[ Page 8953 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 50). Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Introduction and first reading 8953

Division

Oral Questions

Manufactured homes. Mr. Leggatt –– 8953

B.C. Resources Investment Corp. Mr. Barber –– 8954

Financial assistance to village of Whistler. Mr. Barber –– 8955

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 73).

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading –– 8955

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 65).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8955

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 65). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 8956

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

On vote 45: minister's office (continued) –– 8956

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Ritchie

Ms. Brown

Mr. Davis

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Income Tax Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 74). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 8974

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we have visiting our House today, on her first visit to the province of British Columbia, Mrs. O'Donahue from the city of Toronto. Her husband has served the city of Toronto since 1966 as an alderman. Accompanying Mrs. O'Donahue is Mrs. Tasia Richards from Vancouver, and Mrs. Maude Ritchie, who is the wife of our member for Central Fraser Valley. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on one day every session we have a special visitor to this House who demands behaviour above what is normal in this Legislature.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Your mother!

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Mr. Speaker, this is the day my mother has chosen to visit this august assembly for this year, so I ask the House to welcome my mother, Mrs. Gordon, her friend Mrs. Barkusky and my wife, Shirley. Please, I ask the House to establish again that new high of good behaviour because of her visit.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to have visiting with us today my favorite cousins from California, Mrs. Alida Vink, Mrs. Coby Rice, her daughters Beth and Kate, and my wife Lillian. I would ask the House to bid them welcome to Victoria.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today in the gallery, representing 49,000 health-care workers, is the Alliance to Save Health Care. I notice buttons all over the gallery. I would like the House to welcome them. At the same time I would like one of the Pages to assist me in presenting the minister with something he couldn't receive because he didn't get out on the steps of the Legislature: a large banner and petition to save health care.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest it might have been more appropriate for that to have taken place perhaps under the minister's estimates. Let's keep introduction time sacred to that function.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd ask all members to bid good welcome to Mr. David Wilson, executive director of the alumni society of the Youth Parliament of B.C.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a well-known entertainer on Vancouver Island, and also a good friend of mine who used to live at Yellow Point and now lives at Sidney. Welcome to Marlene Nash.

MR. SEGARTY: I'd like the House to welcome this afternoon His Worship Mayor Richard Pinotti from Elkford, the fastest-growing city in Canada. Mr. Pinotti is known as King Cole of Canada. Along with him is city administrator Bob Miles. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome, and would point out that one of the reasons we've got such good health care in this province today is because the government is aggressive in opening up the interior of this province.

MR. STRACHAN: I'd love to be able to top that.

On behalf of myself and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), would the House please join us in welcoming the mayor of Prince George, His Worship Elmer Mercier, and city clerk Wayne Buchanan.

Introduction of Bills

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Heinrich presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 50 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 23

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 50. Labour Code Amendment Act, 1982, ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MANUFACTURED HOMES

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. One of the hardest hit sectors in the B.C. economy is the manufactured homes. It's now running at about 25 percent capacity. Denison Mines has just awarded its first major contract in the Tumbler Ridge project to Alma Homes of Alberta, and not to a British Columbia company. Could the minister advise why that took place?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I do not have knowledge of that particular contract. In Canada we treat everybody across the

[ Page 8954 ]

nation equally, and I suspect it was open to competitive bidding. Between British Columbia and Alberta we have a boundary, not a fence.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister assumes that it was open to competitive bidding. In this particular case, only three of the six major manufacturers in British Columbia were even invited to tender on this particular project. Why is there no preference given on these projects to British Columbia companies, so we can put workers to work?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not aware of the contents of the particular contract to which the member refers, but I would suggest that he might refer that question to my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who, I think, would be quite prepared to provide the member with some of the information. He's been working on it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We only have 15 minutes for question period.

MR. LEGGATT: Given the fact that British Columbia taxpayers are spending $500 million of their money on that project, will the minister tell us why British Columbia taxpayers aren't given preference for jobs in small business?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With apologies to the Leader of the Opposition's mother....

It wasn't so long ago, as I recall, that the member for Coquitlam-Moody requested a moratorium on mobile- and manufactured-home production.

MR. LEGGATT: Nonsense!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I well remember, Mr. Speaker, that there was some debate on that last year. My answer is this: competition occurs across the country. If we're going to balkanize the province of British Columbia, we know what the end result is going to be. Surely there are a number of operations in British Columbia that would perform work in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and I'm also well aware that there are some problems in those provinces with respect to unemployment, particularly in the manufacturing sector. I suppose this goes along with the risk of going into business; being competitive is really in the interests of all taxpayers.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister says that we have to be competitive. He still hasn't answered the question as to why three of our major manufacturing firms weren't even invited to tender. How can you be competitive when you aren't invited to tender? Can the minister advise the House why it is that under the master contract between Quintette Coal and the government there is no provision which requires Denison Mines to at least contact the major manufacturers of British Columbia and invite them to tender before the award is granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please, hon. members. The Premier will come to order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the member for Coquitlam-Moody is somewhat reluctant to address his question to the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. I'm advised that perhaps invitations were offered, but if the member continues to ask that particular question of me, I'll take it as notice and pass the information on to my colleague.

MR. LEGGATT: My final question to the Minister of Labour is that he should be aware that we have asked the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development questions over two years, and have yet to receive a straight answer in this House on that coal deal.

[Mr. Speaker rose. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Question period is for the purpose of asking questions. The member for Coquitlam-Moody is out of order. He did not have a question. It would be tantamount to a fraudulent point of order.

The — is it the first or second? — first member for Victoria.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Last.

B.C. RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORP.

MR. BARBER: If I'm the last member for Victoria, does that mean you're going to wipe out the riding altogether? They're capable of it.

I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier advise whether or not his bill to remove the 1 percent safeguard for small British Columbia shareholders in BCRIC resulted from a request by the board of directors of BCRIC that he do so?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is it a matter that anticipates legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the question. I cannot hear the question with the amount of noise in the House.

MR. BARBER: My question to the Premier is, again: can he advise whether or not his bill to remove the 1 percent safeguard for small shareholders in BCRIC resulted from a request from the board of directors that he do so?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Although the question is not in order because it's a bill on which there will be ample debate in this Legislature, I would not want the impression to be left by the presumption of the question, which is totally wrong, that the small shareholder is unprotected in BCRIC. The answer to the second part of the question is no.

[ Page 8955 ]

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on the same matter. Did he receive a request from the president, Donald Watson of BCRIC, that he amend the BCRIC charter, as he has proposed to do?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can make it very clear to that member that the measure is taken to allow the same opportunities for shares in that company to trade as in any other private-sector firm in this province. One of the things the small shareholders have requested is a greater opportunity for any shareholder to be able to bring discipline on the directors, as directors are disciplined by their shareholders when that restriction is not there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, in reviewing Beauchesne, I note that questions which anticipate an order of the day or other matters are not in order.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm that as of this morning there were 23 million BCRIC shares, representing in fact 36 percent of the total, registered to owners resident outside the province of British Columbia?

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

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the Premier said that something he said would never happen.... On June 14, 1979, he advised the House — and I quote from Hansard: "We have put in safeguards so that no group or groups can dominate. The 1 percent for individuals and groups and businesses and associations is there to provide the opportunity for as broad a base of ownership as there can be." Is the Premier prepared to admit today that his former policy, that B.C. is not for sale, is no longer operative?

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

MR. BARBER: The Premier may not admit it, but we know it, and so does big business as of last night.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
TO VILLAGE OF WHISTLER

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I'm advised that the government has now received a proposal from the village of Whistler to assist them to deal with the problems of overexpansion. The assistance requested is financial. Can the Minister of Finance indicate whether or not they have decided to assist the village of Whistler in their current financial difficulties?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, no such request has reached my office or my ministry.

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism. TIDSA has now contributed a total of $3.8 million to the Whistler recreational centre. This is part of a total, through TIDSA, of $13.1 million for the whole project. Can the minister advise as to the current status of the request by the village of Whistler to increase the TIDSA contribution toward the recreational centre at the village?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No.

MR. BARBER: Would the Minister of Tourism advise what arrangements she has made to secure completion of these tourist-oriented projects without leaving a massive debt for Whistler ratepayers?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I thought the member realized that he's addressing the wrong minister.

Introduction of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES
AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 73 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

NORTHWEST BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL
COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In introducing this bill, may I simply and briefly say that the members of this assembly are being given the opportunity in 1982 to make right what has been left undone since March 20, 1959. On that day, the Northwest Baptist Theological College Act was enacted in this House and, inadvertently — the bill to become effective on proclamation — a proclamation was not issued.

On checking the Parliamentary Guide I find that no members present in the House today were present in 1959 when this bill was enacted; indeed, the only persons in this chamber at that time were the distinguished Clerk and his Deputy Clerk. Therefore, if anyone takes solace in pointing the finger of blame as to why the situation should have arisen, they will know how limited their opportunities are.

After March 20, 1959, the Northwest Baptist Theological College embarked upon its objectives. It has acquired its properties, offered courses of instruction and granted degrees. Under arrangements with the federal government, it has acquired status under the Income Tax Act as an organization to which donations can be made with the amounts of those donations deductible against income tax. It would be the very worst of bad faith if the Legislative Assembly, at this time, did not take this course of action, which is, on the passage of this bill, to make right all those things which have been omitted over the years. I think the members will join me, unanimously, in seeking to overcome the results of this inadvertence.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, It sounds to me like one of those nemine contradicente bills.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page 8956 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 65 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 65, Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

MR. COCKE: This morning we were treated to a rather usual plea from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). It's very interesting how schizophrenic one gets when one gets defensive. Yesterday when the Minister of Health was introducing his estimates he talked about emotionalism: that we should not be playing the emotional game in the criticism of health care. I wonder if that's part and parcel of the entire way the ministry is treating this subject.

I'm going to take you back to May 13, when the deputy minister was in Nanaimo speaking to the Registered Nurses Association. According to news accounts, at that time he suggested that complaints from even a few health-care professionals are upsetting and worrisome to the public. He asked the nurses to give the ministry the benefit of the doubt. He went on to say: "I think it's up to professionals to not cause the public to panic but to support one another." Following his visit, the nurses decided that the public had the right to know, and I say that the public have a right to know.

We have a huge number of people waiting for health care. We've talked about children, we've talked about older people, and we've talked about the pain and discomfort that some people are confronted with. Is that unfair? Is it unfair to tell the truth, to tell what's going on? If the public want to hide their heads in the sand and if the public are not interested, I would be very surprised. I believe the public have every right to know precisely what's happening in government as it pertains to them.

The minister, along with the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier, is cutting services severely. What are those services?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Not so, " says the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). Stand on your feet and say it publicly. Tell us about EMI and about psychiatric day-care units that are closing — our Royal Columbian; the whole thing closed down. Rehabilitation units for stroke victims have closed. Ostomy therapists have been laid off.

That member obviously reflects that feeling of there being no priority for the delivery of health care on the part of that government. The member will get up and extol the great virtues of all the development of the northland. He'll get up and extol the benefits of the leghold trap and talk about wolves and all sorts of things in this House. We've been on the Health estimates for two days. Will he get up and talk about any problems he's having in his area?

MR. KEMPF: We're not having any.

MR. COCKE: Oh, he's not having any. We'll go over the list in a few minutes.

Nurses have been laid off; health workers have been laid off. Isn't it passing strange that yesterday I was showing the House all the ads from the province of Alberta, trying to pick up people who have been laid off here in our province to go to work there. For the first time in years our graduating classes of nurses won't find work. I suggest we're dealing, generally speaking, with crisis management, and I also suggest that we have a government that does not consider health a priority. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to give you what one person has to say. I've got a file of correspondence as long as your arm. The most correspondence I've ever had in opposition has been this year as a result of the health cutbacks. This is from May 6, 1982.

