considers himself somewhat of an economist as well as a medical doctor. He has made a million dollars or so several times, so he probably knows something about money, if not about economy. Shulman predicted that the medicare system will drive the country into bankruptcy unless there's a greater emphasis on user fees, or direct charges for medical services, to get the healthy out of the hospitals and the doctors' offices. He also suggested that patients pay up to $1,000 in user fees a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a flyweight.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: He wasn't a flyweight when he was championing the cause of medicare years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Shulman, by his own remarks indicates that he was a champion of medicare in its introduction, and a long-time supporter, as are many people. But apparently Dr. Shulman has considered that he's at a turnabout. It's Dr. Shulman I was referring to when I said that there are those who suggest that the health-care program could bankrupt the nation — more specifically, in Shulman's attitude, the medicare portion of the health-care system.

It's interesting to play games, particularly semantic games, with respect to words. The member for New Westminster said the vast majority of people are satisfied with the services they receive, but is that good enough? I suppose individually it would never be good enough if you do not receive the service you feel you should receive. However, I really don't think it's practical, even though desirable, ever to establish a perfect system where 100 percent of those who demand services are completely satisfied with the service they receive. That is utopian and perhaps would be very pleasant, but from a practical point of view I suggest it shall not be achieved, desirable as it may be.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I don't disagree with many of the comments made by the member for New Westminster. In health care particularly there is, I think, a tremendous amount of common ground among all people. My comment that the response was immediate and expected from the hospitals was based on a very simple bit of information: that is, historically hospitals are never satisfied with their budgets. It's a rare occasion that a hospital says: "Thank you, our budget is adequate." Hospitals don't do that, not normally, although a couple have done so this year, surprisingly enough. It's expected they will come back and say: "We have specific circumstances we would like you to review," which we are doing.

In fact, that is what was included in our letter to them when we asked them to advise us. Many have responded and a great deal has been accomplished. I'll read from a newspaper article:

"Hospitals throughout B.C. have been urged to hold the line on spending. A request was made by the Minister of Health in a form letter mailed to the hospitals asking them to curtail the rate of increases in all areas of expenditure. Spokesmen for Vancouver General and Royal Columbian Hospitals, and the B.C. Medical Association, say they're not surprised by the request. The minister pointed out that a marked change has taken place in the economy: that the worldwide market for B.C. minerals and timber has diminished, and that prices for those commodities have dropped. The minister said salaries, wages and fringe benefits represent 75 to 80 percent of the health-care expenditures. It is essential that the change in economic climate be kept in mind when negotiating wage increases or considering modifications in organization that may call for additional personnel."

The minister of the day, now the member for New Westminster, was experiencing a situation somewhat reminiscent of this year, 1982. That was back in February 1975. In fact, it was Valentine's Day. Times have changed, the dates have changed, but the conditions really haven't changed that much. That's why, Mr. Member, I think the people within the Ministry of Health, some of whom were in the ministry when the member for New Westminster was minister, expected the response from the hospitals that they would be advising us they needed more money. Some of them have received more money; some of them may receive more money. Reconciliations take place throughout the year. The vast majority of the hospitals — and I'm sorry I don't have the precise percentage — have indicated they do have the capacity to manage. They believe they are doing a good job, and I concur.

MR. COCKE: I'm pleased to hear the minister comparing 1975 to 1982. No question, 1974 and 1975 were tough years. Mr. Chairman, you never saw the upheaval. Naturally there were discussions around the whole question of keeping costs at a rational level — I've never been opposed to that. I'll never forget that when I took over the Ministry of Health the first thing I had to do was restore what Mr. Loffmark had taken away. Remember, colleagues? In their financing they were permitted to have 75 percent of the increase for hospital workers that year, and all health-care staff.... Only 75 percent of it. So naturally they went into deficits immediately, and when we took over in mid-1972 that was one of the first things we had to address. But we did that, Mr. Chairman, and we did everything we could in consultation.

