[ Page 8993 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement: government spending guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8993

Mr. Barrett –– 8994

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Trip to Arizona by Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Macdonald –– 8995

Donation of copier to Vancouver Junior League. Mr. Macdonald –– 8996

Mr. Barrett

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Macdonald –– 8997

Removal of section 35 from Tree Farm No. 5. Mrs. Wallace –– 8997

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8997

Division –– 8998

Legislative Assembly Allowances And Pension Amendment Act –– 1982 (Bill 73).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8998

Mr. Howard –– 8998

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 8998

Mrs. Dailly –– 9000

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 9000

Mr. Ritchie –– 9001

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 9001

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 9001

Legislative Assembly Allowances And Pension Amendment Act –– 1982 (Bill 73).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Third reading –– 9002

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

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 9002

Mr. Cocke –– 9003

Mr. Barber –– 9003

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 9006

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

On vote 45: minister's office (continued) –– 9007

Mr. Levi

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Mitchell

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Racing Commission report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9016

Ministry of Attorney-General. corrections branch annual report, 1981 and 1982.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9016

British Columbia Police Commission report. 1981-82.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9016

B.C. Marketing Board annual report. 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9016

Yukon River Basin Committee annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 9016

Joint Fraser River Advisory Board annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 9016

MONDAY, JULY 26, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: I have four guests whom I would like to introduce today. In the gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Franco Cuzzetto, prominent residents of Vancouver East and now of Burnaby. Seated next to them are Mr. and Mrs. Lyle MacWilliam. He is the New Democratic Party candidate in Okanagan North. I ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to introduce to the House today Bill and Shirley Layman of Colwood, and Shirley's brother, Mr. Kelly Tanner, who is visiting from Sydney, Nova Scotia.

MR. KING: In the gallery today, visiting from Salmon Arm, are Mr. Bruce Leggett and Miss Barb Massey. Along with them are the Soiseth family from Regina: Len, Pat, Alan and Danny. I would ask the House to join me in extending them a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD: From beautiful Hornby Island, fragile, unique and an island that needs much protection, I would like to introduce trustees Carol Martin and Bob Helliwell, and representatives from the ratepayers' organization on the island: Shelagh Johnston, Kirstin Humphries, Emlen Littell and Robin Campbell. With them is Bill Brewer, who is the regional board representative for area A of Comox-Strathcona Regional District, representing those two islands. They are here today with a number of other representatives from the various Gulf Islands, and I hope the House will make them very welcome.

MR. BARBER: Also here today and concerned about the islands are Yvette Valcourt, a regional director for the Capital Regional District, Bob Campbell from Saltspring Island and other persons concerned with the same issue. I ak the House to make them welcome, and would, if a Page would come forward, present to the Premier a petition signed by 511, out of a total of 800, residents of Hornby Island concerned about the destruction of the Islands Trust. I wonder if you would give this to the Premier, please.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING GUIDELINES

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. This statement deals with the increased necessity for restraint in government expenditures at this point in our fiscal year. As well, sir, I intend to address certain matters which result from the special report of the auditor-general of British Columbia, which was presented by you in this chamber last Friday.

First, with respect to the auditor-general's report, I wish to comment on three general areas of concern which were identified in that document. First, there is the test of reasonableness; secondly, the need to have rules which are not ambiguous; and, thirdly, the need for a capacity to apply those rules across government. The members of this House are well aware that we have made very significant progress with respect to improving the financial administration of the government of British Columbia, particularly in recent months. The most recent annual report of the auditor-general noted the steps taken since passage of the Financial Administration Act last year. We're continuing to pursue the documentation of policies and procedures and the necessary resultant training of staff. This in itself is a lengthy and complex assignment. but I wish to inform you and the House that it is this government's position that the subject is of highest priority

Mr. Speaker. with respect to the test of what is reasonable, I respectfully offer the opinion that, given our financial circumstances, expenditures which some would have previously agreed were reasonable and generally consistent with normal practice are no longer acceptable. As chairman of Treasury Board, I announce today certain steps that will be taken with respect to a variety of expenditures during the balance of this fiscal year, and which will clearly extend well into the new year, commencing April 1983. Further policies will be introduced over the coming days and weeks to expand on these outlined today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they should not be taken in relative isolation.

Policy changes as of August 1, 1982, are as follows:

(1) All first-class air travel is prohibited.

(2) There is to be severely restricted attendance at all meetings and conferences for which any out-of-province travel is required. As an example, where under normal conditions a valid case could be made for attendance at a conference by three or four British Columbia representatives, we shall now expect the provincial delegation to consist of not more than one or two persons. In some cases, no provincial participation will be the order.

(3) No out-of-province travel will be authorized without the prior approval of the Minister of Finance, except in cases of urgency. These occur particularly with respect to officials in the Ministry of Attorney-General and the Ministry of Human Resources. but there are one or two others. Requests submitted for approval after the fact will result in the individual concerned or his or her supervisor being held personally responsible for those unauthorized out-of-province costs incurred.

(4) All persons travelling at direct government expense will be required to take accommodation from a list of approved hotels where government rates have been negotiated. Where no such rate is available, the government will indicate specific maximum rates which will not be exceeded. This, Mr. Speaker, will be in place by September 1, 1982.

(5) All hospitality expenses over $100 must be approved by the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. All such occasions must reflect some special significance for the province of British Columbia. All expenses for spouses of government officials in relation to specific government functions must receive prior approval of the Minister of Finance.

As a result of the auditor-general's special report, and to implement the necessary restraint measures described in todays statement, Mr. Speaker, I have instructed Treasury Board staff to meet with the comptroller-general immediately in order to produce appropriate changes in the document which is entitled: "Budget and Administrative Policy, Chapter 45."

Mr. Speaker, expenditures of a more general nature will also be reduced, again, commencing August 1. 1982.

(1) Offices expenses across government of a discretionary nature are to be eliminated. Revised expenditure levels with regard to that activity will be negotiated.

[ Page 8994 ]

(2) Expenditures on office furniture throughout government will be severely curtailed. Any requests for furniture in offices occupied by ministers, deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers will be rejected.

(3) No new passenger vehicles will be purchased by any ministry through the balance of this fiscal year.

(4) Subscriptions to magazines and business, technical and professional journals are to be carefully examined at the time of subscription expiry to determine if renewal is absolutely necessary.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Ministerial statements are generally heard in silence.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I hope that member means what he said, because I am very serious about this. We assume the official opposition is not.

(5) Government-wide, all ministries are directed to examine the number of telephones in all offices, and all nonessential equipment is to be removed at the earliest possible moment.

(6) Under the direction of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications in conjunction with Treasury Board, careful scrutiny will be given to all long-distance telephone calls to bring about a major saving in toll charges.

(7) Economies with respect to office rental costs are to be put into place immediately. These economies will include a modest reduction of temperature in buildings during cool weather, most careful monitoring of other energy uses, the immediate identification of all surplus or underutilized space, and the prohibition of relocation by ministries to more expensive accommodation.

(8) I expect ministries to impose instant restraint on all acquisition of computer hardware or related services. Those which are approved must produce clearly identified net cost savings.

(9) All nonessential office equipment throughout government is to be identified within four weeks, and an inventory provided to the purchasing commission in order that this equipment can be redeployed where its use is clearly justified.

(10) I request the cooperation of all secretarial and clerical staff in government to effect immediate economies in terms of use of stationery and supplies, a reduction in the use of courier services and an even more efficient use of the postal service.