"I am writing to protest the current cutbacks in budgeting the health-care system. I am of the opinion that our Health minister has made a serious judgmental error. I'm a registered nurse with ten years' experience in this field, and contrary to the minister, it is my belief that ultimately the restraints will affect the quality of patient care in the province.

"Further to the above, I now find myself without a job and I'm about to join the ranks of the other 1.2 million unemployed in this country. This situation is totally unacceptable to me. I therefore have no other alternative but to seek employment outside Canada where my skills and experience will be welcomed. Needless to say, this is not an action of choice."

Mr. Chairman, we're losing people who are so important to us. I want to say that the cutbacks, which incidentally have mystified some of the ministers, are having a profound effect. I want to read you a line here: "The Premier was mystified by hospital cuts." This was as recently as May 14. Let me quote further: "But Bennett said in a Thursday interview in Victoria that he's at a loss to explain why the beds are being closed." I'll explain it to you very carefully how it happens: the beds are closed when the hospitals are warned that their

[ Page 8957 ]

every-two-week advance will be cut off if they don't cut their budgets, period. Now they've got a whole bunch of people to pay. So it's very easy to control the situation out there.

This morning I very calmly asked a number of questions, and those questions were not answered. I would hope that the minister has had time to reflect on the Blues, because I believe those questions that I asked around the whole budgeting system and around the whole funding question should be asked. They were answered in such a superficial way that I can't believe it. The minister suggests that we should do something other than draw attention to the concerns that people have over health care.

He said another thing yesterday — and I'm going to quote from the Blues, Mr. Chairman:

The Ministry of Health has attempted to establish over the years and particularly recently, a philosophy of priority. The first priority 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....

Oh, the member for Omineca has disappeared. What a shame! I was going to tell him some of the things that are going on in his area.

Mr. Chairman, let me take you to the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who said yesterday that all was rosy in his area. This is a letter from Dawson Creek to Mrs. Pat Wadsworth, executive director of the Health Association. What does the letter say? It's from the health education resource advisory committee up there, and it says:

"Last March I provided Garry" — meaning Garry Cardiff — "with a fairly comprehensive outline of the activity of the committee and its accomplishments. It was my hope, as chairman of that committee, to firm up the viability of the committee so that it could continue to do its work. As you will note from his letter, funding for the committee's work appears to have disappeared."

This is a brief quote from Mr. Cardiff's letter:

"Unfortunately, the 1982-83 fiscal policy is such that I cannot approve specific funding for committee work, especially if it will involve a year-end adjustment for the hospital budget. Under these circumstances you may wish to either terminate the work of the committee or discuss future objectives with the B.C. Health Association."

That was prior to his saying: "I would appreciate you extending my appreciation to the members of your committee and subcommittee for their very hard work in this area." He indicated that it was good work they were doing. That's in Dawson Creek, up north.

Preventive health care is a priority with the minister. We surveyed 17 public health units in this province, and what did we find? We found a shortfall of 13 to 15 public health inspectors, 5 to 11 public health nurses, 7 to 8 speech therapists, 5 nutrition aides, 11 mental health nurses, 2 audiologists, 1 community physiotherapist, 2 dental staff workers and 2 medical doctor. The VD control was short as well. In April there were only two health educators in the province. Does this reflect a minister's priority for public health? Are we to take the minister seriously when he says, as he did yesterday, that prevention is a priority? If prevention were a priority, you wouldn't see public health suffering the way it is.

We've reviewed the hospital situation over and over again, but we can't seem to get the minister's attention. We find in every district, from north to south, that people are complaining about the shortage of health workers. In the northern interior it's exactly the same as it is down south. I'll probably, as time goes by, give you the specifics of Omineca, but I would certainly like to wait until such time as the member for Omineca is here. I know he's going to get up and do some defending.

I want to talk for a moment or two again, because I couldn't get answers to questions....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, he answered your questions.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations groans. He would groan too if he were on this side of the House and had this morning introduced questions that were not answered. What would he do under those circumstances? He would do what I'm forced to do, and that's to dramatize what's actually going on. One has to.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Lower the lights.

MR. COCKE: "Lower the lights," that old hotliner says. He doesn't even take his own ministry seriously. "Lift your sights," they say. This is the kind of chaos that minister has created. "Cuts shatter hospital morale." And he says: "Lower the lights." Lower the lights for me. "Staff rail at spending priorities." "Hospitals seek mediation on nurse talks." It's all over the place; it's everywhere in this province, and that minister says: "Lower the lights." How dramatic can he get? There's no lowering of the lights when you're on a hotline, and that's where you should be today with your predecessor, instead of wrecking the health-care system in our province. "Lower the lights," he says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if we address the Chair and keep other comments to a minimum we tend to have an orderly debate. However, if members do not address the Chair, then we seem to involve ourselves in some extra discussion that is not really needed or conducive; nor is it within the bounds of parliamentary dictates. Therefore I would ask members to address the Chair in their remarks and we could carry on in that manner.

MR. COCKE: When one calls attention to what is happening out there, one has to wonder whether there's any kind of a plan whatsoever.

I drew the attention of the House the other day to the fact that there was a person in the Royal Jubilee Hospital who had had a relatively serious operation and required rehabilitation at Gorge Road Hospital. Gorge Road Hospital, for those who don't know, happens to be a rehabilitation hospital. It also has extended care, but it is a rehabilitation hospital. In the first place, the patient that was at the Royal Jubilee Hospital having an operation would have been out of hospital in seven days. Instead, Mr. Chairman, the patient occupied a bed in the Jubilee for 21 days, or very close to three weeks. When he got out of the Jubilee, he didn't go to the Gorge Road Hospital. Why didn't he go to the Gorge Road Hospital? Gorge Road Hospital, Mr. Chairman, because of its budget cutbacks, had already closed down 15 beds — or it closed down a number of beds for rehabilitation, but I'm not exactly positive what they are because I had it on another list. Is it any

[ Page 8958 ]

wonder, then, that I charge the government with no planning? Obviously, rehabilitative therapy has to be economical. In the first place it gets the people out of the more expensive beds into the less expensive and more appropriate beds. It also brings about rehabilitation that much sooner. The longer that person sits at home waiting for rehabilitative therapy, the longer the process of rehabilitative therapy is going to take.

Mr. Chairman, there have been 2,500 jobs lost. There are those who say that there are probably 5,000 people in the health-care field that are directly affected, because there are a lot of people on call that will not be called, who are not viewed to be full-time employees. There are any number of people affected. Where do we see that effect taking place? We see it here with the Jubilee laying off over 100 staff. We see Juan de Fuca Hospitals laying off 131 casual and part time staff. We see the Victoria General laying off 712 casual and part-time staff.

Mr. Chairman, in December of last year, the RNABC reported a shortage of 472 nurses in B.C. Hospitals today say the nurses' union has 315 nurses listed as being laid off, and the only jobs listed for B.C. nurses are for highly experienced and specialized nurses. Of course, as I asked yesterday, who's recruiting our nurses? Alberta, with a regular string of advertisements. I say that the long-term stupidity on the part of this government has created a situation in B.C., which historically has imported nurses.... For example, in 1980 we hired 2,268, and only 511 were educated in B.C. Therefore we imported 1,757.

We have 1,496 bed closures. If it's the intention of the ministry to reduce the number of acute-care beds in the province, why hasn't the minister done it in a planned manner, taking regional needs into consideration in consultation with hospital boards and the B.C. Health Association? I charge that there has been no consultation whatsoever. I remember when they set up long-term care. Did they consult with the hospitals? Did they consult with the local health delivery people? No, Mr. Chairman, it was instituted here in this ivory tower, and that's where everything happens. But who's to carry the can? The hospitals. If the minister can possibly force them to close those beds because of budgetary constraints and making the hospitals look bad, he feels that the heat will be taken off himself. We know that the legislative authority under section 41 has created a situation in Richmond where the hospital union requested an injunction on any closure of beds before the minister actually signed. That was a good precedent. I think the minister should sign for every bed closure in this province.

When he talks about the number of beds per thousand population here in this province and says we're so overbedded, I want him to recall that there are hundreds of longterm care patients occupying acute-care beds. We've identified 1,200 who are occupying beds that are very costly. If the minister wants to provide for those people and open up those beds for acutely ill people, that's going to create a little less pressure. He has chosen exactly the wrong course. In a time of stress, in a time of real concern in our province, the minister, along with his colleagues, has decided to put pressure on this very sensitive area. There is no question that stress-related illnesses are increasing, yet we cut back.

In times of stress, if there must be restraint, let that restraint be on high-flying ministers and their expense accounts. Let that restraint be on building stadiums, if necessary. Let that restraint be on financing and subsidizing northeast coal for the sake of the Japanese steel industry. Let that restraint be anywhere but in health care. If there are economies, let's bring about those economies, but let's do it in a consultative way. Let's do it in a way whereby everybody has an opportunity to put forward his concerns, reflecting the needs of his own community.

The Royal Columbian Hospital, which I talked about this morning, was a good example. It wasn't until the ambulances were diverted and diverted that the minister finally decided to "loan" them $750,000.

I suggest we're being treated to a very bad scene by a totally insensitive government and a minister with ice in his veins. I suggest this is no longer the time for looking coldly at health care; now is the time that the government, must re establish its priorities. If the Premier isn't responsible, then it's his job to remove this cold-blooded minister from this ministry.

When in doubt, mumble. Let me see what he has said from time to time.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Is he back on the turkey board? Good; that's where he belongs.

Speaking of turkey, in response to Cold Turkey Day, January 12, 1982, the minister was quoted as having said: "Who cares? I won't try not smoking, because I don't feel like it." That's fair enough, but I don't think a Minister of Health should make that kind of comment, in view of the fact that this morning we saw that 28,700 died as a result of smoking. I think we should be making comments that are just a little bit more worthwhile.

On May 2, 1982, the chairperson of the provincial Health ministers refused to attend the federal-provincial Health ministers' conference because the Socreds had too slim a majority in the Legislature, and he — the Minister of Health — didn't want to be absent. So in his place went his deputy. However, when questioned by the press, what did the Whip, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), the good old honest car dealer from Dewdney, say? He said it would have been possible. Mussallem went on to say that he gets requests all the time from cabinet minister who wish to be absent, and he lets them leave "if our numbers are right." He said the Socreds had 28 of government's 31 members, "so we weren't tight." So the minister could have gone but didn't ask. He didn't want to go and do his duty for the province of B.C., and what were they discussing down there? User fees.

MR. RITCHIE: Where's Lauk doing his duty for the province right now?

MR. COCKE: Don't get edgy, my poor little friend. Go out and grade another turkey.

On June 7, 1982, the minister stayed in Victoria and again sent his deputy to the opening ceremonies of the Vancouver General's new emergency cardiac care facility. The deputy was quoted as saying: "I know this will sound hollow to some of you but, listening to jeers, I'm glad that I came because I don't think he deserves this." We've got to protect him from jeers, that poor sensitive minister.

I'm getting the red light. In this House that means that I have to resume my seat for a moment or two.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If I may take my role once again in this scintillating debate....

[ Page 8959 ]

MR. COCKE: Yes, you'll "scint" it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, Dennis, you're boring among other things.

Mr. Chairman, among the more important items that the member for New Westminster has just discussed is Cold Turkey Day, a Vancouver Sun newspaper promotion in which they let loose 13 turkeys in Stanley Park. They had hoped 26 could be released, but only half of the NDP caucus was available. That was the promotion — Cold Turkey Day, courtesy the Vancouver Sun. The member might have read what else I told the reporters; I told them I really had no interest in taking part in a newspaper promotion.

The federal — provincial conference: we have duties in the House, as all members, with the exception of the first member for Vancouver Centre, seem to understand. Attendance in the House is one of our first obligations. For some reason, Mr. Chairman — and it predates the day I first entered the House — we do not have the system of pairing which is common in other jurisdictions, and which permits ministers or other members to attend conferences and not affect the balance within the House. I don't know whether the concept of pairing has ever been discussed since it was discouraged for some reason.