I can remember moving around this province day after day, month after month, talking directly to the people involved in the delivery of health care. I think that's the mistake the present government has made in virtually every area. They do not talk to the constituency with whom they're involved. As long as you're not doing that, you're missing the most vital — in my opinion — role of an elected representative.

MR. BARRETT: Just giving orders.

[ Page 8933 ]

MR. COCKE: That's right. Sitting in the ivory tower, issuing orders, issuing budgets, edicts or whatever isn't enough.

I wonder, however, when I read some of the things that have happened.... I'd like to refer to what I consider to be proof that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who gets all his instructions from the Premier, is actually running the Health ministry. I'll give you one or two quotes, and I'll tell you who said it afterwards.

"Often our government is criticized for cutting back in health care. Members and supporters of the NDP are frequently involved in this criticism — but not exclusively. We as a government have failed to adequately and fully explain our commitment to the best possible health care service in all parts of British Columbia.

"The cost of our total health care system is quite certainly the most worrying aspect of all provincial budget considerations. We have not yet reached final figures for 1982-83, but if all health expenditures requests could be granted next year we would be facing a bill in excess of $2.5 billion. Many of us recall that day, many years ago, when the late W.A. C. Bennett tabled his first billion-dollar budget for the entire government."

Then he goes on to encourage his supporters: "Please speak out and support your government when you hear criticism in the health area."

That's a message from the Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich and the Islands, in December 1981, the end of this last year. He said many other things in that little message to his constituents. But he's kind of saying to the folks out there. "Look, we've got some problems coming up. We want you party members to defend us in every way you can."

What did the former Minister of Health have to say? That's the guy who now has the hotline, in exchange for the one who used to have a hotline. Rafe Mair says: "It's Hugh Curtis and the Treasury Board who are making the decisions Jim Nielsen is taking the heat for. Jim Nielsen has to be given, I think, a great deal of credit for taking all that heat. I wouldn't have been able to take it." He proved that. He left. The heat is generated in the Ministry of Finance, but where does it all start? With the first minister, the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett). He calls the shots. That member for Okanagan South, who's known to be all heart, expresses himself clearly from time to time in this House. There's no doubt in my mind that the Ministry of Finance is calling the shots.

Mr. Chairman, I will go on with some of that at some other time. I'd like to talk now about one or two other areas. I believe there has been no overall planning whatsoever. Some preliminary work was done. We now have, I believe, the possibility of some planning, but that's probably only after an election. Over the last few years we have had hiring freezes and cutbacks that singled out target groups. but it has not been properly planned or the work of a government that's really doing anything with respect to seeing that we have a well-organized health-care system.

You will remember that I talked about the first target group: homemakers. What kind of plan created a monster like that? The very area that takes so much heat off the system, the area that's least expensive, was the first under attack — a year ago last April. But they were a target group and relatively defenceless. You don't take on the big hospitals or some of the more visible or stronger empires until such time as you've shown that you can take on the little guy. That little guy, in this particular situation, happens to be the area that provides the least expensive level of health care and, at the same time. the least alienated level of health care.

In spite of the fact that the homemakers were under attack, the ministry could not see that they had the other problem in terms of getting chronically ill people out of acute-care hospitals. They were too busy with their target of reducing the hours and service to people who could be kept in their homes, or who could be removed from either long-term care facilities or occupying acute-care beds. We've seen no reduction to date in the number of people occupying acutecare beds, none whatsoever. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that had we, instead of starving home care, actually helped improve the system of home care, we would now be in a better position with respect to our acute-care beds and our long-term care facilities, but we didn't do that. Therefore I go back to what I said in the first place. There's been no real planning. It's called crisis management, jumping from one ice-floe to another, and everything we see out there today reflects crisis management. Well, who's the target this year? Acute-care hospitals. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the acute-care hospitals were treated exactly the same way as the homemakers were a year ago; they imposed a budget on the hospitals that they knew perfectly well the hospitals could not live with, a budget that was a 7.9 percent increase over last year's. Many of those hospitals — 46 out of the 52 that we contacted — were in a deficit situation, and the imposition of a 7.9 percent increase in the face of an 11 percent inflation factor doesn't make much sense.