Specific instructions relative to all of the measures just outlined will be transmitted in writing to all ministries this week. I indicated earlier in this statement, sir, that further restraint policies will be announced in the very near future. The measures outlined today represent one additional step in a series of initiatives to reduce the cost of government. They also represent a challenge and an opportunity for all ministers, deputies and senior managers across the provincial government to participate in this important undertaking.

MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding, as the minister introduced the statement, that it was in two forms: one directly related to Mrs. Morrison's report, and the other to general measures that the minister intends to take for restraint outside of any reference to Mrs. Morrison's report. I will answer in kind.

I find the first part of the minister's statement somewhat incredible. The test of reasonableness of cabinet ministers' expenditures rests within the integrity of each cabinet minister. No written rule can come in to tell a minister whether or not he's taking a holiday, he's working on that holiday or he's working for the government.

The purpose of the report was to spell out some discrepancies that unfortunately have become a matter of major debate, not only here in the House but in the community. The fact is, sir, that Mrs. Morrison pointed out that a cabinet minister went on a trip to Arizona with benefit to himself and no benefit to the Crown, and that has not been addressed in terms of integrity or breaking a trust as a cabinet minister.

Surely, sir, anybody with one whit of common sense understands that when one travels on behalf of the government, there are appointments made ahead of time, there are appointments and commitments made during that trip, and reports are given afterwards. But to suggest, sir, that Mrs. Morrison's report absolves a cabinet minister from being responsible and not making appointments before a trip, is to excuse and avoid the basic responsibility and statement of Mrs. Morrison, which she has addressed herself to for four years in a row, recommending that accountability. The fact that a cabinet minister still sits in this chamber, in light of the statement made by the minister, is a condemnation of the whole government, not just one minister's integrity.

It is not, sir, without attention of the public that some years ago, because of these questions, a committee on ethics was promised by the Premier himself. As a measure of commitment to that committee, it is my understanding it has never met. So to say that you're going to bring in these new rules of no first-class travel, to say that you're going to monitor the behaviour of cabinet ministers, is to admit that each cabinet minister at this point does not basically understand his or her own moral responsibility to govern themselves.

Reasonableness has always been a measure, but that reasonableness has always been the measure of individual integrity, and it should be applied with an even hand. I ask you, in response to that: why has the member for North Vancouver–Capilano been punished for essentially the same transgressions which are forgiven the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) ?

MR. SPEAKER: I interrupt the Leader of the Opposition to remind him that ministerial statements and responses thereto are guided by the practice of this House, and I would just remind the hon. member what it is: each of the statements made by a minister should be brief, factual and specific. No debate is allowed. It has further been the practice in this House that a strictly relevant comment can be made by the Leader of the Opposition, but again no debate shall take place.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite correct, and I do admit that I strayed. I will attempt to keep my comments strictly to the minister. However, in apology to the House, I will say that the behaviour of the ministers justifies my straying.

Having said that, I want to come onto the other comment made by the minister concerning the new instructions to civil servants. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this, but what protection is there for the Ms. Falles of the civil service who have pointed out clearly already to their supervisors where they think a

[ Page 8995 ]

transgression took place? Is there a signal, in these new orders, that civil servants are now ordered to bring this to the attention of their supervisors? What happened to Ms. Falle, who did do exactly what the minister has announced in his new policy? She was treated as a leper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order! Order!

MR. BARRETT: Order, my fig! It's about time you stopped covering up, and had that man resign, and had some decency come back to this chamber. The Ms. Falles of the civil service have been told by the minister today that they must go to their supervisor. What happened to her for going to her supervisor, other than personal vilification in the corridor by a minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must caution the Leader of the Opposition — no debate.

MR. BARRETT: When the minister interrupts, he only inflames the issue. It would be best that this matter be dealt with, in the light of the condemnation of that minister, with some sense of history and some hope for the future. But I tell you that any civil servant who hears the admonition in that speech today only has to look at the example of what happened to Ms. Falle and what she got for telling the truth to her supervisor.

Now we come to the second part, the announcements of restraint: they're not going to fly first-class anymore. Hallelujah! People have lost their homes and their jobs, and there's no employment in this province, and the great sacrifice they're going to make is that they're not going to travel first-class anymore. Let us hear a great sigh of relief and a thank-you for that sacrifice on our behalf.

As for the rest of the measures announced by the minister, we are not bowled over by them. I will give you one example: the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has a 69 percent increase in travel expenditures in his department this year. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has announced today....

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please. I must remind the hon. member again that debate is not possible under a ministerial statement.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if that's the case, we should have a full debate. Perhaps that would be the answer to it. At a time of distress, to have the minister get up and make this picayune series of announcements while people are starving out there and not to permit a debate is nothing more than a mockery.

I'll go on to the next suggestion that there be a cutback in furniture. Eighty-one million dollars worth of votes were proposed in this House by this opposition to cut furniture and travel expenditures. Who is it that stood up against those cuts? The government and minister who made the announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that he's straying into debate again.

MR. BARRETT: This year over $55 million worth of savings in travel, publications and furniture were proposed. They were all voted against. For the Minister of Finance to come into the House now and suggest that these expenditures will not be permitted is to put into question every single debate that has taken place at this point in the estimates this year and last year,

To say that the minister's performance is less than pleasing would be an understatement. To say that his announcement has corrected the problems would be incorrect. To say that we should believe in this government in terms of its record on these issues is almost to make a statement that would be redundant. The greatest restraint — and I conclude with this — that this government could show to the people of British Columbia is to take itself out of office. For God's sake, let them go.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker. the Leader of the Opposition has a propensity for making mistakes. He did make a reference and allegation....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Hon. member, there is no debate possible at this moment. I thought perhaps the member was standing to introduce a guest.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I ask that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw any allegations of impropriety on my behalf which he made in his speech. He made comments that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano had been faced with certain aspects....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair was not aware of any specific allegation toward any member, or else I certainly would have interrupted. I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if he attributed any inordinate activity to any member of this House, would he please withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: I was asking the same treatment for the member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) that was shown the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin question period and the time begins running. question periods of the last few days have been difficult to control. and I must ask hon. members to review the fact that the ordinary rules of debate do apply in question period. A call for order must meet with compliance, or else a call for order is simply a contribution to the noise. Therefore I would remind all hon. members that patience does run out.

TRIP TO ARIZONA BY MINISTER OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. MACDONALD: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister made his reservations for the trip to Scottsdale, Arizona, a month before he went. Did he make any prior arrangements for business or political appointments before going?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: As I have indicated, the answer is no.