Duties in the House are first for any member of this assembly. I was well covered at that conference by my deputy minister on my behalf, and by the minister from Alberta who chaired the meeting. I was also provided with advance copies of the federal minister's presentation to the conference, and spoke to various ministers by telephone. The next meeting is scheduled for Vancouver so it won't present the same problem.

According to the NDP, it's wrong for ministers to travel. They keep trying to reduce everyone's travel budget, so it's wrong to travel. But then, for reasons of their own, if you don't attend something it was wrong that you didn't attend. It's pretty obvious that whether you attend or choose not to attend, it's wrong, according to them. That's fine. Their partner, the member for Vancouver Centre, decided that duties in the House weren't important at all. Vacation called, and he is gone for five weeks. Some of us perhaps take duties in the House somewhat more seriously, as attendance records will I think show, particularly when they're recorded by way of a division in this House. Attendance records will show that some feel their duties in the House are paramount.

Opening day for a new unit at the Vancouver General Hospital happened to coincide, again, with duties in the House called the public accounts committee.

MR. COCKE: Defending Pouilly-Fuissé.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for New Westminster laughs. He presumably feels that public accounts is not a committee which should be attended by members who are assigned that duty. If that's his attitude, fine, but I don't share that attitude with him. I believe the duties of those members who serve on public accounts are very important, and they should attend. At the last meeting of public accounts members were missing, including the member for Vancouver Centre, who is missing in more ways than one, but certainly missing from the House and that committee — and from the province and the country. Every member has the obligation to attend, and should they choose not to attend, they can offer whatever explanation they wish. But I believe that the duties in the House are paramount to other duties, which are optional. I have no hesitation in sending my deputy minister to represent the Ministry of Health anywhere in the province or country, and other officials within the ministry who have my support in speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Health.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

I was very interested in a statement made by the member for New Westminster with respect to a diversion of ambulances from the Royal Columbian Hospital, and I have asked staff to please make contact with those responsible, because it disturbs me to hear what was said. The member said: "Ambulances have been diverted, I believe, again and again and again and again." I am quite prepared to accept the member's statement. I would like to know the information because, as this House and the people of British Columbia know, quite frequently statements made by that member cannot be taken at face value. I have asked staff if they would please check once again for me. They're getting the information which they have provided me from our emergency division. I've asked them to please contact the hospital itself, because they may be more familiar with the precise details. The information we have received from our emergency services people is that between September 1, 1981 and April 1, 1982 ambulances were diverted from Royal Columbian Hospital four times. Since the restraint program has been in place — this is the information provided to me — one ambulance has been diverted for a non-emergency patient. I'm interested to get that story from the hospital and those responsible, because if they have been diverted again and again and again and again, I want to know about it and I want to know the reasons why from the authorities in place who are most familiar with the information.

But I'm reluctant to accept, without some checking, certain statements made by the member for New Westminster, who has told this House that he knows more than all the members combined on this side of the House. He said that in this House: "I know more than all of you combined." That's the same member who said he'd built the Royal Columbian Hospital — going back before the member for Dewdney's (Mr. Mussallem's) days to do that. That's the same member who said the hospital in MacKenzie had been shut down.

MR. COCKE: Right.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course he says: "Right." It's in the book. What a shock it was to the people in MacKenzie — and the newspapers: "Mackenzie Hospital Closure Denied."

MR. COCKE: That's right. You've got a hospital you can't use. What's a hospital without an operating room?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: "That's right," the member says. It's right that it's closed down; and he says it's right that the newspapers said the closure was denied. Both are right. But then it was the administrator of the hospital who denied it was closed — he's there.

MR. COCKE: Of course he denied it was closed. He's afraid of you.

[ Page 8960 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: He went outside and looked. That was one statement, that it was closed — much to the chagrin and surprise of those who were there.

That's the same member who said — I'm quite sure the member will say that he was right, but I don't quite understand some of the reasoning — that the Vancouver General Hospital was under public trusteeship. He said that I said it was one of the most inefficient hospitals in the province. "And," he said, "if by his own admission public trusteeship has proved a failure...."" He said it was still under public trusteeship. Well, my deputy minister, some years back, was the public trustee; then the former former Minister of Health became the public trustee; then he was relieved of that position and the board took over its duties, and it has not been under public trusteeship since. Perhaps we're dealing in semantics. What one person believes public trustee to be.... I would only refer to that section of the act that relates to a public trustee. I consider a public trustee to be "one who is named under the act to perform as a public trustee."

We had a case from that member in May of 1981 — and, I might mention, a tremendous amount of anxiety was caused to a family in my constituency of Richmond for no good reason. That member rose one day and spoke of a man in Richmond who has terminal brain cancer, and that member said that that person was transported about for four hours in an ambulance looking for a hospital bed of some kind. That member said that they went to a hospital, they couldn't admit him; they drove around to one or two hospitals and they were closed and they wouldn't admit him, and four hours went by. We checked into that story, because that was a very, very strong statement. We spoke to the dispatchers, the doctors, the hospitals and the family, and the story was very, very different. The only difference the next day when we checked was the anxiety the family had undergone. This member decided, Mr. Chairman: let's play cheap politics with someone's pain, agony and suffering.

You might notice that very rarely does that member ever identify a source. It's "someone tells me, an association tells me, a lamppost told me, or a little bird." Mr. Chairman, we all understand that within our system of government business — health or whatever you wish to refer to — there are people who. are spokesmen for organizations, be they a hospital, a health association, a union or whatever, and when we make contact with these various organizations, we contact the person who has been given authority by the association to speak on their behalf. If the member is suggesting to me or anyone else that because a member of a group is speaking he is speaking as the official spokesman for that organization, I can't accept that. I can certainly accept a statement from the president of the group or from the person who's been designated as that speaker, but to expect to be able to cover every statement made by every member of every organization, and for that member to say: "That's what they're telling me".... Sure, maybe they are. We'd like to speak to those who have the responsibility of speaking for their association so we can get the story as clearly as we can.

Mr. Chairman, time and again issues are raised with respect to the situation of an individual, and the ministry takes as much time as is required to investigate the circumstances of the case; we try to resolve to the best of our ability the difficulties that may be involved in the case. If members of the opposition, particularly the official critic, wish to bring case upon case to us, we'll check them all out. We have no difficulty in doing that; we can do it as quickly as that member would like us to do, provided the information is given to us as early as possible. If they're going to wait until a certain day has arrived or question period or estimates and have the stories build up until that time, fine, but it's going to delay the process.

As I said earlier today, members of the opposite side and members on this side, in their concern for individual citizens, have brought information to my attention, and we have responded without headlines, without publicity, without news releases, without statements in the House, because we recognize that every member of this House, with very few exceptions, is genuinely concerned about the well-being of constituents, and no one wants to see someone suffer. So it's not politically advantageous to allow a person to suffer in discomfort simply because the schedule doesn't permit that it be brought to the attention of the authorities now. Maybe it's Friday afternoon, but the House isn't sitting till Monday, so let's hold onto this story until we can get some political mileage out of it. Meanwhile the person may be in a position which could be alleviated if the information were brought forward immediately.

MR. COCKE: What a hypocritical....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You have much to answer for.

MR. COCKE: You have a hell of a way of running a health system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's beginning to hurt; some sensitive nerves have been touched, obviously.

MS. BROWN: You're practising medicine without a licence.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, if that lady would be quiet for a moment perhaps I could address you. Otherwise I'll address her directly, because he's got a deputy sitting right behind him, in training.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) will please come to order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I won't even go into the background of that.... The member for New Westminster would know the medical terminology, since he's a quasi-pseudo MD. There is a term used to describe those with grandiose thoughts and ideas about themselves — a Napoleonic complex or something; I'm not sure. But I won't go into the background of the statement: "I built the Royal Columbian Hospital."

AN HON. MEMBER: Megalomania would do.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is it megalomania?

MR. COCKE: I know a psychopath when I see one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for New Westminster says he knows a psychopath when he sees one, in case the world has not shared that knowledge previously.

[ Page 8961 ]

I was told some time back that we could expect some pretty good stuff from the opposition on health, particularly from the member for Vancouver Centre, who decided: "Aw, let the member for New Westminster do it. I'll go on vacation." I think it was decent of him, anyway.

One of the problems that faces us in this system is, I believe, the need in the minds of many to make political hay out of anything. The old axiom suggests that all is fair in war; I suppose politics could be included in that.

I disagree with the idea that for political purposes, political gain, political advantage or whatever you should attempt to bring into focus the personal suffering of individuals which could be alleviated, at least to some degree, by simple communication of information, rather than through the political process. People have been in contact with the ministry and have advised us that they regret the publicity that their case has had, because it has caused undue anxiety within their own families.

I fully respect the circumstances of individuals, or members of their family, who must speak out because they feel that they are not being treated properly, fairly or promptly. They speak out, and then frequently they've lost control of the situation. I can understand that they are not experienced in that field, and that it's definitely going to occur. We try to respond as quickly as we possibly can. Much of the information we receive about individual cases will not be made public, because we don't intend to make public information of a confidential nature.

We had one case — I'm not going to mention the name of an open-heart surgery candidate. A great deal of publicity was given to this particular situation. When it was brought to our attention, I had one of our medical people contact a member of that family. A very good conversation ensued; some information was given and some direction was given. Later, by correspondence, a very strong note of gratitude was received from a member of the family, who suggested that she simply didn't understand the options available, in certain circumstances, and was greatly relieved that she had the opportunity to speak to somebody within the ministry. That is available to all. I think I mentioned earlier this morning that members on both sides of the House take that opportunity, with pretty good results. That's the system. That's what's available to members of this House or citizens of the province.

The member for New Westminster asked a number of questions earlier today. Some additional information has been put together; all I have to do is find it. One specific question was the one I mentioned with respect to ambulance diversions, which I'm having researched further because the earlier information I got was inconsistent with the information given to me by the member for New Westminster, and I'm very concerned about that.

The member for New Westminster spoke about the ministry operating within legislative authority. I've asked some of the officials to jot down a few responses with respect to that. Perhaps the member may disagree, but the information provided to me by the people responsible said that the ministry has never operated on a per diem payment. Adjustments were made to approved budgets, based on decreases or increases of workloads expressed in patient-days. Section 10 of the Hospital Insurance Act states: "There shall be a sum paid by the minister." It's a permissive section and does not stipulate how the money is to be paid. "Grants" has been used as the term in the estimate book since 1977. Mr. Chairman, it should be obvious to all that that is a legal interpretation of a statute — which I think the member was asking for.

Are we on global budgets? Yes, we are. We still operate on a global budget concept. We allow money to transfer from salaries to equipment, but not equipment to salaries. That's a control device, which the funding agency has a responsibility to ensure the correct procedures are followed.

The question on bare statistics and percentages. We offered the hospitals 7.7 percent, 7.72 percent and 7.9 percent increases in the grant. But they were expected to increase their revenues by 17 percent, 20 percent and 24 percent. It varied from hospital to hospital. The member is correct in the numbers, because we provided him with those numbers — indirectly. Mr. Chairman, that was based on information provided to us on what the anticipated revenue was from, other than the grant. The per diem increased from $6.50 to $7.50 — that's part of the revenue. It was calculated that that's what those individual hospitals would achieve. Each year, at the end of the fiscal term, a reconciliation is taken to determine if the hospitals achieved what they anticipated, and there can be a tremendous number of variables. Some hospitals which have had a lot of Workers' Compensation cases referred to them may not see that number this year; therefore their revenue is down from that source, and there's a reconciliation that takes place. The estimates are simply in error, and a reconciliation can take place. That's why the percentages are different, because we're dealing with two entirely different bases.

Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster said and I can't go back to all of the conversation — that someone within the ministry told hospitals that they would have their regular bimonthly cash flow cut off if they did not reduce their budgets. If I'm wrong, please advise me. I'll have to get the Blues. I think that's what the member said. I'm concerned if someone is making such a statement. We've done the best we can in a short period of time, and I'm advised that such a threat as this has never been made: "The transfer of cash from hospital programs to hospitals every two weeks is the individual hospital's principal source of income, and any such reductions would simply force the hospital to borrow the money from the bank."