Why are we in a position where suddenly they are closing beds? Well, it's interesting that the Premier and others have said they don't know why the beds are being closed. You'd wonder, Mr. Chairman, what they thought the hospitals were going to do. How could they possible live with an impossible situation? I suggest that they couldn't, and there is no particular reason why they should do anything other than what they did. That was the response to the ministry — that, with respect to their budgets. they would have to close down beds; otherwise they would be running unsafe operations.

What's happening as a result of that? A few months ago we were all sitting around here concerned that we didn't have enough nurses to go around. Do you know what's happening now? Alberta is attacking our health-care system as a result of that Minister of Finance's, the first minister's and the Minister of Health's conspiracy against health care. Read any paper that you want to pick up. This is a brand-new situation in B.C. Here is the Province of July 4: "Assistant director of nursing wanted." For where? Calgary General Hospital. Read the Province of June 20: "'Clinical educators. Our nursing research education department requires staff in specialized areas to be responsible for clinical development of nursing personnel." Where? Red Deer Regional Hospital. "Assistant director of nursing," — again in Calgary. Look at this one; it's a beauty. It aces all the way back to St. Boniface, Manitoba, where they've got a government today that will give some priority to health care: "Intensive-care nurses, medicine and surgery." "Coordinator of family therapy program" — where do they want one of those? In the Department of Social Work. Alberta Childrens' Provincial General Hospital. "Health-care nurse, community health" — in Athabasca. The reason I clipped that one was because that's where I was

[ Page 8934 ]

born, way up north in Alberta. But even they, in that little area up in the tundra country, are advertising here in B.C., because they know perfectly well that we're just laying them off to beat the band. That's the result, Mr. Chairman, of this lack of planning. That's the result, I suggest, of what's happened this year, and that was the targeting of the hospitals.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk for a moment about some of the areas of this situation. I'd like to refer to an article in the Province on June 20. Here is something that the Province had to say in an editorial entitled "Hospitals Fumbling for Answers." It says: "If people accept the principle of restraint, it would make sense to call a conference of hospital administrators and representative doctors to see how best they can, as a whole, handle the problem." That's what you call consultation.

MR. RITCHIE: Come on, Dennis, you can do better than that.

MR. COCKE: If the member for Central Fraser Valley would listen to the remarks that I brought up earlier in this debate, where I said "no consultation...." I wouldn't expect it from that member, because I've watched the way he acts and reacts. You're not fit to be a member of this House, because of the way you're continually ignoring the needs of your constituents, particularly with respect to health care.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would ask the member for New Westminster to withdraw the remark that I am unfit to represent my constituency. I resent it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In the first place, I'll ask the members for Central Fraser Valley and Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt the member who is now speaking. In good parliamentary tradition, I'll ask the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw the remark and allusion to the member for Central Fraser Valley.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, why would I withdraw a remark that's neither not parliamentary nor, for that matter, not factual? I believe it to be factual and parliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair finds it unparliamentary. It is tradition that remarks like that have been censured by the Chair in the past. The records will indicate that. I would ask that the member please withdraw that remark.

MR. COCKE: I will suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not in the past; it's in the short past. This is the kind of thing that's been happening in this House recently. In any event, I withdraw the remark, if that's what the Chair decides.

MS. BROWN: He's incompetent, but what are you going to do?

MR. COCKE: What's the point? I think everybody knows it.