[ Page 8996 ]

MR. MACDONALD: If the purpose of the trip was business and not pleasure, why were no appointments made prior to going, when you had a whole month to make those appointments?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: If the simple and only test of a trip is whether or not a prior appointment is made, I suppose one can argue that if one single appointment is arranged, the entire trip is justified. The test is what one learns in terms of value to your ministry from your time away. Certainly, in this case, Mr. Speaker, housing issues at the time were of dominant importance in this province. This ministry has some considerable responsibility with respect to several aspects of housing issues. It was my intention to go to one of the two areas of the United States — Arizona or California — which were the acknowledged leaders in innovative housing, affordable housing, and seek out and talk to realtors, developers and home financiers. That was done, and valuable information was obtained — and reflected, may I add, in subsequent work in the ministry.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that he went on that trip to meet with representatives of the state Legislature. I want to ask him, in view of the fact that the governor's office hadn't heard of the trip and still hasn't, the leader of the Representatives hasn't, and the leader of the Senate hasn't: what government people did you meet with, and on what issues? Who were they?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: While in Arizona I most certainly attended a meeting with members of the Arizona state Legislature. As I recall, there were three or four there. There were 20 or 25 people in attendance at the meeting. I'd be happy to take the balance of the question as notice and double-check and provide the correct names of those who were there.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister, after all these months — and this has been a matter of public concern — not have the names to give us and what business was discussed? Surely you answer questions otherwise with a very good memory. Tell us who those representatives were, what was discussed with them and where you met.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy right now to outline the general nature of the meeting, but because of that member's abiding interest in the names, I want to be sure they're correct. I'll be obtaining those, taking it as notice and finding the particulars. The meeting in question, as I recall, featured three or four members of the Arizona state Legislature who spoke on particular topics of their particular specialty, fielded questions and were subsequently available for questions in informal discussion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm: did the minister on September 4 and 5 engage a room at the Four Seasons Hotel in Montreal at $440 per night, chargeable to the public?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the essence of the member's question is incorrect. The dates would have been approximately September 4 or 5. May I say, with respect to that entire trip, that because my family was with me and I wanted to be certain to allocate costs in a fair way and properly distinguish between those personal to me and my family and those chargeable to government, I personally paid for all expenses along the way. Whatever that room rate was — and in Montreal on that Labour Day weekend it was certainly expensive — it was paid for by me personally. I subsequently, on my own behalf only, submitted a claim for that which I understood to be eligible. Again, I'll be happy to take that question as notice and provide the precise figure to the member. It was certainly less than $440 a night.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, how much were the rooms? You've been going over this now for the last couple of months. How much were the rooms on September 4 and 5?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I've taken that as notice. May I say, with respect to 18 months of review by the auditor general and a variety of transactions, that I, computer-like, do not have those particulars at my fingertips. I know the member is most concerned that the particulars be accurate. I have therefore taken the question as notice and I shall provide them.

DONATION OF COPIER TO
VANCOUVER JUNIOR LEAGUE

MR. MACDONALD: Does the minister confirm that for the gift to the Junior League of Vancouver, which was in the physical shape of a photocopier and later made a cheque for $5,008, no application had been made by that organization?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Again, as I made public, that presentation at the fiftieth anniversary of that community organization was a surprise presentation on behalf of the government of this province to that organization. Hence an application was not possible.

MR. MACDONALD: Alison Morse, the league's vice president, confirms that it came as a total surprise. So my question is: how did the minister know that they needed a photocopier or that they didn't have funds to provide one themselves?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: The member shows a surprising lack of familiarity with an organization, a very worthwhile one, whose head office and much of whose work is in Vancouver East. I think anybody at all interested in or familiar with the Junior League of Vancouver and its many community endeavours, with a little bit of knowledge and understanding, would know that that volunteer group works from very modest offices and that one of their traditional lacks was an office copier.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the minister made any other grants which were a total surprise to the organization?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I don't know what the member's practice was during his time in government, but certainly the general policy and practice in our ministry — and I believe it's an accepted one — is that there's a certain area of discretionary grants and, from time to time with respect to worthwhile organizations, grants are made. I don't know how, for example, DERA received its first grant from a

[ Page 8997 ]

certain Vancouver city council of the time. That too may have been a surprise.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd be astonished if they didn't apply for it and then have the thing discussed in council.

Didn't the minister get the approval of the Premier, after the civil service had balked at this gift, before the final cheque for $5,088 went out to the Junior League?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: There's a very fundamental error in the supposition on which the member's question is based. At all material times, I was advised by my senior staff that it was indeed possible for the ministry to make such a surprise presentation to the Junior League of Vancouver. At issue was the correct procedure: whether there could be a direct presentation of the gift, or alternately, the route of the grant should be used. The route of the grant was used upon the advice of the senior civil service in my ministry.

MR. BARRETT: Could the Minister of Finance inform this House whether or not to his knowledge there is any procedure for surprise grants to organizations that do not request anything at all from the government? Is there a procedure for such surprise grants?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the member would be aware, because it is a matter of public knowledge, that there are regulations regarding the making of discretionary grants. There is an upper limit with respect to those grants, and that certainly has been in place for quite some time. I would think it was in place, although I'm not certain, during the time of the former administration.

MR. BARRETT: Did the Minister of Finance approve of this grant?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this particular grant would fall within the ambit of the discretionary grants authorized at that time to individual ministers for decision for or against. There is an upper limit with respect to grants dealt with by individual ministers and those referred to Treasury Board or Minister of Finance.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Premier approve the issuance of the cheque for $5,088 from public funds to the Junior League?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked by that member and answered earlier this session.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the Premier now know the answer, and can he advise the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I still remember the answer I gave. If the second member for Vancouver East has forgotten, he can find it in Hansard.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. MACDONALD: I find questions taken as notice by the Premier in Hansard. But let that be.

The auditor-general, in her report said of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, with respect to the Arizona trip: "However, it is my opinion that the amount of time apparently spent on specific issues would not justify a trip of that duration and cost." Later. with respect to the Montreal expenses, she said: "The evidence, however, also suggests the trip was a mixture of business and pleasure. In this case as well the duration of the trip, eight days, in relation to the extent of government business transacted, would suggest that a personal benefit accrued to the minister."

My question to the Premier of British Columbia is: have you decided to ask for the resignation of that minister?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll ask the Premier why he is extending differential privileges in terms of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and the damning indictment of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that's contained in the report of the auditor-general. Why don't you treat people fairly, and uphold the standards of ethics with equal and fair treatment to all, and justice to the taxpayer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm having difficulty taking the question out of that statement by the second member for Vancouver East. That member should know full well that this government does treat people fairly on the basis of the facts as they are, not as the member for Vancouver East politically tries to see them from time to time.

REMOVAL OF SECTION 35 FROM TREE FARM NO. 5

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests regarding Honeymoon Bay at Lake Cowichan. Has section 35, which is part of Tree Farm No. 5, been removed? Alternatively, has a request been made to have it removed from the tree farm for a purpose other than forestry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Not to my knowledge, but I will certainly research the question and bring a definite answer back to the member.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at the outset that I wish it were not necessary for the government to introduce this particular bill, the Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982.

I indicated at the time of second reading of the Employment Development Act that it appeared unlikely we would receive the full cooperation of the federal government with respect to what we attempted to do in that bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for this Legislature to provide statutory authority for a provincial tax credit in respect of interest earned on British Columbia housing and employment development bonds. It is therefore a companion piece of legislation to Bill 39. which I believe was passed unanimously on June 16 and received royal assent on June 25.

[ Page 8998 ]

You will recall that the government's original intention with respect to Bill 39 was that the interest on the bonds to be issued under that act would, by agreement with the federal government, be completely exempt from both federal and provincial income tax. As I indicated a few moments ago, that proposal was rejected by the federal government on the grounds — and I paraphrase — that it would create a distortion in financial markets and would cost the federal government too much in lost revenue. Shortly after informing me of his position on this issue, the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. McEachen, proposed a similar but a larger, and unfortunately a more complex, scheme of indexed term deposits. The distorting effects and the revenue loss to both federal and provincial governments from that plan would be much greater than under British Columbia's bond proposal. Furthermore, the federal proposal has the distinct disadvantage of requiring several months of study at least before it can even be introduced into the Parliament in Ottawa, and is not likely to provide significant, badly needed financial assistance for housing and small business until 1983. Our proposal, in contrast, is simpler, and is ready to go at an earlier date once the necessary agreements can be concluded.