If the member knows of someone who has made that statement, I don't have to have the answer today, but I would certainly like to find out who made such a statement and to whom. I don't think it is proper to make statements which could be interpreted as threats. I don't think it's proper conduct. I don't think the hospitals, or anyone else in receipt of public cash, should have to put up with that. So if the member has it. I would certainly look into it, quite apart from discussions in the chamber.

Mr. Chairman, we have a process underway with respect to the hospitals, which began in April — before April actually, but the April letter was also part of the process — in which we asked the hospitals to advise us what they believed would be necessary, and what they intended to do to stay within the overall global budget. I suppose the majority of the hospitals have responded by now, although I understand some still have not. Each of those responses is being reviewed by ministerial staff officials, and some adjustments have already been made. Some of the hospitals have provided certain information which has led people within the ministry to reconsider some adjustments to the global grant. That is a continuing process, and it will continue. There are some hospitals that have such a difference of opinion with respect

[ Page 8962 ]

to their needs compared to the analysis of the ministry that we have asked independent consultants to review these cases and advise. I've told the representatives on the boards of those hospitals that if they're right and that is shown by the independent audit, we'll accept their judgment.

I told the hospitals, many of them: "We are not simply going to say to you that we're right and you're wrong." If an independent operational audit indicates that the hospital is correct, then we'll respond in a very positive way to see that they're properly funded. The member for New Westminster seems to get all excited that you would bring in an outside auditor to look at an operation of the hospital. The hospitals themselves don't; they welcome it. The Royal Columbian Hospital people said they welcomed an independent outside operational audit to be undertaken at that hospital. They welcome it; in fact, they even asked for it, because they respect the expertise of these audit organizations, as we do. When that final paper comes in, we'll see that the differences of opinion are identified and corrective action is taken if it's indicated.

A lot of problems associated with all of the business, everywhere in the province, in the country and probably in the world.... The member has brought forward a few thoughts, and I don't disagree with all of them. We'll respond to specific cases if that's what's going to be happening. Again the member spoke about section 41 of the Hospital Act and the Richmond General Hospital in my constituency, and an injunction which was granted to one of the hospital employee unions which, in effect, said: "You can't close beds unless you have written permission from the minister." Richmond General Hospital had not closed any beds. What they had recommended to me was that an annex be closed and also that the services provided by that annex no longer be made available. We met with them and we discussed it. They said that they would, in effect, transfer those patients from the annex to the main hospital and continue the service, but close the building itself down, thereby maximizing the savings they felt they could achieve by closing down a unit and saving the maintenance costs and everything that went with it. That's what they suggested as a compromise and that's what was approved.

The member for New Westminster says: "The minister should sign for every bed closure." I think that's what the act says is necessary in section 41. I understand that it hasn't been carried on since the act was passed, and I don't know that.... I'd have to get the specific date, because many beds have been closed routinely without written permission.

MR. COCKE: I was interested that the minister spent a few minutes providing a few answers. Prior.to that he spent all of his time whipping away at the member for New Westminster. I presume that he feels that he's having to create an illusion around cases that will, to some extent, reduce the impact of what I might have to say. Anyway, so much for that.

He talks about the Vancouver General Hospital.

Interjection.

MR COCKE: Oh, come on. Get up and say something!

MR. BRUMMET: Your credibility's not that good.

MR. COCKE: Isn't it? If my credibility was good with the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), I'd have to go out and cut my throat. I don't feel that I have that concern at the moment.

The minister talks about the VGH, and you're darned right it's semantics. Certainly I know that the now deputy was the former administrator of that hospital. Certainly it's not under administration per se, but who appoints every member of the board? They're at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and, for heaven's sake, the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council runs that hospital, through the Ministry of Health. Come on. If the board doesn't do what it's told, then the board is finished. Don't look in the old acts; the fact of the matter is that that's the way it is. They have no society any longer.

The case in Richmond, where the minister says I terrified the family.... It was the family who phoned me, so don't give me the old stuff about me terrifying the family. They phoned me afterwards and apologized, too. Yes, you phoned the family....

MR. BRUMMET: What did you do with it? You used it as a political weapon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for North Peace River will come to order, please.

MR. COCKE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the minister tells us that what we must do is very quietly take any problems that we have to the minister, and he'll take care of them, or he will try, but we must communicate without any publicity whatsoever. Most of the cases that I've raised have already been public. The one I talked about yesterday hadn't gone in the paper, and so I didn't refer to it other than to tell you what was going on again at Children's. I communicated with that doctor, and he said he has 12 like it. However, he's also said it in the Province this morning. The minister is trying to make us believe that there is nothing wrong out there, yet every day the headlines in the paper tell us that there is.

Mr. Chairman, the minister says that he can't believe that he or his ministry would threaten hospitals. Let me tell you what the minister said when he was asked about the restraint. He said he's losing patience with the restraint complaints — his words. He went on to say: "I'm at the point that if a hospital wants to tell me they can't run their business, that's fine; we'll put someone in there who can."

MS. BROWN: That's a threat.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's a promise.

MR. COCKE: Oh, dear, that's not a threat, that's a promise. What the hell difference does it make, Mr. Minister? Threat, promise, it's the same thing.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're a threat to the people, you see.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I'm a threat to the people. I'll tell you what: I'll make you a little bet. If the people have an opportunity between you and me, I'll bet you 50 bucks they choose me over you for a Minister of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please address the Chair and address vote 45.

[ Page 8963 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if you want to ask the people about this whole crew here as opposed to that crew there, now is a good time to do it. They're so tired of that bunch of worn-out Liberals and the coalition of the old Conservatives and a few Socreds, that this province is desperately wanting... When you walk down the street, Mr. Chairman, what do you hear? "When is the next election?" Time after time after time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 45, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd go on to give you another couple of the minister's quotes, but I think I can save them. I just want to say that as far as I'm concerned the minister should really pay attention to what he's doing; to the fact that the cutbacks are hurting desperately; to the fact that the cutbacks are not being enjoyed by other areas; and to the fact that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) seems to be getting along very well, with no great cutbacks in northeast coal and other areas of concern. I just suggest that the Minister of Health is carrying the can for that government, which lacks priority in the delivery of health care, period.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to briefly make a few comments during this debate. I hope that the so-called Health critic, if he's going to leave the chamber, will come back very soon, because I like to look him in the face whenever I speak.

First of all, I'd like to observe the buttons that all of the NDP members are wearing today, and the only thing I can say about those is that it's only the colour that seems to fit. The slogan "Stop" doesn't fit at all, because I don't believe they ever got started.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the people out there who are expecting some great things from that critic who just left the chamber are terribly disappointed today. In fact, if the people out there knew that there are only five members of the NDP in the chamber while this very, very important debate is taking place, they'd all agree with us that all of their slogans and all of their sayings right along are nothing but a sham.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how many members of the government are in here. Also, where is the Minister of Health? Five Socreds and no Minister of Health — let the record show that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's not a valid point of order.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, at one point during this debate there were only two NDP members in this chamber — the so-called critic, and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds attempting to give him a little support in the House. I can honestly say that if it weren't for the tremendous box of newspaper clippings that the Health critic is dragging up and down the corridor — the Health critic has left; he doesn't want to hear the truth — he would have absolutely nothing for this debate today. It's typical of his performance all during this session and in question period, when all he does is get up and read headlines and articles from the newspapers.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

As I have sat in this House over the past three years, I have become very discouraged listening to some of the debate that takes place from the opposition benches, particularly as it applies to sick people, senior citizens and the less fortunate people of the province. It's really disturbing to me, Mr. Chairman, how they have become such experts at riding the backs of sick people. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is cringing in her seat, because she is one of the real experts at riding on the backs of the less fortunate. If we go back through Hansard, if we check through all the question periods, it's obvious that this group came into this session this year thinking that there was going to be an election and the only way they could bring on an election was to do something dramatic — to ride on the backs of the sick people and the seniors of this province.

The member who left the chamber, the member for New Westminster. claimed during his speech yesterday that I am unfit to represent my constituency. Not only do I feel very fit indeed to look after mv constituency, but it's interesting to note that I have had the opportunity to help people from other constituencies, including New Westminster.

I'd like to tell you a true story about a lady who was having difficulty getting into the Royal Columbian Hospital. This information was passed along to me and I looked into the matter. I got in touch with this lady, and I gathered from her conversation that she was very concerned that there was a real possibility that the socialist party — the NDP, and particularly the Health critic for the NDP — would get hold of this little problem of hers and turn it into a political football. I was contacted, and I followed through by getting in touch with the proper people.

MS. BROWN: You're using it now.

MR. KEMPF: You'd use it for partisan purposes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to my left and the hon. member to my right, neither of whom has the floor, to refrain from commenting. They will have an opportunity to take their places in the debate.

MR. RITCHIE: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman,

This lady, as I have already said, was fearful of her little problem getting into the hands of the NDP and particularly the Health critic, the member for New Westminster. She was afraid that her name and her personal problem would become public knowledge, and that she would be used as a political football, as they have done with so many others, I made the proper contacts and looked after that constituent, as any responsible MLA should. They result was. of course, that the lady had her problem taken care of without any great delay at all.

That is only one, Mr. Chairman. There has been another since that time, concerning the Vancouver General Hospital. I'm going through this because I think it's important to point out to the House, and I hope that through the press it can be pointed out to the people of this province, that the responsibility of an MLA is not to take the problems of sick people and use them as a political football. It's not the responsibility of an MLA to come into this chamber and hold onto the problems of a constituent until it's politically profitable to use them publicly to attempt to disgrace our Minister of Health or our government. No, Mr. Chairman, it's the responsibility of an MLA to look into that matter and help that person.

[ Page 8964 ]

In this other case, the lady had been told by her surgeon that her surgery would have to be postponed for about five months. It was a simple matter for me, as an MLA, to contact the administrator of that hospital and ask him if he would have the surgeon or the doctor who had advised this lady that she could not have her surgery as required, but would have to wait four or five months because the government had reduced the funding to the hospital.... The outcome of that problem was that the lady was scheduled for her surgery very soon after I entered into the matter.

It's very important to have on record that the responsibility of an MLA is not to bring these problems to this chamber at question period or any other time, and use them to attempt to disgrace a minister or a government. Rather, the responsibility is to look after that person and see that the required attention is provided on time.

Mr. Chairman, during the debate on vote 45 the member for New Westminster made a number of remarks. One of them was that he was very disappointed that the members on this side of the House were leaving during his speech. It would be very simple for him to check the records, where he would see that all through this session the attendance record of the NDP is dismal — it's terrible. I don't believe it's much over 60 percent. That criticism is rather hard for us on this side of the House to accept, knowing our record for attendance. One member of the NDP is unable to be in the chamber due to illness; we wish him well, and a speedy recovery. But we also learned that one of their members, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), is allowed or is shipped off — we're not sure which — for a five-week holiday in Europe with full pay.

It's one thing to be critical of this side of the House having to leave during debates, because we have a lot of work. We are government and there are duties to be taken care of in the offices of cabinet ministers, etc. But we find an opposition party prepared to ship out one of their members on a five week holiday; that is disgraceful. The only reason I can see for that was the devastating remark beforehand, which really left a terrible aftermath of fear and anger, not only among those people who have been dealing with the particular bank he referred to, but also among the many senior citizens who had their little investments with that bank. There will be some benefit to this because today, I think, the fine which can apply should start — approximately $250 per day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: What vote are you on?

MR. RITCHIE: I'm on vote 45.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. member that currently we are on vote 45, the Ministry of Health estimates. In this particular committee we must be strictly relevant to those matters currently before us. I would ask the member to bear that in mind when continuing his remarks.