I want to ask the minister one or two questions at this point. What happened to the joint funding study that seems to have been going on for some time? I gather that Bert Boyd is still the consultant working on that. I heard that there was going to be some kind of report regarding this joint funding study. I also recall that there seemed to me to be other members on the committee who were studying this whole question of joint funding, and then suddenly, I believe, the B.C. Health Association was no longer party to that study. It strikes me that this might be one of the problems that we've had: the fact that there was a joint funding study going on — something that could possibly have meant that the people involved outside of the ministry would be party to the outcome — and then suddenly they were dismissed and, as I understand it, it was continued by one consultant. I've heard rumours that that has been added to recently, but I would just like to check with the minister as to exactly what has happened to that joint funding study. Are the rumours in fact true that it's continuing or has there been a report? It would be interesting if the minister knows anything about it and would let us know what's happening in that area. Had we had some proper consultation in terms of joint funding we might not be in the exact position that we're in now, where we're talking of an arbitrary move being made by the Health ministry against the hospitals — the 7.9 percent.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On the joint funding project, this all began some years back, about three years ago, and a joint venture was announced between B.C. Health Association, as they call themselves for some reason, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance. Outside consultants were contracted to carry out a study of the needs of the government and the hospital industry to make recommendations for meeting those needs. They wanted, among other things, the development of a uniform reporting, system, improved budgetary process, ongoing integration of funding and strategic planning. It was agreed by all those taking part that there was little need to carry on with a formal joint committee structure. It was their recommendation that they themselves be disbanded as a formal committee. It was recommended that BCHA involvement continue on an ad hoc basis. A number of improvements have resulted from some of the study, which continues to take place, and further will be implemented in the future.

The ministry and the association do meet, and they will continue to meet as what will probably be an informal committee to discuss issues arising from implementation of some of the recommendations which came through that joint committee. I'm always concerned about committees being struck to resolve a problem, and three or four years later they have not really come to any specific conclusions, but rather some generalities. Some of the suggestions made by those who took part in the study have been implemented, others are being considered and others are being further investigated. I think that the joint-funding committee served a purpose, identified some areas and had some minor responsibility in changes which have taken place with respect to the funding program for the hospitals which is in place this year. It isn't dead; it never did die. The committee itself recommended it be disbanded on a formal basis. Talks are continuing, although perhaps in a less formal structure and more ad hoc.

MR. COCKE: That's interesting. Probably I expected that answer. I'm quoting:

"In February 1981 Nielsen said he did not know the details of the joint funding program being carried

[ Page 8935 ]

out by the ministry and B.C. hospitals. The program is intended to rationalize the way hospital budgets are set. It is still in the preliminary stages. He said keeping costs down and under control is important, but the people of British Columbia have indicated that health is the number one priority."

Now suddenly the minister finds out something from the joint funding study that maybe the rest of us don't know. But this is what I heard: that on the steering committee BCHA had two reps and Ministry of Health had two, one from Treasury Board, and they had a secretary to the committee, and then I see that the committee was disbanded last spring on the recommendation of the committee. But I only see two people from BCHA on that joint funding study. If it was a recommendation from the overall committee, then I wonder what part the BCHA had with respect to that. Because you know what I heard from them? "The BCHA is disappointed at the lack of cooperation between the Ministry of Health and the BCHA. This is no longer a joint study...." This is a quote from people I've talked to in the B.C. Health Association.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: But who?

MR. COCKE: If I told you that, they would be in the same position as other people, the hospitals for instance, whom you've told: "You either do what I say or I'm going to take you over." So I'm not going to give you names of people I've talked to. You're darned right I'm not.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do we know you didn't make it up?

MR. COCKE: You can only judge. I'm putting it on the record.

I was told that there is no longer a joint study. "The initial recommendations may have been too enthusiastic. The Minister of Health has also stated that the study should come to an end." That's what you suggested as well. Anyway, we've got some very interesting comments from the minister.

The BCHA are working on an ad hoc basis on this study. I guess we're not calling it a joint study any longer. I presume it's to be called a study of hospital funding.

One thing I overlooked when the minister was talking in the first place was how he said that the hospitals had their budgets approved earlier than ever. If Gary Cardiff's letter to the hospitals means anything, I believe they were given a grant this year. The minister also went on to talk about the fact that government's role in fiscal responsibility is an important role. I'm paraphrasing. What about the government's deciding not to pick up the deficits before they went into this whole new procedure?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Great," says the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). "Don't pick up the deficits," he says. I'll bet you that the member, when he gets up to Kootenay, doesn't talk about not picking up the deficits.

I'll read it out to you. I believe that to change a funding system, but not have it start from square one, is dead wrong. It's unfair and, to my way of thinking, stupid. What we've actually done with this new hospital funding system is....