Despite these arguments, at this point — late July — the federal government appears firm in its rejection of the proposed tax exemptions for the British Columbia housing and employment development bonds. As I've indicated, I'm therefore required to bring forward this bill to establish a credit against provincial tax. It is unfortunate that we are required to adopt this second-best course of action, but federal intransigence leaves us absolutely no choice. I have asked the federal government to agree to administer this tax credit, however, under the federal-provincial tax collection agreement. Last week, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I tabled a copy of my letter to the federal minister, Mr. McEachen, on this subject, and I am awaiting his reply.

The effect of the tax credit is to refund amounts approximately equivalent to the provincial tax paid on interest received from the bonds. It has not been attempted to make an exact refund, because of the complexity of the calculations which would be required. Again, one of the key thrusts in this legislation, particularly in the earlier legislation, was simplicity. It's been decided, therefore, to set the credit for individuals at a level approximately equal to the marginal provincial tax rate in the second highest bracket, prior to the application of the 10 percent surtax which exists here.

Contrary to opinions which have been expressed in this chamber, this flat rate will make the bonds more attractive to lower- and middle-income investors than would an exact refunding of actual tax paid. For corporations, the credit is equal to the general tax rate for both large and small businesses. Application of the tax credit will allow the issue of bonds bearing interest at rates of up to four percentage points below general market levels. This will allow the provision of lower than market rate loans for housing and employment development projects to stimulate activity in the province.

In conclusion, while I have indicated that we have a flat no from the federal government, and while we anticipate that there will be an approval with respect to the administering of the provincial tax credit, I am not yet prepared to abandon our efforts with respect to a federal and provincial tax credit. Contacts continue between the British Columbia government, the Ministry of Finance and Ottawa in this regard. I'm sure Mr. Speaker and members on both sides of the House would agree that in the event that the word from Ottawa remains no, if we are to proceed with the provincial side of this program, then this legislation is an essential safeguard.

It is second best because of the inexplicable intransigence on the part of the federal Department of Finance. I very much regret that. I indicated that in the debate on my estimates last week. I have referred this to other members of the federal cabinet in Ottawa in the hope that some reason will prevail.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading, noting that there are no other members who wish to speak.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 74, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 73.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES
AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WOLFE: Bill 73, the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1982, has the effect of rolling back MLAs' 1982 salaries and allowances by 10 percent effective August 1. This bill rolls back the automatic 11.9 percent increase MLAs received in January and in addition provides for no adjustment in 1983. This will mean an MLA's salary adjustment will be reduced to 1.9 percent with no increase in salary or allowances during 1983.

Fundamentally, this bill reflects the intent of our province's restraint program during this difficult period and the leadership we must all show as elected representatives. This new act replaces an earlier piece of legislation introduced in April of this year which limited the 1982 increase to 8 percent with an additional 8 percent in 1983. It should also be said that this legislation overrides last year's amendment to the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act which linked the adjustment calculations to the preceding year's average weekly wage increase in British Columbia.

Once again, this rolls back the 11.9 percent increase to effectively 1.9 for 1982 and no further increase in 1983. It not only reduces this year's increase, but provides for no increase next year. I'm asking for all members of the House to support this very necessary measure, for us all to show leadership in a time such as this. I move that the bill be read a second time now.

MR. HOWARD: There's a Latin phrase that could be used to apply to this bill: nemine contradicente.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Of course I rise to support the bill, but also to stress the point that the members on the government side intended to make, beyond showing our own personal restraint, in introducing this bill. The government members of this chamber wish to make the point that restraint is the responsibility of everyone. In these days of difficult

[ Page 8999 ]

economic recession that is worldwide, at a time when people are hurting no matter what industry they appear to be working in in the private sector, and at a time when governments around the world are looking to curtail their spending, which is now beyond the ability of their taxpayers to finance, then legislators themselves — particularly governments and a government such as ours.... We have developed an economic recovery program of which there are two parts, one being the restraint side on government spending, the other part being economic assistance to areas that have been hard hit during the recession or need stimulation that could prove of lasting benefit to the economy or areas of stimulation and assistance that would meet the needs for shelter, housing and accommodation of the people of our province and our country. We feel the government should make a very significant effort in reducing our own salaries.

Obviously government members and cabinet have taken a significant reduction of 10 percent in their salaries. We are doing this to show the people that our reduction is more than just a token or symbolic gesture. I'm sure all members of this House will have some difficulty in adjusting their personal budgets in the coming years because of this major step in reducing our own income.

This is just the first step in the government's restraint program. It relates to the state of our economy today. It is also trying to relate to the national effort which, I hope, will be joined by all provincial governments, with a sense of national will to overcome these difficult economic times. It is an opportunity for every member of the Legislature to now show in a personal way that he is willing to play a part in that fight, with a reduction that hurts more than a little bit.

In the coming days in this assembly members will be given an opportunity to deal with additional wide-ranging measures to try to make services which we as legislators provide affordable within the framework of this economy. As legislators who have shown leadership by reducing their own income, we will try to prioritize for people in this province the services that many have taken for granted as being free because they come from government. As in the past, many people today are questioning the cost of these programs because the government can only go back to the taxpayer to collect the amount. It is a significant change of direction in our country, coming off an era during which governments have spent more and more — much of it on many very worthwhile social programs — but it has priced government beyond the ability of the individual taxpayer and the economy to pay. It was a time when promises and spending more became the order of the day; today that is a contributing factor to the state of the Canadian economy to be able to withstand the international recession. The recession is hurting every country, but Canada more than most because of the large cost of government. All members will remember when the cost of government in this country — federal, provincial and municipal — was just 20 percent of gross domestic product. Today over 40 percent of all value earned in this country goes to support the growth of government structure which has taken place during the last 25 years. It's not that it wasn't well intended; it's just that it wasn't planned within the ability of people to pay. It was apparent that people wouldn't listen to those who cautioned against the extravagant promises of some parties and some politicians at election time and others. Future generations in this country someday will have to pay the bill so that some members could get themselves elected as government somewhere sometime.

It's very easy to make promises, to give, and then get out of government before the cost or affordability is accountable. Today we see the results of that. We see the new-math economics of big-government advocates. Now we see growing deficits, provincial and federal, for current account — not for capital expenditures, not for job-creation, but for current account. In the federal government 30 cents out of every tax dollar now goes to service and pay debt. That has left only 70 cents of the current taxpayer dollar to provide services. The biggest threat to programs, to assistance for people, to health care, comes from those who create an expenditure which at some time becomes unaffordable. with no regard for the future. Thus services to them will be reduced, at the same time that their taxes will have to be increased to pay for the excesses of the past. They will be paying off the debt.

This is easily understood by people who do not receive their income from government as legislators, who do not become part of the spending syndrome but have to live within balanced budgets in their homes. They know something about debt. They know they can borrow to buy a house. They know that will give them some equity in something of continuing value. They know they can do that with goods and transportation that provide a continuing value. They also know they can't borrow for things that are consumed at the time, like groceries and other products; that in fact they would be giving themselves a financial hole in creating such a burden, the ultimate being bankruptcy in which they would lose everything. The average homeowner, the ordinary person in this province, understands that. The only ones that haven't understood it, of course, have been governments.

The severity of the restraint program that must be imposed upon legislators, and upon our province and country as a whole, is more severe than would have been necessary had there been some restraint in the growth of government, some responsibility in the management of government, over the past 30 years. We in the British Columbia Legislature are taking, on this government's initiative, a major step, and I hope that more than just government members.... I've been assured that members of the opposition will pass it unanimously. This measure will provide some leadership as part of a major program of living within our means. That goes for government, for municipal government and provincial institutions, and it certainly goes for legislators.