MR. RITCHIE: I thank you for that guidance, Mr. Chairman. It is very difficult for one to stay strictly within the vote being debated when you're attempting to respond to some of the remarks made by the opposition, remarks such as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) made here the other day in the House when he accused us of being political prostitutes — a terrible remark. In order to respond to some of the things that are said, there is a possibility that I may push the rules a little bit, or stray a little, and I know that you will keep me in my place. I will be pleased to respect the Chair.

The member for New Westminster talked about high flying expenses. Speaking of expenses, on March 14, 1974, the then Minister of Consumer Services sponsored a dinner in Victoria at a cost of $400. I believe there were about 20 people there. Of those $400, $250 was for food, $105 was for booze, and the balance would be for gratuities. In today's dollars, that would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $800, or approximately $40 per person attending that dinner. I bring this out only because we are really dealing with dollars and cents in this debate. We're being criticized because not enough dollars are being made available for health programs.

In 1973 that same minister joined the then Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition, on a fishing trip. We have heard criticism come across the floor at us because of certain per diem charges, but listen to this one. This was a fishing trip that lasted all day. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Premier of the province inviting one of his colleagues on a fishing trip. We don't know exactly who paid the rental on the boats, but what is wrong with this particular fishing trip was that the taxpayers of British Columbia were the suckers, because it was the taxpayers of British Columbia that paid the per diem charge made by that member. Here we have a minister of the Crown, along with the Premier of the province, out on a fishing trip in 1973, and charging the taxpayers of this province a $25 per diem. Shame on you! Shame on you that you should sit across the floor there and criticize members of this side with all these silly little charges....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is having some difficulty, associating in any way whatsoever the remarks of the member with vote 45. While a certain amount of latitude is allowed in maybe referring to a point in comparison, the Chair must advise the member at this time that his current debate in no way meets the requirements of the standing orders of the House. I would advise him to carry on with the discussion on vote 45.

MR. RITCHIE: I appreciate the guidance, but I find it so difficult to respond truly and accurately to the statements and the speeches of the members of the opposition, because they are all over the ball park. Just over the past hour in this chamber we have heard them talking about turkeys, megaprojects, personal expenses and all sorts of things. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for bringing me into line, and I certainly expect that should I get out of line again you'll do so again.

I feel very strongly that here we are talking about dollars and cents.... We're being criticized, because there aren't enough dollars being put into health-care programs, for expense accounts and all of the little, trifling things that go on from day to day. At the same time there is seldom an opportunity to respond to the hypocrites on that side of the House that would have the audacity to bring such things up, when they know themselves exactly what their record is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, while the term hypocritical is allowable, the designation to another hon. member in this House is not permissible. I would ask the member to withdraw that particular reference as it would pertain specifically to another member of this House.

[ Page 8965 ]

MR. RITCHIE: I really wasn't reflecting on any particular member. But if it's offending the opposition I'll be pleased to withdraw the description — although it suits very well. I withdraw the remark.

The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) is in the House now. We've heard all of the talk about the expenses of first-class travel and how we're taking this extra money out of the hospital system and using it up on first-class travel for some of our members. On October 29, 1974, first-class tickets to and from Ottawa were purchased through Bayshore Travel for people by the names of Dave Barrett and Harvey Beech. I can only conclude that that was the Premier of the day, that person who is always so critical of the spending on this side. He who would never admit to travelling first class did indeed travel first class to and from Ottawa on October 29, 1974. Then, as they continued to dip into the public trough, as they have often accused us of doing, on October 12, 1975, that same member, the then Premier of the province and now Leader of the Opposition, Dave Barrett, along with a Mr. John Wood, also travelled to and from Ottawa on first-class tickets.

We have sat on this side of the House all through this session, and almost daily we have listened to the opposition harping and whining and being critical of some of the actions of our ministers — actions that are normal with the responsibility that goes with the position. I'm not being critical of the then Premier of the province travelling first class, but I don't think he and his colleagues should be using that now to criticize this government, when they themselves know what they did. Where was that money coming from?

I'm on vote 45, and I'm talking about taking taxpayers' dollars and putting them into health care. I'm responding to criticism from the opposition with respect to spending and how this spending is hurting those who need health care. The situation in 1975 shows that the taxpayers of British Columbia were gouged badly at that time, yet we have heard criticism of some of our members who found it necessary to use taxis when they visited other cities and other countries.

Between June 18 and 26, 1975, the taxpayers of British Columbia paid out a total of $811.64 — and listen to this to Daimler Hire Ltd. of London, England.

AN HON. MEMBER: What for?

MR. RITCHIE: Well, $811.64 covered the cost of chauffeur-driven limousines. They didn't just pick up a taxi; these were limousines. These weren't ordinary limousines; these were Daimlers, because they had to put on a show in London.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind the member that, while the points the member is covering may be appropriate at some place in debate, the Chair is finding it increasingly difficult to allow the member to continue with his line of debate under the estimates currently before us. As the Chair has pointed out on numerous occasions, hon. members, simply relating other matters which may be used as a comparison for health figures will not allow us to canvass those other matters. We must be specifically relevant to the vote before us, which is the Ministry of Health, vote 45, minister's office. On that we may have a very wide-ranging debate, but the Chair must advise the member that he is bordering on irrelevancy. The debate that he is currently engaged in is straining the rules of the House to the maximum.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I think there may be a way around this, so that the member can have his freedom of speech. If he were to ask leave to make a statement, I think we'd be quite willing to give him that permission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order by the member would maybe have some validity if we were in the House, but in committee we cannot give such leave. We are bound by the rules which the House commands us to adhere to in this committee.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, as I've said before, I can appreciate the difficult position that you're in. My feelings today have developed over a period of time spent listening to the debate from the other side of the House where they do nothing but criticize some of the spending of our government members or cabinet ministers, do nothing but criticize us for taking money away from health care. This goes on and on and on, Mr. Chairman, and I cannot, under any circumstances, avoid breaking the rules. I'm simply responding to the things they've been saying right along, which have been breaking the rules of this House all through this session.

How can I express my feelings about what has been going on over there if I'm restricted to this vote 45 and cannot respond? The member for New Westminster talked about megaprojects, about Pouilly-Fuissé wine, about high-flying expense accounts, and on and on. All I want to get on the record is that they cannot continue to do that and have the people believe them. I have people in my constituency, particularly senior citizens, who are very concerned because of the things being said by those members on the other side of the House. It is for that reason that I have wanted for some time the opportunity to respond to some of the things said by the opposition. All we have to do is go back in the Blues: nothing but scare tactics, nothing but falsehoods; talk about expenses; don't do as we do, do as we say.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot be contained when I find out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett)....

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. First, the member says he cannot be contained. Well, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that for a start you contain him.

The second point is that the member is a member of public accounts, and that is where the member should bring these vouchers that he has to have them discussed, as indeed every member has been so warned, so directed and so ordered to do. I can promise the member that as chairman I will, under the rules by which that committee operates, do my level best to make sure his urge for expression and his desire not be contained will be given full expression.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. Again, I have to advise the member for Central Fraser Valley that we are limited to what we may or may not bring into a particular piece of legislation before this committee. We are currently on the estimates of the Ministry of Health, the minister's office. Under that particular section the member is free to have a very wide-ranging debate on the Ministry of Health. He is not free, however, to range into matters which would be canvassed more appropriately at another time or in another place.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but I repeat that it's very difficult in this House to respond truly and

[ Page 8966 ]

accurately to the comments of the opposition. The second member for Surrey just got on his feet on a point of order to tell this House that these are supposed to be dealt with in public accounts. He is again misleading this House by saying so, because he should know better that these accounts cannot be dealt with in public accounts. We're restricted in public accounts to dealing with the report at hand, which is the year 1981-82.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HALL: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I most respectfully ask you to bring the member to order. I also ask for the protection from the Chair against this wild member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, again — and for the last time — the Chair will caution the member for Central Fraser Valley that the rule of relevance is one of long-standing tradition in this House, and it has now been brought to the member's attention — in the opinion of the Chair, satisfactorily — a number of times. The member now will either carry on with his debate under the appropriate section or the Chair will have to intervene.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I really apologize for expressing my feelings here today, but I speak on behalf of many people in my constituency who hear these frightening remarks from the opposition about health care. They're the ones I'm concerned about, and I want them to know exactly what goes on over here. I have risen in my place here before and expressed my concern about the level of debate from the opposition, and about the way they dig around in the mud in order to find something that would be politically profitable to them. If it weren't for the newspapers of this province, they would have absolutely nothing coming in here.

Mr. Chairman, I am on vote 45. I'm talking about policy, spending and health care. I'm talking about those who would be so critical of our government on some of our spending, accusing us of taking it away from the health-care program, when we know that right here in the records it shows.... I certainly hope that the press in the gallery will look into this and see for themselves.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: They're not here at the moment, but I'm sure they're listening. On June 18, 1975, to June 26, 1975, the taxpayers of British Columbia paid out $811.64 to Daimler Hire Ltd. of London, England.

Mr. Chairman, if that group over there are going to be permitted to continue with the type of debate they have been continuing with all through this session, then these things must come out. The public must know about it. The cost of these limousines and this Mercedes-Benz saloon....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair, having advised the member that his current line of debate is out of order, will now have to advise the member that under standing orders I must instruct the member to take his place and yield the floor to another member who is prepared to address the vote before us. I so instruct the member to take his place.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'm really surprised at that. I feel that I should be allowed to continue and respond to some of the statements that have been made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The Chair has reached a decision on the matter. That concludes that particular aspect.

MS. BROWN: One of the statements made by the previous member at the beginning of his participation in this debate had to do with a woman, I think he said, in his riding who needed to have some surgery done. She was informed by her doctor that it would be a wait of some months. So as the MLA for the riding, he intervened on her behalf, and the surgery was carried through much more quickly; she was moved up the waiting list. The minister, earlier, in responding to some of the questions from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), also made the statement that any of the members of the House who had constituents with health care problems who needed immediate attention should bring this matter to his attention, and he would try to expedite as quickly as possible.

I think those two statements demonstrate, clearly and precisely, what the opposition is opposed to in the delivery of health care in this province. We cannot support the concept of health care by patronage. In other words, only those people who contact their MLAs and whose MLAs intervene on their behalf get speedy attention. That is precisely what the debate is all about: that every British Columbian should have equal access to the health-care system, regardless of whether they contact their MLAs or whether the minister has been informed of their problems.

Every time an MLA intervenes on behalf of a constituent to have someone moved up a waiting list, someone is burnped from that list. That is preferential treatment being given because that person used the access he has to his member of the Legislature. That is not a good way for a health-care system to work. That is precisely what the opposition has been trying to get through to the member and the minister. It is not good enough for the minister to say: "If any member has a problem on behalf of a constituent bring it to my attention, and I will have my ministry investigate and the matter dealt with as quickly as possible."

We would like to see in this province a health-care system that is so efficient and working so well on behalf of all British Columbians that it is never necessary for a constituent to have to bring a problem either directly to the minister or through his representative to the minister.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Well, the member for Kamloops is saying: "Then there's no need for MLAs."

MR. RICHMOND: No, I didn't say that. I said: "Never anything wrong. Never a problem." Utopia, no matter what the cost.

[ Page 8967 ]

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was saying.

I would like to repeat, however — and I hope the minister will respond to this in his response — that a good health-care system makes it unnecessary for anyone to have to go to the media, through his MLA or directly to the minister to ask for a case to be expedited. The situation that we are facing in the province now is that a number of people are finding that they have to use the patronage route. They have to go either directly to the minister or through a member of this House in order to have their cases expedited, and that is not good enough. We would like to see the health-care system improved so that that unfortunate system is no longer necessary.

However, what I would specifically like to speak about, make some comments on and ask some questions about today is the delivery of health-care services to children. I'm glad to see that.... I think the minister's director of planning is on the floor. Some of the things I'm going to raise could use the scrutiny of the director of planning in terms of how they're going to be dealt with. Children, I think, are probably the most defenceless members of our society, when you think about it — well, maybe not yours or mine, but certainly sick and disabled children are. That is why it is so important that the kinds of services that are in place in our society for sick and disabled children — or even for healthy children — should be the best that it is possible for our society to afford,

[Mr. King in the chair.]