The system is improving, but the amounts available are tragic and a travesty in some cases. The hospitals that are doing the best job in the first place — that is, they had everything cut to the bone already — are the ones that get it right in the neck. The hospitals that have been just a little bit easy in their system of budgeting are the ones that can better stand the tighter fiscal reins. There are those who are suffering badly.

I'll drop this question on the minister. He has consultants coming out of his ears in hospital after hospital. Every time a hospital gets into very serious trouble, another set of consultants is sent to have a look at what's going on. I'm going to ask the minister: when the reports from those consultants come back, and if it's indicated, will more money be released to those hospitals?

Earlier I talked about the question of crisis management. I don't know whether any of you have read today's Sun. Talk about crisis management! The Royal Columbian Hospital was loaned $750,000, interest-free. This is what the hospital has to do: they have to pledge to make a cut of a like amount next year, and pay the ministry back that sum of money. They have to pledge to extend spending cutbacks into next year. Boy, they have to pay a price for that S750,000. I believe that the ministry is making deals with the hospitals. My understanding is that the Ministry of Health proposed the loans in the first place. They're not going to pick up any deficit; they're going to loan them money. Incidentally, their deficit was significantly more than that.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says that it will show in the books of the province as an asset. So it's costing this government nothing.

I believe there has probably been some preliminary word from the independent consultant at the hospital. He's probably saying: "Hey, they are in tough shape." I want to tell the minister, the ministry, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier that, in my view, the Royal Columbian Hospital has not been recognized for what it truly is. It is one of the most beset hospitals in the province. It's a trauma hospital. It attracts practically every accident, from the PNE to Hope — traffic and industrial. It's a very costly hospital to run. Traditionally it has been neglected, and I believe it is now under a tremendous amount of pressure because of the budgetary constraints imposed by this government.

If the consultants are truly independent, I think that when their report is complete the ministry may have an entirely new attitude towards that hospital. It has always been one of the hospitals hardest hit by these programs. In 1969, when I was first elected to the Legislature, I can remember coming over here to watch a group of very conservative doctors from the Royal Columbian Hospital standing on the steps of this legislative building and complaining to beat the band about the way they were treated. A hospital cannot help its place in terms of geography. It is accessible from the highways; it is accessible from much of the industrial area. That's why that hospital should be looked at more carefully; it should be understood that it's a very expensive trauma hospital. They always seem to be in the forefront when catching hell from the Socreds.

The latest word I have is that the Royal Columbian has been diverting emergencies. In other words, it's plugged up, clogged up. They've lost 109 beds, so naturally they're having to divert emergencies from time to time. I know of one situation in which a person from Maple Ridge who had to

[ Page 8936 ]

have an emergency procedure was diverted all the way into Vancouver — there was water around the heart and breathing trouble; it was a nip-and-tuck situation. The closer you are to health care an the closer you are to the proper level of care, the better off you are. The Royal Columbian has been famous for providing that level of health care. So they are suffering from this crisis management.

I want to come back to one or two other things before I yield the floor to one or two of my colleagues. I'd like to ask how much was and is being spent on the joint spending study. And is it true that Brian Stoodley resigned as coordinator of the study and went to another ministry because the study had come to an end?

Mr. Chairman, I think that's enough for now.

MR. BRUMMET: I would like to enter into this debate with a few comments at this time, and perhaps more at a later time. I think every citizen in this province, whether in this Legislature or not, is certainly interested in having a very good and readily accessible health-care system. I don't think there is any disagreement on that. What we're dealing with is a difference in philosophy as to whether we should, for whatever purposes, concern ourselves with the best possible health-care system for this year only or whether we should also look to the future.

I think it's important for people to be able to expect a well funded and high-level health-care system next year, the year after and the years following. Therefore, I can't subscribe to the socialist philosophy of "this year only," which seems to be the attitude they espouse. I know it will buy them a number of votes by taking situations that can't be handled this year, but what about the following years? That socialist philosophy is irresponsible in that it promises people whatever they might need and want this year, and it's irresponsible in that it doesn't say it might not be possible to maintain that.