I hope members of this Legislative Assembly will give more than a passing vote to this legislation today. I think it provides an ideal opportunity for members to support, and to give their reasons for supporting, this measure as part of a broader fight to restore economic confidence and responsibility. I hope this bill will not pass without at least some measure of a broader commitment than just what will be taken for tokenism: that if members don't speak on this important issue as part of a broader reason, they then don't view it, with the same degree of sincerity, as a commitment to a much larger fight than merely cutting our salaries. I hope members of this assembly do take very seriously the economic recession and the difficulties that people are in. I hope they don't look on this salary cut, as some people do, as providing a charitable donation from time to time; that now their consciences are clean and they don't have to worry about the problems or solve the problems of individual citizens. It's a problem that isn't going to go away, and it can't be bought off by just taking a salary cut ourselves.

A lot of work has to go into restoring, our economy. and there are some very painful decisions to be made in priorizing

[ Page 9000 ]

what services the economy can afford. When you talk about cutting government expenditure in a meaningful and major way, the minor items are very important because they all add up in the type of economy that we have. The Finance minister of the country has announced that the Canadian economy will shrink by 2.2 percent. All governments are wrestling with the problems of financing existing programs, even those programs they have developed. We will have to make some hard choices in the next months as to whether some programs, desirable as they might be, can continue. Therefore this major salary reduction of 10 percent for legislators, cabinet ministers and the Premier is just one step and one effort in a much broader fight. This legislation, this move, is the cornerstone of a much broader economic program, and I believe it will bring great benefit to the people of this province in the long term. It will be difficult, after years of accepting the excesses of government, for people to get used to the more reasoned level of services within their budget. But believe me, no responsible legislator or government during this period in our history could continue to promise the same or more when the average person knows that the economy can't afford it. They can't afford it, and now the legislators are making their move in contributing to this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation very strongly. This government considers this legislation a major part of our restraint program.

MRS. DAILLY: I just want to reinforce what was said by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the official opposition will be supporting this legislation. But after listening to the Premier's statement, I just want to make it quite clear that we do not endorse his Reaganomics. We've just been exposed to a lecture on Reaganomics, and I think all of us just have to look at what's happened in the United States. We want to say right here and now that we support this bill, but we completely dissociate ourselves from the remarks of the Premier, who is showing to all of us that he has no answers, unfortunately, for the problems that we face today.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I rise, like I hope all other members will, in support of this bill.

Interestingly enough, this weekend we found a small editorial in the Vancouver Sun. As I recall, it was about....

MR. KING: Read the one above it!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The most important one on that page was a very small article, and what it was, really, was a compliment to government for providing leadership by taking a genuine reduction in pay. The Premier is quite correct when he talks about restraint everywhere. When we talk about the unemployed people outside, I'd say that we are rather comfortable as members of the Legislative Assembly. We have our jobs, just like those who are in the civil service, and job security for a period of time. The civil service may have job security for a much longer period of time, but we have the benefits that are there. We have all of those benefits which are in....

I note some of the settlements which have recently come across. There has been a substantial reduction. The horizons have been somewhat limited, even in the recent settlement involving Lornex Mining; at the bottom end of the rung it was little better than 3 percent. It seems to me that's a demonstration by those in the private sector, who are acknowledging that we are in difficult recessionary times. What's the alternative? For those in the private sector we know what the alternative is; it's a layoff. Surely if we are going to ask people, starting in here, to take a reduction, I don't see anything unusual.... As a matter of fact, it's something which should certainly be done. We've got job security. Those in the civil service have job security; they know what the alternatives are.

We also know what the cutbacks in industry are, and those who are excluded from the bargaining units in large operations have been taking cutbacks of 10 percent — in some cases much more. Interestingly, there was a recent poll conducted by Gallup across the country, where an exorbitantly high percentage of people were quite prepared to take a reduction in order to preserve their jobs. That was the most important thing to them, and I think a lot of it is now coming through; we in Canada have been living beyond our means.

The Premier of British Columbia led the way with the original introduction of the restraint program many months ago, and now it's beginning to be followed by a number of other governments. The figure which is most alarming of all.... One of the things that has always intrigued me about government is government consumption of such a large percentage of the gross national product. When we absorb in excess of 40 percent, we are then heading in the direction of the socialist governments which have administered Britain for so long.

MR. LEA: Gross national or gross domestic?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Either way.

MR. LEA: It can't be either way.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There was a recent article in a magazine that I doubt very many, if any, of the, members opposite would read. It's called Forbes. I recognize that sometimes it's been branded as being a little bit on the right, but periodically they have some excellent articles. There was a superb article in there by Fernand Braudel, who is a French materialist economist. One of the greatest things he's always said is to point out that — and it's a lesson that we can all always learn, and those who deny it aren't really levelling with themselves — we are constantly making promises that can't be fulfilled and leaving others to answer for them at a later date. The answer sometimes is to say no and mean it.

There's another item which we should consider, and that is the delivery of social programs within British Columbia. I don't think any of us want to see anyone suffer at all, never mind unduly, with respect to the delivery of programs which we have. We must do all we can to preserve them. If this small effort on our part as legislators, taking a reduction of 10 percent and suffering some of the pain.... I'm sure that some, if not all, of those within here will suffer some pain, and maybe we ought to experience what it is and what those who are laid off and not providing payment to the government through corporate taxes or personal income tax.... It's time that we did experience a little bit of that pain. It's very easy to turn around and expect others to, but it's always best when it comes home. At least we cannot be faulted when all legislators are prepared to reduce expenditures in programs.

[ Page 9001 ]

I might also say that this particular reduction is felt by all ministries and is also used as a guideline, I am sure, by those of us responsible for administering our own respective portfolios and the reductions that we're all going to experience as time goes on. I certainly support the bill and compliment the Provincial Secretary for introducing the bill today.

In conclusion, I think it's probably the start of our economic plan for recovery. It is starting right where it belongs, within this chamber.

MR. RITCHIE: I, too, am proud to take my place very briefly to make a few comments in respect to this salary reduction that we are being asked to take. The greatest threat that can be made to any of our programs can be the cost of government, and we've been seeing it happen, particularly in Ottawa. I have been saying for many years that one of the greatest threats to our hospital or health programs has to be the uncontrolled cost of running government. The greatest injustice that we could do to those people who require health care or to our senior citizens is to do little, if anything, to control the cost of government. The greatest injustice we can do to our educational system is to go ahead and keep spending, as the socialist party of this province has already demonstrated they would do if they were in power.

However, this is a bill that is welcomed by all of us, I think, in that it gives us an opportunity to show to the private sector that we are prepared to take less and work harder in order to assist everyone to come through this economic recession that we're in at this moment. When I think of all the unemployed out there and those who are threatened with unemployment, I know that they would very much like to have any kind of a job, any salary at all, just to keep things going at home. Of course, we have those who are in business, small businessmen who are threatened with bankruptcy, and those who have already come through it. They would be very envious indeed — and I'm sure are — of those of us who can retain our jobs, even with a reduced salary. I am, indeed, in full support of this bill. I hope that it is the type of indication that is required in the private sector, and I hope that those who are still employed will see that this is an opportunity to join with us and share and assist in keeping as many people as possible employed in our province. I fully support this bill for a salary reduction.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to prolong the debate, but I feel that as a member of this Legislature I should add my few words. The first I'd like to say, of course, is that I support the bill, albeit, like the rest of the private sector and many people in Canada who are going to have to face and are facing the situation, it would be nicer for us to have it another way. We're no different from anyone else.