I'm first going to speak specifically about disabled children, and then about sick children. We've been very lucky in this province that we've had an institution dedicated to serving the needs of disabled children who have needed rehabilitation treatment and long-term care. I am speaking about Sunny Hill Hospital. Although Sunny Hill Hospital is located in the Vancouver area, it's a hospital which serves the entire province. It serves all of the children of the province who have need for the rehabilitation services and the kind of long-term care which the hospital is equipped to give.

As a direct result of the fiscal restraint policies of the government, Sunny Hill Hospital has found that it has to cut back on some of the services to these children. I know that in his response to me the minister will point out that Sunny Hill Hospital actually got an increase in their budget this year of 7 percent. But in view of the fact that the actual increase that they have to deal with as a result of inflation is about 17 percent — and I'm quoting figures which were given to me when I received a carbon copy of a letter sent to the minister — the hospital is finding that it's faced with an effective decrease of 10 percent. I notice that the minister is probably trying to find the particular brief that I'm speaking from. To jog his memory, I'll tell him that it comes from the Sunny Hill auxiliary association and it was addressed to him and I received a carbon copy of it.

I'm not going to ask the minister if he's ever visited Sunny Hill Hospital, because, even if he has, I don't think that a visit to the hospital tells you anything at all about it. Actually, I think it would be much more useful for the minister if he spoke to some of the parents who have children in Sunny Hill Hospital, spent some time with some of the people who work there. and then after that spent some time at the hospital itself. Part of my responsibility when I worked as a counsellor at Simon Fraser University, prior to coming into the Legislature, was to be responsible for a volunteer program at the university. Part of the volunteering component was that students volunteered their time — not for any credit; they did not get any university credit for this at all — to work in the community. They chose to work with children at the Sunny Hill Hospital. As a result of that responsibility I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time at Sunny Hill Hospital.

A number of things happen at Sunny Hill Hospital which are often referred to under the heading of "recreation and play," but in fact aren't recreation. I think that when we read that Sunny Hill Hospital has had to reduce its recreation budget, and had to lay off its music therapist, we may be inclined to think: "Well, recreation, what's the big deal?" Recreation at Sunny Hill Hospital, for those children, is therapy. When those students used to volunteer to help with the swimming program, of course it was fun for the kids to go swimming. But more important than that, it was an opportunity for those children to get some motor exercises for their limbs. It was really part of the therapy. It was part of the rehabilitation process. It was also part of the socialization process for those children. It really wasn't just recreation. It was part of helping them to become self-reliant, to feel secure at the same time as they were feeling pleasure at being able to swim despite the fact that they couldn't walk. That's what that recreation was all about. And when those students used to spend time with some of those children at Sunny Hill, tossing a ball back and forth, they weren't just playing a game of catch. It was the whole idea of developing eye-and-hand, motor coordination, stimulating the messages that went from the eye to the brain to the hand, to decide at what time the hand would go up to catch the ball — and over and over again missing the ball, and yet never giving up until eventually one day the whole thing would come into place. That's the kind of thing which is referred to as recreation, but which in fact is a very important part of the rehabilitation treatment and therapy which those children at Sunny Hill need and must have.

I was so upset when I learned that one of the people to be cut at Sunny Hill, as a direct result of this fiscal restraint program, was the music therapist. There are some children at Sunny Hill who respond to absolutely nothing else but music — no response whatsoever. You try talking to them, you try to relate to them through touching or some other way, and there is no response. But with music, somehow that gets through. The music therapy program is usually, for some of those children, just the beginning of the rehabilitation process. Now Sunny Hill has found, as a direct result of not receiving sufficient funding from the government, that they have had to lay off their music therapist.

Mr. Chairman, Sunny Hill also has an integrated day care. One of the things that we talk about on both sides of the House, and have no opposition whatsoever to, is our goal of integrating people with disabilities back into the community, rather than having them in large institutions. This whole community-living concept is one which has the complete support of every member in this House. Part of that integration process at Sunny Hill takes place in the day care. That is one resource which is going to have to go by the boards as a direct result of Sunny Hill's budget not being sufficient to handle that.

The letter from the auxiliary also introduced another concept, and that is the use of Sunny Hill as a system of parent relief. It is possible that parents of a very severely disabled

[ Page 8968 ]

child, with a physical or mental disability, from time to time need some respite and some rest. They can have that child admitted to Sunny Hill, knowing full well that the child will receive the best of care and attention during his or her stay there, and that the parents can have a break, either to take a short holiday, or to take a business trip, or just to give the family a rest. In a number of instances, simply removing the child from the home for a short period of time would give the other children and the parents some time with each other. That is one of the programs that Sunny Hill delivers which is so important in terms of the mental health of not just the child who is placed there, but certainly of the parents as well.

In her letter this parent goes on to say:

"Parents are the cheapest care-givers possible. However, if they give up or break up, as often happens, it costs the province $50 to $150 a day to sustain this child in hospital, probably less to sustain one parent and a child on welfare. Parents without relief are prone to break down from exhaustion, loss of employment, violent behaviour, etc."

She goes on to talk about the impact of this funding decrease on Sunny Hill: "The environment has changed from one of growth, stimulation and progress to one of regression in the children and frustration in the hard-worked staff." This issue is not a figment of the imagination of the opposition. This is a direct quote from two parents of the Sunny Hill auxiliary association who sent this to the minister, with carbon copies to a number of MLAs.

These parents are talking about what I think is really the most tragic aspect of this restraint program, which is the regression in those children. When members on the government side talk about restraint, they say: "We have to have restraint so that all those fat-cat civil servants stop eating at the public trough." The real impact of restraint is the cutback in services to the most defenceless members of our society, such as these children in Sunny Hill, and their subsequent regression. No longer is it an environment of growth, stimulation and progress; instead, increased boredom and regression in the children and frustration in the hard-worked staff. The parents go on to say that these children are not getting the attention and support they need to develop and feel cared for away from home. This parent says that Sunny Hill is at once a home, a school, a convalescing ward, a rehabilitative facility and a training centre for disabled children.

As I said earlier — I want to repeat it — I think we are very fortunate in this province to have had Sunny Hill Hospital. We have had the good fortune of watching Sunny Hill become better with each passing year, giving better care and better service to those children. Now we find that Sunny Hill is not only having to lay off some of the vital members of its staff but, as the administrator says, as well as the music therapy program, five pre-school teachers had to go, and the activity workers. These are not the people who deal specifically with the physical care of the children, with keeping the children clean. These are the people who deal with the stimulation of those children, making it possible for them to grow and develop, to the limited extent that this can happen. It's hard to decide really who is the more important, the staff who take care of their physical needs or the staff who take care of their emotional and growth needs.

I don't know how Sunny Hill made their decision, but I know they shouldn't have had to make that decision. Whether or not we need fiscal restraint, the Minister of Health should have been absolutely firm that the service to disabled children in this province should not be cut, He should have fought tooth and nail with Treasury Board and his cabinet to protect the service to these children.

The minister has a number of letters from parents of children in Sunny Hill; they have sent copies to other MLAs, including myself and the critic. The handicapped resource centre sent a letter to the minister, pointing out that Sunny Hill provides a unique service in this province. For many years it was the only hospital that did. Now, thank goodness, it isn't. But in many respects, it's still the best; at least it used to be until this latest restraint program on the part of the minister.

Here's a letter from another parent talking about the integrated day-care program and how useful it has been for their children.

Hartman House. I have letters from other parents talking about the long-range damage and effect of the cutbacks of the recreational programs on Saturday mornings and after 4 o'clock in the afternoon for children under six. These children can't fight back. There's absolutely nothing that they can do about the government's decision to destroy the quality of care delivered by Sunny Hill Hospital.

They can't hurt the minister, vote against the minister or anything. They can't fight back in anyway whatsoever. Precisely because of that, the minister should have fought on their behalf. Precisely because they are so defenceless and vulnerable, the minister should have seen to it that Sunny Hill Hospital had the funding that it needed to ensure that these children get the kind of care and nurturing that they had and need. They ask so little — they really do — out of life. They're being deprived of even that as a direct result of this government's policies. The government members stand on the floor of this House and talk about fiscal restraint without ever once mentioning the real impact of fiscal restraint on the most defenceless members of our society.

I think it was in 1980 that the minister commissioned an interministerial study of the needs of and services available to severely handicapped children and adolescents. We've been waiting for that study to be released. There is information in that study that surely is of importance not just to the minister, but to other people in the province as well. Mr. John Talbot, the coordinator, completed the survey. We were told on February 16, 1981, that that survey was completed and that the study would be released by the end of March. We're still waiting for that. We were told that the first draft was completed, and in June 1981 we were again told that the study was going to be released any moment now. We're still waiting for that particular study.

I think that study must indicate very clearly to the minister the shortfall in terms of the delivery of health care to disabled children in this province. That's one of the things I hope the director of planning and legislation in the minister's department is looking at. I hope that that study is now in that director's hands, and that some of the recommendations in that study in terms of dealing with the holes and shortfalls in the system are going to be implemented. It is quite possible, when the minister responds, which I certainly hope he will, that he will indicate that in fact that has already started, and that giving additional funding to a facility like Sunny Hill Hospital is something that's already on the drawing board, that the rehiring of the activity workers and the recreational staff, and the reopening of the swimming pool, outdoor campgrounds and those kinds of services are imminent.

[ Page 8969 ]

I want to add, Mr. Chairman, that as important as they are, volunteers alone can't do it. There has to be paid supervisory staff to supervise what the volunteers are doing and ultimately take responsibility for the children. I know that Sunny Hill has a lot of dedicated, hardworking volunteers. I know they're trying to do the job that's being left undone as a result of these cutbacks, but volunteers alone can't do it. I'm hoping that when the minister responds, Mr. Chairman, he will give some indication that there is additional funding available for Sunny Hill and that it will soon be up to full staff.

Another service which is used by children and adolescents in the province — and I'm now dealing with the family and child unit at the Eric Martin Pavilion.... Dr. Phillip Ney, who started that unit and certainly has been one of the pioneers in the whole area of family and child services, I had and still have the pleasure of knowing — he's a very old and very good friend, and both our families have been friends for a number of years — so I have some understanding of the thought that went into the planning of that particular unit. They soon recognized, Mr. Chairman, that there really wasn't a service anywhere on Vancouver Island which addressed itself to the most severely ill adolescents and their families — and I'm talking about mental illness. He also recognizes that a large number of these children — and I'm going to refer to the statistics later — come to him through the justice system; they are referrals from the Attorney-General's ministry or through the Ministry of Human Resources. Like every other child, they were born into this world with everything going for them, and then, as a result of circumstances beyond their control, they ended up with some form of severe mental problem and needed psychiatric care — not just as individuals, but the whole family needed it. I just want to say very quickly about the Eric Martin family and child unit....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The three-minute warning light is on.

MR. COCKE: I'll intervene.

MS. BROWN: Would you? My colleague is going to intervene on my behalf, Mr. Chairman, so that I can speak at greater length about the Eric Martin. Oh, my colleague is not going to intervene; I am not through.

Mr. Chairman, the adolescent unit of the Eric Martin Pavilion has had to cut back from operating seven days a week and dealing with ten adolescents — that is 70 adolescents a week — to a five-day week, and the number of adolescents that it's able to deal with has been reduced to six. So it has gone from dealing with 70 to dealing with 30. In addition, the unit is going to be closed for the entire month of August. This certainly didn't happen last year, and it is quite possible — and I could be wrong about this; the minister, I know, will set me straight — that this is the first time that that unit has had to close for an entire month. As a direct result of this, what we're finding.... Certainly what I found when I visited the detention centre here in Victoria was that there were children in the detention centre who should have been on the sixth floor at the Eric Martin but who couldn't get in because, as I said, there has been a reduction in the number of adolescents that they're able to handle. So these children are placed in the detention centre and then referred to a private psychiatrist and have a one-to-one situation rather than the kind of family and group therapy that they used to have — or that they should have and would have had if they had been able to get on the sixth floor, the family and child unit of the Eric Martin.