I think this is what the Minister of Health was referring to when he said that all across this country, in different provinces and at the federal level, you hear warning statements that if we keep going at the present rate of increase, there is going to be a day of reckoning. In many respects we've seen that day of reckoning at the federal level. I think it's most important that we consider next year and the year following. If we hope to maintain that health system next year, it will take funding, and that funding will have to come from somewhere. It's easy enough to say that taxpayers will then be willing to put up that money, that funding, but where are the taxpayers going to get that money if they do not have jobs?

Once again, for their own particular advantage the NDP opposition says: "Let's take all the money that's being put into B.C. Place, into northeast coal, into any other development project in this province, and let's put it into health care." I agree that we would probably have the finest, most expensive health-care system this year, one that would benefit everyone and meet all our demands. But if all those projects were cancelled, so would be the outside investment, so would be the Japanese investment in those projects. Those projects are going to create jobs and stimulate the economy. They are going to build up the economy; they are going to produce the industries that will create jobs and revenue so that our excellent health system in British Columbia can be maintained.

The member for New Westminster said that when they were in government, they went around the province and asked people what they wanted. I don't doubt that perhaps they did. But I recall those years, and they seemed to ask people what they wanted. When you ask that, people are going to spell out their wants. What was irresponsible in their actions, and what certainly showed up within three years, is that they neglected to tell people there was a cost involved; that meeting all the wants as well as all the needs costs money, and that money has to come from somewhere. I certainly saw in those years, when they were meeting many wants of the people, that it was a strictly one-way proposition — spend, spend, spend — with no concern; they were not being responsible enough to tell the people that a day of reckoning would have to come. I saw many industries driven out of this province in the process. I dread to think what would have happened had they stayed in another term and met the wants of the people. It takes no particular skill, it takes no responsibility, to simply provide people with whatever they ask for. It takes no particular skill for any individual or any company or any government to simply spend without being responsible enough to tell the people that that money has to come from somewhere. Therein I think lies the difference. Therein lies the problem with the socialists. They are great at spending, but they don't want to honestly face the fact that you can't keep spending more money than is created.

They continue to attack the megaprojects. A very small percentage of provincial money is going into them, and each one of these megaprojects, we've been assured by study after study, is going to pay back whatever is put into it. Not only that, they're going to pay revenue to the province so that the excellent services, such as our health care, can be maintained. It's irresponsible, in my opinion, to concern yourself only with spending money to meet what people request, without looking to the future to see where the money will come from to continue that program. Governments all across this country.... In good times politicians could yield to what the people wanted, and if the people didn't want it, political parties even suggested that more should be given out. They did not say that sometime, somewhere the bills would come due. When those bills come due, not only do the bills have to be paid, but oftentimes they also pull the economy down with them.

I'd also like to comment on this business of cases that are brought here to the floor of the Legislature, individual cases that must be dealt with. I know that by allegation the NDP have tried to suggest that, because they are the ones who bring the most cases to the floor of this Legislature, they are the ones most concerned for individual people. I've only been in this business a short time, and in the three years that I've been in I've had many people in my constituency approach me regarding a health problem or a delay problem or something of that nature. Not being politician enough to score points with it, to use those people's names and use their tragedies in order to score political points, I simply contacted the nearest branch of the Health ministry that I thought would deal with it. Some of those problems were dealt with right there. If I could not get satisfaction at the local level, I went to some department of the Ministry of Health, and usually I got some help there. If I didn't get satisfaction, on some occasions, I went right up to the minister, and these people's needs were satisfied.

I didn't get the publicity that the socialists get; I didn't want that publicity, and I'll be darned if I am going to use names and specific situations, because I think that those

[ Page 8937 ]

people's health cares are private business. Many of my colleagues on the government side use the same approach. They try to get the problem solved at the local and higher levels — however far they have to go. They try to serve the needs of those people, and many of those needs are met and served. In any of the dealings that I've ever had with anybody at any level in the Health ministry, I've had nothing but real interest and concern for the problems, and help in practically every case.