It's recognized that, being in the public service, there are added burdens for MLAs, and it's also recognized that those MLAs who represent non-metropolitan areas have an increasingly difficult burden because of the size of their constituencies and the need to help those people who are far from the seat of government have a close link with their government. They often suffer the frustration of trying to win their way through the established procedures, as well as often having to incur more costs — whether at the government level or in the private sector — when they want to speak to their government.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Nonetheless I think that members of our party feel that it's important that we as legislators not do what is perhaps sometimes done in other jurisdictions: talk restraint for everyone else but not be willing to practise it ourselves. I believe that it's important that at this most crucial time in Canada's development, even here in British Columbia. where we're probably better off than anywhere else in Canada.... Due to the administrative expertise of this particular government and the confidence that it has been able to gain from the private sector, even in these difficult times we have been able to proceed with major developments in the province which will certainly help — if not ultimately, in a short time — improve our circumstances financially, as opposed to other parts of Canada, where they have little to look forward to. We practise the type of leadership that is required.

I would like to quote the Times-Colonist editorial today, which says in one section: "In the past federal and provincial politicians have been ready to preach restraint but noticeably reluctant to act on that advice by setting an example." The Premier has said, in talking about the economic situation in British Columbia and the strategy to meet those difficulties, that he wants to be as fair as possible. and that all of us have an opportunity to put our shoulder to the wheel and to undertake this. It's been asked of other people. As has been mentioned before, the cruellest form of restraint is put on the private sector, and all of us represent areas and people in the province who perhaps have not been able to see their company survive these difficult times, who perhaps have lost their job, who are involving themselves in time-sharing and work-sharing and other positive programs.

Perhaps the most important question that should be asked right now, Mr. Speaker, is where the opposition stands publicly in terms of putting their positive position forward in encouraging all of the public to put their shoulder to the wheel; where they, as members of this Legislature, stand in terms of their willingness as individuals to continue serving their constituents, to continue to strengthen that link with government for those people out there, and to help them with their problems, at the same time taking part in an exercise that affects their own pocketbooks. I would encourage the members of the opposition not only to speak positively, within the province, as we all must do, about the things that we can do and are done to better the economic future in British Columbia, but also to share with us this willingness to show leadership, to feel some pain, and to be encouraging and positive to the public through our attitude.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate on this bill I just want to say that I'm pleased to see the indication by all members of unanimity in support of this bill. I think what I should also make clear, though, is that although the bill is entitled Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, and a lot of people might just think that's in terms of reducing the pay and allowances of MLAs. It also includes, of course. those special allowances paid to other people who perform for the Legislature: the special salaries of ministers, the Speaker (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), the Leader of the Opposition, and the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson). In other words, it covers many other salaries in addition to those paid specifically to MLAs. Just as a quick calculation, the direct saving from reduced salaries of ministers, the Premier and others plus MLAs is approximately $350,000 in one

[ Page 9002 ]

year. But I think the significant thing is the fact that it is the cornerstone in showing leadership, as has been indicated in the House earlier, in terms of the restraint measures which are very necessary. I think we should appreciate that this salary rollback of 10 percent does cover a lot more than simply members in the Legislature; it covers all of these special salaries paid to other categories of government.

As I say, I'm pleased to see that there's an indication of unanimous support. I appreciate the remarks of the Premier made earlier this afternoon on this matter, and I'm just disappointed that the NDP, in supporting this bill, sort of say: "Yes, but we don't support the restraint program." Isn't it typical for them to say: "Yes, but"? They are the "yes, but" party of British Columbia. "We'd like to go along with this restraint measure, but we don't support the government's restraint program." That's what they're saying. Instead of supporting the restraint program they stand up here and make these flimflam amendments to minister's votes all through this sitting of the Legislature. Without any research or study they throw up figures here which government can reduce, hold up charts. I call those flimflam amendments.

I know the House is going to support this measure. It's the leadership where it needs to be shown. The saving is not represented specifically in the reductions to the members and ministers, but in the impact that that will have in very necessary other measures that this government needs to adopt. I support this measure and move the bill be read a second time.

MR. LEA: I rise under standing order 42 to correct something that the minister said, because he didn't do it to an individual but to a group — us.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, but.

MR. LEA: No "but" to it. The minister lied.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member now taking his place on a point of order — it had not been determined that it was in fact a point of order — knows very well that the remark that he just made is one that must be withdrawn.

MR. LEA: I do withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Further, I would caution hon. members that the Chair is becoming increasingly concerned with the number of members who are using that term in this House, then having used the term simply get up and make a withdrawal. I will advise members in this House that when I am sitting in the chair, the next member who calls another member of this house a liar will not only be ordered to apologize, but will be removed from the chamber for the remainder of that sitting. Hon. members, this matter has been one of very grave concern to the Chair, and a simple withdrawal by a member after making that statement no longer can be tolerated. I am sure that upon reflection all members, having been duly advised, will see that that particular move by the Chair is more than equitable and, in fact, long overdue.

The member's point of order.

MR. LEA: The minister, while summing up the principle of this bill, quoted our caucus incorrectly, and so I stand under rule 42.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we have on numerous occasions discussed what can and cannot be done under standing order 42. Simply to say what the member has just said does not qualify under standing order 42. Firstly, the member was not quoted directly; and secondly, differences of opinion do not qualify under standing order 42, or we would be using the Chair ad infinitum to discuss matters upon which sides of this House differ.

MR. LEA: I didn't raise it as a difference of opinion. I expressed it properly the first time, which I withdrew.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave to refer the bill to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered now.

Leave granted.

Bill 73, Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES
AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Richmond in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 73, Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. BENNETT: This amendment removes the restrictions on ownership by Canadians that were contained in the original bill. It will make trading and ownership of shares in British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation the same as for any other private sector company operating in British Columbia or Canada. With the maturity of three years, and with those who have speculated probably being out of shares, and the shares being in mature hands, it is felt that this restriction is no longer needed, and that the company can take its place on a full and equal basis with other private sector companies.

I move second reading of the bill.

[ Page 9003 ]

MR. COCKE: We have a spokesperson with respect to this particular bill. I gather he's gathering up his reams and reams of notes. However, I would like to remind the Premier of a number of lessons that the people of British Columbia have learned with respect to the whole BCRIC fiasco. The Premier said to the people of B.C.: "We're going to teach you how the system works." He sure taught the people of British Columbia how the system works. First, taking from all the people what they already owned and either "privatizing" or "semi-privatizing" it, and promising them that it would be great riches for all.... Now he's decided to do what he promised never to do: widen the opportunity for control. Yes, the Premier has given marvellous lessons to all the people of British Columbia about how the system works.

MR. BARBER: I rise as the designated speaker in this debate.

The only good feature about this bill is that it has led to a temporary improvement in the value of BCRIC shares. That's a good thing. Everyone welcomes it: we do, the shareholders do, and the investment community does as well. This is the one good feature, but, unfortunately, as of today it appears to be temporary. In Toronto at 2 o'clock only 41,800 shares have been traded, and it closed down at $3.30. In Vancouver 47,400 were traded, and it closed down at $3.35. It appears to have been a temporary blip. It does not appear that that temporary increase in value will be sustained much longer.

This bill represents, with stunning clarity, the lack of conviction and lack of principle on the part of the government which introduced it. The lack of conviction and lack of principle is easy enough to demonstrate when you read Hansard of June 14, 1979. At that time the Premier introduced an amendment to the resources corporation legislation, which created a 1 percent shareholder's limit. We supported that particular provision. We did so then and we do so now, because it protects the interest of small shareholders. The lack of conviction, the lack of sincerity, the lack of political integrity that we witness today is provable when you read the comments of the Premier on June 14, 1979. He said:

Mr. Speaker, the 1 percent is there to protect the people. It was in the legislation passed in 1977 — and the fact that people must be Canadian citizens. It is not the intent in this section to allow government to increase that, but rather, should the situation warrant it, decrease it as a further protection.