The other thing about this unit, of course, is that it doesn't only serve Vancouver Island, I discovered. In fact, a number of children from Prince George and other areas used to be referred to this particular unit, because it was such a good unit, an excellent unit, and it probably still is, except that its capacity to deal with adolescents has been curtailed by more than 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, I regret that my green light had now turned to red and that I have no option but to relinquish my place, but I hope that the minister will deal with my questions.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be brief and I'm going to deal with restraint, at least the kind of restraint which is being exercised in respect to health care in this province. I checked again with the staff of the Health ministry, and my understanding is that expenditures through the Health ministry this year will be up 14 percent, as opposed to last year. If we assume that inflation runs at a 10 percent rate during the next 12 months, this is a 4 percent increase in real expenditure. In other words, expenditure is up proportionately more than all other activity in this province, again in the current fiscal year. If this is restraint, it's a unique kind of restraint. There's more money proportionately available for health than ever before. There's more money available for health proportionately out of the provincial budget than ever before. There's more money relative to any other activity in the province. So it's a unique kind of restraint — 4 percent real increase in health-care activity in the province. This is a projection, admittedly, but it's a projection that follows faithfully in line with the experience of the last half-dozen years.

I want to refer to a recent paper published in the Canadian Tax Journal. the March-April 1982 edition. The paper was prepared for the Economic Council of Canada, and the author was Constantine Kapsalis. The author tells us several interesting things. He endeavours to prove that the new style of block funding by the federal government, of its share of health-care expenditures across Canada, hasn't had a marked impact on health care throughout the nation over the last half-dozen years. The author looks at the health expenditures of the various provinces, rates them, and shows conclusively that British Columbia has led the pack throughout this period.

On page 223 of that study, we find that over the last half-dozen years — from 1975-76, when the present government assumed power, to 1980-81 — it gained on the rest of the nation 14 percent precisely. It was 14 percent up on Canada as a whole. A number of provinces, instead of going up relative to the Canadian average, fell back. I'm talking about healthcare expenditures of all kinds. New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba fell behind the Canadian parade. British Columbia moved ahead faster than any other province in respect to health care. British Columbia led even Alberta, which was up 11 percent over that six-year period compared to the Canadian average. British Columbia, as I said before, was up 14 percent. A remarkable performance, and I don't think most people appreciate it, certainly the opposition doesn't recognize it. As I said at the outset, we're moving on up again; this current fiscal year we're 4 percent ahead of last year, in real terms. All the numbers I've been referring to are

[ Page 8970 ]

in real terms; inflation and deflation have been taken out of these statistics.

To repeat, British Columbia has led the nation in terms of increases in expenditure on health care. It's led all provinces, let alone the nation. It's out ahead of Alberta.

Another statistic published by the Canadian Tax Foundation, which is an independent body, is this: all provinces as a proportion of their provincial budget have health-care expenditures which fall in the 25 percent to 30 percent range — 25 percent to 30 percent of their total provincial budgets are spent on health care. British Columbia this year will be spending in the order of 33 percent, again the highest proportion of any provincial budget in the nation. So our health expenditures, which all members recognize have been growing at a rate of between 15 percent and 20 percent a year, running ahead of all of Canada, running ahead of each and every province, have now put us in a position where we're spending more of our provincial tax income on health care than is the case with any other province. This year we're up 4 percent in real terms, and 14 percent in budgetary terms; 14 percent, seen in a context of let's say a 6 percent Canada-wide guideline, is a remarkable increase in real health care effort. How anyone can talk about restraint as it applies to health care expenditures in this province defeats me.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to continue on that, and I think the minister must be absolutely fascinated when he tries to reconcile the statements made by his colleague who just sat down with what he knows is actually happening. How can one reconcile the kinds of increases that that member just talked about with the kinds of things that are happening to places like Sunny Hill Hospital? How can one reconcile the kinds of increases, the 14 to 15 percent increases that that member just told us about, with the kinds of things that are happening to the sixth floor at the Eric Martin Pavilion at the Royal Jubilee? I'm not even mentioning the other cutbacks in other hospitals, because I am confining my remarks to services to children.

Maybe the director of planning needs to play a more active role in decisions being made by that ministry. I don't know. Maybe it's just gross mismanagement that we're witnessing. Maybe it's just gross incompetence; I don't know. I'm certainly not going to refute his figures, but the facts remain and are there that a vital resource like Sunny Hill Hospital is unable to meet the needs of the children of this province and the family and children's unit at Eric Martin Institute is having to cut back on its services despite the kinds of increases that that member is talking about. Maybe the minister can reconcile these two things when he stands up to respond.

However, back to the Eric Martin. I want to read into the record part of an editorial dated June 18 from the Times Colonist — just two things that it said.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That is not true. Obviously the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was not in the House and did not hear the statements which I made about Sunny Hill Hospital without benefit of newspaper. If he would like, I will repeat all 30 minutes of them for his benefit.

However, in referring to the family unit at the hospital, the editorial said:

"The family unit...was a place where children with severe personality problems could be brought to live for five weeks. The staff worked not just with them, but endeavoured to draw the family together — the best long-term hope in such cases. Now, under government-imposed budget restraint, a day-care program will replace all of this, meaning reduced help for fewer people.

"Reducing the program at the Jubilee for disturbed children will save money, but one shudders at the debts in policing costs, court services, probation, perhaps even j ail services, which may be piling up for payment in the years ahead. The humanitarian aspect aside, this is one budget cutback which doesn't sound like good business."

All I was suggesting, Mr. Chairman, was that to place the Royal Jubilee in such a position that this unit has to reduce the number of adolescent children that it's able to serve, at a time when everyone agrees that the need for the service should be expanding rather than contracting, is not a good budgetary decision. In the long term, it's going to be much more expensive than any amount of money that's saved at this time by reducing that service.

I want to raise another issue that has to do with the responsibility that this ministry has for children. Part of the responsibility through its community care facility service is the inspection and licensing of day-care centres — and its family day-care centres in particular that I would like to talk about at this time. I'm not going to — I forgot what the word is that I'm not going to do....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: You're not going to talk very long, we hope.

MS. BROWN: You know, we never hear from the member for Omineca unless there are wolves involved. If we were dealing with the minister responsible for wolves, that member would be on his feet, bleeding all over this chamber. But because we're talking about children he has nothing to say. If only he would care for kids half as much as he cares for wolves, he would probably bring some pressure to bear on that minister to improve the delivery of health care to the children of this province And I'm not suggesting that we turn the children into wolves just to get his attention.

The ministry is now abrogating its responsibilities in terms of annual — at least as a minimum — inspections of these child-care facilities. As a direct result of changes made through legislation, on which I'm not reflecting, the minister has eliminated the compulsion to investigate and inspect those facilities at least once annually. That was all the legislation asked for: a minimum of one inspection a year. Of course, there was incredible flexibility, allowing the ministry to inspect every day of the year if that seemed necessary, or whatever number of times. Now the compulsion of at least one inspection a year has been removed. As a direct result, a number of day-care operators and associations are requesting that the minister seriously reconsider his responsibilities in this area. They believe, in fact, that not only should the compulsion be returned to the act for at least one annual inspection, but also the encouragement for many more inspections each year. They feel it is not good enough simply to confine the responsibilities of the community care licensing

[ Page 8971 ]

facilities to inspecting these places once a year. It certainly is not good enough to say that even that annual inspection is no longer necessary.

A letter went to the minister from the Vancouver Island Day Care Operators Association asking that the ministry return to its former policy, or indeed increase that policy. There is also a letter from the B.C. Family DayCare Association. This one I think should also be read into the record. The members of the B.C. Family DayCare Association, referring to Health's responsibility, would like to see the original regulations returned and strengthened. They object to the fact that they've been weakened, and say that this weakening undermines the whole purpose for including the regulations in the first place. They ask: "What safeguards will now exist to ensure that a safe environment is provided if the decision to inspect is left so arbitrary?"

When I spoke on this issue earlier, I brought to the minister's attention that by simply relinquishing this responsibility for at least one annual inspection, the minister was opening up the entire field to the private, for-profit day-care corporations. Corporate day care has always refused to do business in British Columbia because the restrictions were so stringent. British Columbia cared enough about the children who were using those facilities to insist on regular inspections, and on high quality in terms of the delivery of service by those centres, and certainly in terms of the facilities themselves. That has now been relaxed, so corporate day care has open range. They can move into the province at any time. In British Columbia we will begin to experience what they have in Alberta, Ontario and other provinces, where these groups — the McDonald's of day care, they're called — have set up shop. Immediately, the quality of service and care of the children begins to deteriorate, and they are placed in jeopardy.

I am bringing that to the attention of the minister, as well as a letter that he also received from the child care project, White Rock Coordinating Centre, asking him to revert at least to the original policy of insisting on annual inspections, or indeed to strengthen that.

There was an instance in this province where, unfortunately, an accident occurred in one of the day cares. As a result there was a coroner's hearing, and some recommendations were made to that hearing. One of the recommendations was that there should be a more regular system of inspection, that regulations should be more strongly enforced, and that there should be stiffer licensing procedures in terms of family day care. I don't want to leave the impression that family day cares in the province are not being well run, but the family day care association themselves are asking that inspections be carried out at least once annually on their membership, if not more often. These requests are not coming from parents, and they're certainly not coming from politicians. These requests are coming from the Vancouver Island Day Care Operators Association, the B.C. Family DayCare Association, and the child care project, White Rock Coordination Centre. These are just three of the umbrella groups made up of family day-care groups who are saying to the minister that this relaxing — of requirements is not in the best interests of the children who have to use those day-care facilities.

The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, has got to be what's in the best interest of the children, despite the comments made by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) about the increase in the budget for health. The bottom line has got to be the quality of care which the children in this province get — not dollars and cents.

The Maples. That's another story about the failure of our health-care system to deal with disturbed children, to deal with the sick adolescents who need facilities. Maybe the minister will be able to give us for once and for all some definitive statements as to exactly when those additional beds are going to come on stream at The Maples, and when the children are going to be able to have access to them.

Another problem which the system is not addressing itself to is the fact that, as a result of the program, the one psychologist attached to the school system in the Prince George area — and the member responsible isn't here — who had responsibility for all of the assessments done, either for the Attorney-General's ministry or for the education system, has had her service terminated as a direct result of the fiscal restraint program. I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, for us always to remember that when government members and ministers stand on their feet and talk about the fiscal restraint program — which is being directed specifically at public sector workers earning too much money — the bottom line and end result of that program is cutbacks in health care. That's what the restraint program is all about. It has nothing to do with wages or salaries; it has to do with cutbacks in services to children through the health-care system and, as other of my colleagues will talk about, certainly cutbacks in services to seniors and to others.

I have two other topics. This has to do with the pre-natal testing Of expectant mothers over the age of 35. On May 5 the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), in a question to the minister, raised the issue that pre-natal diagnosis for Down's syndrome and other genetic abnormalities now provided by the B.C. medical plan only applies to women 38 years of age and over. When asked at that time whether he would consider lowering the age to 35 the minister said that he could not make a statement at this moment but that the matter was under "active consideration." I like the inclusion of the word "active" there. because it means that it really is happening. I'm wondering whether the minister is prepared at this time to make a statement about reducing the age. Although I like the idea that my colleague from New Westminster suggested, 35, I want to bring to the minister's attention that the study by Dr. Sadovnick, associate professor of medical genetics at UBC, actually suggested age 34. She did a cost analysis — I don't know if the minister gets the Medical Journal. so I'll give him this information — and found that in fact the amniocentesis test costs the patient approximately $570. If it's simply ultra sonography, that costs about $190. Another test, the alphafetoprotein test, costs $270. She compared that with the approximate cost of caring for a child with spina bifida, for example, which is approximately $84,000, or for a child with Down's syndrome, which is approximately $196,000 in today's dollars. She goes on to say that the result....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What are you reading from now?