I would like to contrast that to what some NDP members do, because I don't know how many times in the three years that I've been here I've heard this Health minister and others respond: "I'm sorry. I've not heard of the problem before today. Would you please bring it to the attention of my staff or my office." I have to assume that these people first of all see a personal tragedy as a useful political weapon to use in this House. If something happens as a result of it, because of the concern of the Health ministry staff, then something good will happen. But their interest first seems to be to use it as a political weapon, and I think that has to be the most irresponsible type of action that I have ever heard of.

Time and time again we've heard that the minister will look into it, and usually he or somebody on his staff deals with it. If that personal tragedy has not been used as a political weapon, why have those members not approached ministry staff or the minister and done everything possible to alleviate that person's concern? Why have they used it as a weapon in this House first? As I say, I have found nothing but care, concern and help at any time that I've had to use that system. I have seen great improvements in the health system just in the last three to five years.

MR. KEMPF: Never again will you be the Health minister in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Omineca will come to order...

MS. BROWN: He's mad! Why don't you throw him out?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and the member for Burnaby Edmonds as well.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I have to judge the members of the opposition as irresponsible, in that they create fear, and many times it's unfounded. They try to create fear among the senior citizens of this province, among the people who are hurting for some medical reason; they try to create an unnecessary fear, as though if there were an emergency, your needs would not be attended to. Emergencies in this province are attended to much better than they ever were in the past, and every year those emergencies and health problems are attended to better. The facilities are better, the people are better trained, the people are concerned the people in the hospitals have always given excellent care and shown excellent concern.

I resent very much the implication that's being left, because of these weapon-type attacks that the NDP uses, that the people working in the health-care system don't care, that they don't give good service, that they really are not concerned. Those people are concerned. In my time I don't think I have seen a nurse who didn't care and who wouldn't put herself out to help a patient in the hospital. I cannot recall a doctor in this province who has not responded well above and beyond the call of duty. Yet these people are trying to leave the impression with the public that somehow or other, because of a restraint program saying, "Look, let's try and do the same job or a better job with less," these doctors and nurses are all of a sudden not giving good health care in this province. Good health care is still out there, and it is being given.

So I resent, very much, these specific-item attacks. When the minister made the statement that the majority of people in this province are getting excellent health care, even then the member for New Westminster turned around and said: "What about everybody else?" Most people in this province are concerned with the excellent care that most people are getting. It is only a few negative Nellies in here that try to make out that the health-care system consists of only the few problems that they use as weapons in this House. It does not.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They've gone around this province talking about cutback, cutback, cutback so often that people have picked up the phrase. We're not talking about cutbacks; we're talking about restrained increases — there is a difference. As the minister himself said in his opening remarks, most of the charges have been unfounded. Yet a lot of important time has been spent in investigating those allegations, which have been made on the filmiest of misinformation. A lot of people who could be doing productive and useful work in the Health ministry have to check these out because of the emotional issue. They have to take valuable time, when they could be doing useful things, to check out, to find out, that the health critic is well named. That's what he thrives on — criticism.

The allegations that he makes, which he can very rarely substantiate.... How many times has he been wrong?

Let me tell you one case, Mr. Chairman, where that member has been very wrong. I can remember that last year — he opened up the subject again this year — he said this government attacked the homemaker program. The NDP, the socialist opposition — these irresponsible people — got the message out through these fancy statements that the press picks up and puts in headlines, and then we don't hear the follow-up reports. Through their skill at using fancy phrases in order to act publicity, they got the message out to a lot of people, in my constituency as well, that the homemaker program was being cut. The facts were that there was a fantastic increase in the funding.

MS. BROWN: A fantastic increase?

MR. BRUMMET: Yes, there was, from about — I don't have the exact figures — $36 million the year before to about $54 million for the homemaker program. If you take the numbers of how that has grown....