At that time the Premier made an argument which we accepted and the public applauded. That argument was that BCRIC should not be subject to takeovers by large corporations. The insincerity, the lack of political integrity, is now manifest for all to see.

If you need further evidence, on June 27, 1979, the Premier said:

There is a 1 percent limit on ownership in the company, and it is not anyone's intention to increase it. It is there as the protection. It means that if the final accounting was 95 million shares, 1 percent would be 950,000 shares. Now 20,000 of that is far less than 1 percent; it is infinitesimal.

He went on to say during the same debate, again referring to the 1 percent rule: "This is so nobody, through association, can defeat the 1 percent. This is a safeguard against a number of people getting just under 1 percent."

The Premier then made an argument which today he destroyed. The argument he made then was more credible than the one he advanced today. The argument he made then was that if BCRIC should exist at all, it has to exist as the special conservator of its assets and the special trustee of its possibilities. The 1 percent rule was one of the best features about BCRIC. It guaranteed that large capital and large corporations, singly or in combination, could not take over this company, and could not thereby unfairly and unreasonably manipulate its share value, manipulate its transactions, acquisitions and other programs for capital development and reallocation. What the Premier did today was make a fool of himself. What the Premier did today was make a fool of all his colleagues who voted for this original protection just a few short years ago.

What the Premier did today was admit that British Columbia is for sale, Mr. Speaker. A couple of years ago he attempted to block the sale of MacMillan Bloedel to a certain back-east financial interest. He did so. He said that B.C. was not for sale, and many people applauded him. When he introduced the 1 percent feature of the BCRIC legislation, people applauded that too — that includes me then and it includes me today. If BCRIC need exist at all, then it needs to exist with special protection, so that Dome Petroleum, Canadian Pacific Industries, the MacMillan Bloedels and the Bell Telephones of this world cannot get their hands on it.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker. that at one time all of the assets of BCRIC belonged to all of the people. Regrettably, the government introduced that legislation and abandoned that high principle. BCRIC is now owned by some of the people. Shortly, Mr. Speaker, it will be effectively controlled by just a few of the people. That is the tragedy of this legislation today.

What the Premier said in his speeches in 1979 was worthwhile, good and true. What he said today is foolish, stupid and regrettable. What lie said in 1979 is that BCRIC required the 1 percent protection in order to guarantee the future of the company and keep it free from corporate domination. What he said today was: "Anything goes. We don't care. Big companies are welcome to come in." BCRIC is for sale and so is British Columbia. It may well be that Social Credit knows that it is not going to be returned at the next provincial election. On that basis, apparently, they are now prepared to open the gates and allow anyone to get anything. That goes for farmland and government grants, and it now goes for BCRIC.

It's perfectly clear that this new legislation may well be part of the whole package contemplated on behalf of Dome Petroleum, which is, as everyone knows, in somewhat difficult financial circumstances. Dome likely couldn't borrow $5 million on the open commercial market tomorrow. BCRIC, however, could. Although BCRIC is today $714 million in debt, its assets are fundamentally sound; its assets are fundamentally worthwhile and will not deteriorate. BCRIC has had very serious problems with political interference. It has had very serious problems with its prior management. Nonetheless, the fundamental body of assets which was turned over by BCRIC, and which were earlier acquired by the first New Democrat administration, is basically sound and more than adequate to the purpose of allowing BCRIC to succeed. BCRIC should succeed; BCRIC needs to succeed; BCRIC should be doing a job for its shareholders; and, with any luck, it will be able to turn a profit, issue a dividend and contribute to the economy of this province.

Although we voted against BCRIC in the first place as a matter of principle — we believe that all of the people should own those assets, and not just some — now that it's here we

[ Page 9004 ]

want it to succeed. One of the ways that it could have succeeded was by guaranteeing that it remained, as the Premier himself said in a speech he repudiated today, a daring experiment in people's capitalism. He defended the 1 percent rule by saying that this was a means of guaranteeing that all of the people had an equal say, and that none of them could get together on any basis whatever, collaboratively, conspiratorally or by accident, to take over the company and run it for the single interest of one single economic force. The Premier said that this noble experiment in people's capitalism would be defended by the 1 percent rule. That's what he said three years ago. What does he say today? Implicitly, he says that British Columbia is for sale and BCRIC is for sale, each of them to the highest bidder. The Premier's speech in 1979 made a lot of sense. Those remarks, that defence, those qualities of protection and that special circumstance for BCRIC were admirable then. They remain admirable now. The Premier's speech today is a disgrace. It is an admission that his so-called experiment in people's capitalism has failed, at least from his point of view. It is an admission that Social Credit is in serious political difficulty because of the serious financial difficulties in which BCRIC has found itself, insofar as trading value goes on the shares. And it is an admission of one more colossal blunder on the part of the Premier of British Columbia, who does head, after all, the single most incompetent administration this province has ever seen.

I won't bore you, Mr. Speaker, with my usual recitation of all the disasters in administration for which the Socreds are responsible — headed, as always, by the Ministry of Deregulation, the Princess Marguerite and the heroin treatment program — but I will remind you that the most incompetent government this province has ever seen — namely, Social Credit — did acquire assets now being changed in their execution and ownership by this bill, which, when acquired by the first New Democrat administration, were worth a lot, sufficiently so that when four stockbroking houses put together the initial prospectus, they said that the opening paper value of BCRIC shares was $11.16. That's what Austin Taylor said. He is a notorious Socred bagman and behind-the-scenes financier in this province. Austin Taylor and three other stockbrokers, through their houses, prepared a report which evaluated the assets turned over to BCRIC. On the basis of that initial valuation the shares were held to be worth $11.16. That, of course, could only be tested by the market when they actually went on sale. Only then would you know if that was considered a low, a high or an accurate valuation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But the Premier never gave BCRIC a chance. From the beginning this Premier meddled in BCRIC. Instead of allowing the market to assign the value and allowing the prospectus to remain an authentic document, representing the best possible anticipation of the share value.... Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that $11.16 was the prospectus statement of the value of these shares. Instead of allowing the free market to do the job it does better than any other market in the world, the Premier interfered and meddled politically. What did he do? He artificially devalued BCRIC shares and put them on sale at six bucks each. In the short run that was politically profitable; in the long run it was stupid, it was a mistake of extraordinary proportions, and it has led to the bill we're debating here today. They started at $11.16. The Premier devalued them for political purposes, to $6. Today they are trading in Toronto at $3.30 and in Vancouver at $3.35. They have reached as low as $2.38. The Premier appointed the first board of directors — the ones blamed for this mess. The Premier appointed Mr. Helliwell, the man blamed for this earlier mess. The Premier appointed the people who blew it, and he appointed the executive director who blew it. This is popular opinion, and it's well regarded within the investment community as well.