MS. BROWN: I'm reading from the British Columbia Medical Journal, volume 24, number 4, April 1982, for the benefit of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who just woke up and who's been sleeping since his last interjection.

[ Page 8972 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's a personal allusion.

MS. BROWN: What? He hasn't been sleeping?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, will members not interject while the member is speaking.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the accusation that the minister was sleeping; he was thinking with his eyes closed, but not sleeping.

MR. KEMPF: You can do one better than that; you can sleep on your feet.

MS. BROWN: There goes Wolfman again.

Quoting from the findings of this research, she says: "The results from these analyses are that it would be economically beneficial to expand the present pre-natal diagnosis program so that it could be offered to women over 34 years of age and to second- and third-degree relatives of individuals with NTD."

The minister also received a letter from a woman aged 36, a concerned mother-to-be who had to pay $300 for her amniocentesis test. She suggested that, as a result of the research being done in this area, lowering the age to 34 may be a good idea.

I'm hoping the minister is now ready to make a statement indicating that in fact the lowering of the age to 34 and over, as well as extending it to relatives — I think it's aunts — and other individuals, is going to happen.

Until quite recently Burnaby General Hospital had a nurse on its staff who was specifically trained to deal with ostomy. She was an enterostomal therapist. At the hospital's expense she was sent away to do this additional training at St. Paul's, and has been working at the Burnaby General for some time. Oh, I'm sorry; she said in her letter: "I took special training at my expense" — it was not at the hospital's expense — "and became a certified enterostomal therapist." She took the training with the approval of the assistant administrator of the hospital. Unfortunately the hospital now finds that, as a direct result of the fiscal restraint policies of this government, it is no longer able to afford this nurse in this particular position. She's now back on the ward doing regular duty. In her letter — which went to the minister and which I received only a carbon copy; it's dated June 21, 1982, if the minister has it — she talks about the kinds of problems which she dealt with of dealing with patients — there is no need to read it, since the minister has the letter in front of him — as well as about some of the psychological and social implications of the work that she did with older patients, with colostomy patients, with ileostomy patients and with urinary-diversion patients in terms of home care. In short, what she was doing was saving the health-care system money. It was a good financial investment for the hospital to hire her in this role. However, Burnaby General finds that it has had to let her go. It is no longer possible for them to be able to afford her. The hospital had 35 beds last year during the summer, and this year they've had to close 36 beds permanently and an additional 18 beds for the summer. They find that they have 45 long-term care patients occupying acute-care beds.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No one is interested in what's happening to Burnaby General Hospital?

AN HON. MEMBER: I am.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) please come to order.

MS. BROWN: Burnaby General Hospital enjoys an occupancy rate of 90 percent, because its catchment area goes beyond Burnaby. It also serves people in surrounding areas; a lot of its patients come from the east end of Vancouver and some from Coquitlam, and when there is an overflow, even from New Westminster. It has had a staff reduction the equivalent of 93 full-time staff. The elective-surgery waiting-list stands at 737.

The minister often uses the word "elective" as though elective surgery is simply removing an ingrown toenail or something like that. Maybe, if he doesn't explain in more detail to the House some of the serious operations that come under the heading of elective surgery, the critic will do so when he stands on his feet again, or I certainly will. There's a waiting-list as of the end of June of 737. Waiting-time for surgery is approximately six weeks, average, and the hospital deals with something in the neighbourhood of 650 surgeries per month.

The most important thing about Burnaby General Hospital is that it budgets to the line. It never pads. It doesn't even put in an extra aspirin or band-aid. There is no fat to be trimmed. There is no excess or extras whatsoever. As a direct result of being so responsible in putting their budgets together, Burnaby General and consequently the residents of Burnaby, the east end of Vancouver, Coquitlam and New Westminster who use Burnaby General are penalized because of the fiscal restraint policies of the government.

Burnaby General is impeccable in its relationship with the minister. I know the minister is going to stand up and support my saying so. There has never been a time when Burnaby General has come in with an irresponsible budget. There's been no over-budgeting, no fat and no excesses. Despite that, that is not taken into account when restraint is laid on hospitals. The minister doesn't say to Burnaby General: "Because you are budgeting absolutely tight and to the line, this does not apply to you." A consequence of this is that the people who use Burnaby General Hospital are ill-served by the Ministry of Health.

I'm hoping that the minister will stand up and respond to some of the issues I've raised before the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) gets to his feet.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm certainly very pleased to stand in this Legislature and support one of the finest health-care programs to be found anywhere in the entire world. After listening to the opposition critics talk about the health-care system in beautiful British Columbia for the last couple of days, I find that the majority of their criticisms are highly irresponsible. As they have done through the length of the session, they have tried to make politics out of health care in British Columbia. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has been the most irresponsible member of parliament to be found anywhere in North America. He's totally irresponsible.

[ Page 8973 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll remind the committee that personal allusions are unparliamentary.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will rephrase my statement, Mr. Chairman. Based on statements made by the member for New Westminster, the socialist opposition as a party has been totally irresponsible in this session. It isn't the first time, because I've listened to them before trying to make political hay out of some individual cases, trying to score political points on the misfortunes of others, never going to the minister's office in a sincere effort to solve a problem, but coming to the floor of the Legislature making big political hoop-la, and in the majority of cases being proved wrong, never apologizing, just carrying on as though nothing had ever happened.

I've heard a lot, Mr. Chairman, about cutting services to people. This government and this Health minister are not cutting services to people. We're trying to bring some responsibility into certain areas, but we're not cutting services to people. But if the socialists opposite were government they would cut services to people in this particular time in history.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh. the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) says: "No, we wouldn't cut services to people." What did their leader say — the social welfare leader that they have leading that party over there? What did he say back in 1975, Mr. Chairman? They stand up and pontificate about the great socialists; they wouldn't do anything. What did their leader say in 1975, when the financial ship of sea had been passed from the social welfare worker leader that they had running the government of that day, who tried to pass it over to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) when the ship of finance was on the rocks? What did the the social worker leader of the socialists opposite say? He said: "We will cut services to people." Yet they stand up in the Legislature today, pontificate and say what that terrible Social Credit government is doing.

As the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) just pointed out, there are no cutbacks in health services; there are increases to every hospital in this province. They would stand up and try as they may to mislead the taxpayers of British Columbia into thinking that we have cut back on health-care services in this province. Mr. Chairman, we can't let them get away with that, because the people understand that that socialist group over there talk one thing and do another. It's just like the social welfare worker leader of that government, when he took off for New Zealand last year while the House was in session. They talk about how you should do the people's business and you should be responsible. What does he do? He takes off for New Zealand while the House is sitting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Committee is getting rather disorderly. I'll ask the committee to come to order, and I'll ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development to relate his remarks to vote 45. the estimates of the Ministry of Health, minister's vote.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am, Mr. Chairman, and I will continue to do so, but first of all, allow me to respond to the irresponsible member for New Westminster who, when he doesn't have anything else to say, has to continue, like the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), wallowing in the mud of the mud-slinger, and throwing personal attacks across the floor. That's typical of that member and the whole party.

As I say, this whole health debate is about responsibility. This government is being responsible to the taxpayers of the province and is providing the finest health-care service available anywhere in North America and probably in the world. There's no disputing it. While they get up here — and this is what I'm talking about.... Being irresponsible is the byword now for the socialists opposite. The whole debate has been around "responsible" and "irresponsible."

MR. COCKE: You're a joke. Remember you on the ALR?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I wanted to mention that. I listened to the member for New Westminster making his political speech outside to the rent-a-crowd. I'll tell you, we saw crowds on the Legislature lawn when you brought in your ALR and your damn mining legislation. If you call that a crowd out there today, if that's as good as you can do in getting a political rally, you're not doing very well. You're irresponsible, as is the rest of your irresponsible group over there, I want to tell you.

I want to talk about the health-care budget, because what we're seeing the socialists.... It's the old philosophy. They think that throwing gobs and gobs of taxpayers' money at any particular program is going to continue to solve the problem. But this government is being responsible to the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia in the way we are running the province's health-care program. There are increases this year — increased funding to the health care of this province, That group over there is totally irresponsible. Nobody would ever trust them to be government again in this province because of their total irresponsibility.

That group of socialists over there. led by the social worker from Vancouver East, doesn't know the meaning of the words management and efficiency. This little minister, the Minister of Health, is putting some responsibility into the delivery of health-care programs in this province. All that group ever there would do is shovel money out of the back of a truck into the health-care system, and think that would solve all the problems. That's the most irresponsible group I've ever met in my life.

I listened with a great deal of sadness to the way the Health critic. the spokesman on Health, who represents the socialists opposite, has performed his duties in this Legislature. He hasn't brought in any concrete suggestions. He hasn't worked as he should with the present Minister of Health and the Health ministry, to try to bring in positive suggestions whereby we could have a better delivery — even though it's perfect now — of health care in this province. No, not that irresponsible member. There are no positive suggestions from the members opposite; just harping, irresponsible criticism, trying to make politics out of the health-care system in British Columbia.

What is happening here in the health-care system is just part and parcel of the irresponsibility that the socialist group opposite has displayed, not only in health care but in every area of care. They talk about staying in the Legislature and representing the people of British Columbia. One of their members almost brings down one of the banks and then takes off on a three-week trip to Europe, and they call that responsible? You hear them in this Legislature, talking about the

[ Page 8974 ]

members being here and doing the people's business, while one of their members takes off for a three-week holiday in Europe. You call that being responsible? You know as well as I do that the delivery of health care is one of the most important aspects of the social services that we deliver here in the province of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Then why not treat it that way?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That is why it has received such a high priority with this government.

Those socialists over there seem to think they had the sole contract for the delivery of social services to the people of British Columbia. I just have to take you back a few short years to when those socialists formed the government of this province, and the health-care services did not improve. They were on the verge of total collapse. We have seen this in other socialist-run countries around the world, where they think that giving the taxpayers' money away freely solves all the problems. Money will not solve all the problems. We have to have efficiency in the system. That's responsibility; that's what this minister is. trying to do.

As I said, they think they have the sole ticket on the delivery of health care, the sole ticket on delivering services to people. More services to people have been brought in under a free-enterprise government than were ever brought in by any socialist government. They stand and condemn. I listened to the member for New Westminster make his political speech out on the steps this noon, saying that we needed a new government for the delivery of health care. In 1975 their socialist leader stood up and told the people of this province: "We'll cut services to people." As they have done all through the session, they preach one thing and act in another. They never practise what they preach; they never have and they never will.

I want to remind you, and I want you to think a moment: who brought in long-term care in this province? It wasn't the socialists. When they had gobs and gobs of money in 1972 and 1973 and the ex-Minister of Human Resources was shovelling it out the back of a truck, did they bring in long-term care in this province? The answer is no. Did they bring in denticare? When they were shovelling money out the back of a truck, did they bring in more services to people? The answer is no. Did they bring in home care? No. What did they do? They threw gobs of money at everything, but they didn't bring in any new services to people. It was this Social Credit government showing responsibility — not irresponsibility — and leadership that brought sanity in this province to the giveaway Pharmacare that they brought in. If you look at the history of Pharmacare in some of the other socialist countries, they start off and they give and give and throw gobs of money and pretty soon the system goes broke. This government is showing leadership to ensure that services to people will remain through these difficult times.

They stand here and preach about the Social Credit government putting gobs and gobs of money into megaprojects. I'll tell you, less than 4 percent of the budget this year is going into any megaprojects, and it is providing thousands of jobs and the economic base so that the social services that the people enjoy today will be there in the 1990s and in the year 2000. That, Mr. Chairman, is showing leadership, not the irresponsibility shown by that group opposite.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT
ACT (NO. 2), 1982

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982.

Bill 74 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 5:53 p.m.