Let me get a little more specific. That member even stood up, as I recall, in this House and tried to help this helpless little new member from North Peace River: "What are you going to tell your poor homemakers? What are you going to tell your people who need this care? Why don't you speak up?" The local health officer's report this year clearly indicates that there were many more hours of homemaker care

[ Page 8938 ]

delivered in my constituency than in 1980 in spite of the increases. If that's the kind of help that member wants to give me, creating unnecessary anxiety amongst the senior citizens in my riding, I wish he would quit helping me and anybody in this province, because his help is certainly not wanted. The attitudes and anxieties he creates are irresponsible actions by a member with a very shallow motive. I don't think that member's motive is so much for helping the health care....

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET: When a member uses individual tragedies as political weapons, instead of trying to help those people directly by going to the people who can help, I have to consider that the motives are pretty shallow.

I'd just like sum up my remarks for now by saying how irresponsible it is, in my opinion, for the socialist members to create unfounded anxieties in this province. How truly sad it is to bring individual family names into this House for their own particular benefit — manufacturing situations. For them to promise the people of this province that all the money being spent in creating other projects could be put into health care this year.... I think they should also, if they want to be at all responsible, try to tell those people where the dollars are going to come from next year and the following year. If our coal industry is destroyed, if our oil and gas industry is destroyed, and if many of these industries are destroyed, where is the money going be coming from in the future?

Certainly they can buy some votes this year by using some of these issues emotionally to try to say that every other dollar should be spent on health care, and forget everything else. That'll buy them some votes, but I think it's very irresponsible not to point out to the people that that could also mean that the predictions of some of the people across Canada who are saying that we can't go on like this without destroying our health system.... I don't want it destroyed; our government doesn't want it destroyed. We want it maintained. We want our health system to be kept healthy and accessible to the people. I think we have to act responsibly, even if we take some heat in the meantime.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the opening words of the member for North Peace River were, I believe, something like this, and I'm going to paraphrase.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm going to do anything I like, Mr. Member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). The seat mates are so much alike. They are scared to death, as indicated by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). What that member said was: "I cannot subscribe to the socialist philosophy." That opening shot comes from a person who then goes on to say — and don't forget, he sees everything under every bed as being socialist — that he supports the health system. You've got to be less than schizophrenic. He's either for or against the system that the "socialists" began.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Social Credit had nothing to do with it. Tommy Douglas and Lloyd set up the health system for Canada — finished it. First in 1946 and then in 1962 for medicare.

I suggest that when those two members — the twins from the North Peace and the South Peace; those people with such majestic brains — start talking about our using tragedies for political advantage, they'd better watch what they're saying.

Then you go and talk about the marvellous homemaker service that you found when you went back. If in fact the homemaker service was not cut back in North Peace River, it was the only area in the province where it was not.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: No, it's not. Yes, there was more money marginally more. But hours for the individual were cut back everywhere I went in this province — not for every individual, but a good cross-section. A majority of people I've talked to have complained that the homemaker service has been badly damaged by that ministry, which took them on in April 1981.

What the member for North Peace River said was that restraint was required. He then went on to talk about how I had said something about taking all the money out of the megaprojects and putting it into health care. Who needs it?

MR. BRUMMET: That's what you wanted to do.

MR. COCKE: I didn't say that. Why don't you listen to what another member says? I listened to what you said. God help me, one of the hardest things one has to do in this House is to listen to what you say. I don't like to be misquoted, even by that member.

As far as I'm concerned, what we're saying to this government is: put the same kind of priority on health care as you're putting on the megaprojects.

MR. SEGARTY: But we have a greater priority.

MR. COCKE: You do not have a greater priority. You get up and tell us that in the House. Show us where. Mr. Chairman, the lowest priority I've ever seen for health care in the history of this province, as far as I can remember, is right now.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said: "What did you bring in?" He's just talked about the Socreds bringing in Pharmacare. We all remember who did that. We did. We brought in a provincewide ambulance service too.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 8939 ]

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

76 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Food the following questions:

1. How much money was collected during 1981-82 for brand inspection fees?

2. What were the costs involved in (a) collecting those fees and (b) actual brand inspection?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. $154,367.77.

"2. Costing data available does not isolate (a) the costs of collecting those fees and (b) actual brand inspection. The overall cost of the brand inspection program was $570,632."