Odlum Brown is a respected trading house in Vancouver. It is a respected agency of private capital, and it does a good job representing the people it is hired to represent. Its president is Tony Hepburn. Mr. Hepburn said in the Vancouver Province of July 23 that the abandonment of the 1 percent rule will open BCRIC's door to effective control by large corporate shareholders and could eventually lead to a takeover. Mr. Hepburn said he was "completely surprised" by Bennett's decision to remove the restrictions entirely, rather than imposing a higher limit such as 5 or 10 percent. He went on to indicate that opening the door to corporate takeover made it perfectly obvious what the Premier's agenda was. He said: "I view the move certainly as an acknowledgement the experiment has failed." Well, it has failed because the Premier made it fail; it has failed because the Premier came in today and said: "I don't like this experiment any more; I don't like this exercise in real people's capitalism. I'm going to change the rules." By so doing he has once again politically interfered and meddled with the marketplace of British Columbia; once again he has tampered with the value of BCRIC shares. It's temporarily positive, but in the long run, no doubt, negative. In the case of BCRIC, people fear more than anything else political intervention by that Premier, and once again he has demonstrated where his real agenda lies. It does not lie in that field occupied by the small shareholder, by the small and ordinary citizen of British Columbia, who actually took him seriously when he advised three years ago: "Go out, buy a piece of the rock and make a bundle of money." A lot of people went out, bought a piece of the rock and lost a bundle of money because of the number one stock promoter in the province, the Premier, telling them to do so. As far as BCRIC goes, most people have spent money, paid interest and lost money ever since. Anyone who took the advice of this incompetent Premier seriously has done nothing but pay for it ever since.

In the past people have been willing to put up with the fact that they've lost money because of the incompetence of Social Credit and the management team they initially appointed. They're willing to accept the fact that Social Credit has cost them a lot of money, because they could always rationalize that, nonetheless, they remained in control of the company, because, you see, the same Premier who told them to go out and make a quick bundle on BCRIC also told them that they would be protected by the 1 percent rule. Well, regrettably they have made no money at all; they've done nothing but lose their shirts. Now, even more regrettably, not only have they lost money but they are losing control.

A company as widely held as BCRIC — 122,000 registered shareholders, approximately 1,872,500 persons holding bearer shares — becomes an easy target for takeover. In a company where everyone has 5, 50 or 500 shares, and not many more, it's obviously no great effort to put together a portfolio of half a million shares and thereby control the company. That's always the danger that any ordinary company faces in the marketplace: takeovers when that company

[ Page 9005 ]

is very widely held. The protection against that was the 1 percent rule, and that was adequate protection. Today the Premier has abandoned that protection, has abandoned those shareholders, has abandoned that prerogative, and has said that anything goes.

In a moment of rare candour for this Premier he admitted to the press last week that BCRIC was now, at least theoretically, subject to corporate takeovers. Well, it's more than theory, Mr. Speaker; obviously some people are already lining up their interests, and they started to do so last week. In one day more than 400,000 shares were traded, and this is ten times the BCRIC average — 15 times on some days. Some people already believe that they should now move into a position to take control of this company. In whose interest is it, Mr. Speaker, to have the 1 percent rule abandoned? I think it's clearly in the interests of those companies operating in competitive fields. BCRIC has assets in forestry, in mining — especially coal-mining — and in petroleum and natural gas rights and leases. Those are the three fundamental resources that the company owns. It has, of course, shares in Westcoast Transmission and so on. It has an interest in the Brae area of the North Sea oilfields, but basically it is in the field of forestry, mining, coal, and natural gas and petroleum rights and leases in the northeastern part of this province.

When you examine the basis of BCRIC's ownership of natural resources, it tends to suggest who else might be interested in taking over BCRIC. A company that, for instance, Mr. Speaker, was interested in assuming control over the operations of southeast coal, because it was itself already in the import-export business, because it was itself already in or had in the past been in the coal business, or because it wanted to get into it in order to make it consistent with its other operations; one thinks, for instance of Fording Coal, owned by Canadian Pacific. Obviously, smart business people realize that if they can work a deal with BCRIC to combine the technologies, the facilities and the working capital of their company with that of BCRIC in a similar field that they're already in — for instance, coal — then they would be well advised to do so.

Now the problem with that is that BCRIC's interest may end up taking second place and the interest of the company that intervenes might take first place — and that's a danger for us. Edgar Kaiser, for instance, already had a major interest in southeast coal, and he sold out to BCRIC. He got a very good price for it, but if Mr. Kaiser decided he wanted to come back in, for the first time, courtesy of the Premier, who has now made this big present to big business, he could come back in and assume effective control of BCRIC. Remember, Mr. Speaker, it's a very widely held company, and someone with just a few more shares than the average guy can end up controlling the operations of that corporation. It's obviously in the potential interest of Canadian capital to realize what BCRIC's assets are in the fields of coal, natural gas, petroleum, and forestry, and to find a way to make the development of those resources coincident with theirs, thus reducing costs and making greater profit. It may well be in the interest of some major coal company to take over BCRIC in order to control the development of southeast coal. It is not necessarily in our interests that that be allowed.

Today, this Premier has made it possible. That's a tragedy for resource development in British Columbia. The best guarantee we ever had that BCRIC could do anything was the 1 percent rule. That kept BCRIC relatively accountable to its shareholders. Shareholders have been somewhat ignored in the past. BCRIC shareholders have felt somewhat alienated at the annual nicetinos in the last three years. In the future they will be ignored altogether when Dome or Fording or whoever it might be — and I simply hypothesize; whichever company or set of companies — decide it might be in their interest to assume effective control of a company whose assets are such as BCRIC has. This will, I think, result in a very considerable loss for us in terms of the self-governing administration of those resources.

In 1979, the Premier said that if he changed the level he would only change it downward, and if he were to give any consideration at all, it would be to decrease the allowable limit. I'd like to know which corporation got to the Premier in the last few weeks and persuaded him, with whatever advice or help they might have offered, that that rule should be changed, the speech repudiated, the principle abandoned and this bill introduced. Who got to the Premier of British Columbia? We know that it wasn't the board of directors of BCRIC; they didn't request this. We know it wasn't Mr. Howe, the chief executive officer, nor Mr. Watson, the president of the board. The Premier has given no information or advice and in answer to my question no comment at all on whether or not the shareholders requested it.

Were you here in question period that day? I was. I know what he said. What he made perfectly clear was that he was not responding to any request, formal or otherwise, from the British Columbia Resources Investment Corp. If they didn't get to him, who did? If the small shareholders, who have been protected by the 1 percent rule, didn't persuade the Premier to abandon that protection they have enjoyed, then which big shareholders in the future got to the Premier of British Columbia, and how did they do it? What rational or political arguments did they make? What other considerations were there? We will tell you in the days and weeks to come.

The speech made in 1979 is proven today to have been a speech of hypocrisy and disregard for principle. The speech made in 1979 has made the Premier look a fool this afternoon. It was an admirable statement of the need to protect small shareholders. The speech made today was a contemptible abandonment of those shareholders and a contemptible willingness to sell out to large corporations who may want to take over BCRIC. because they can do it now.

Who got to the Premier of British Columbia? How did they persuade him? What arguments did they offer? What help did they provide'? The Premier has never talked about that. I asked in question period, and he made it perfectly clear that it did not come from the official, or even the informal, mechanism of the Resources Corp. itself. Apparently it came from his own imagination or that of Mr. Heal or Mr. Kinsella or whomever. Apparently it came from big business as well, because it's obvious that they would have an interest in this. If the Premier is going to go to such an extreme as to make a fool of himself by repudiating his own speech, his own policy and his own vote in the House and introduce a bill like this after what he said in 1979, then obviously there must be a very great reward in it somewhere.

The reward clearly will not be of benefit to the individual shareholders. They will continue to pay interest on their overdrawn bank accounts and on the notes they borrowed and signed because the number one stock promoter, the tout from South Okanagan, told them to buy BCRIC shares. They were always comforted and protected by the fact that their company would be immune to takeover. Today there is not such

[ Page 9006 ]

comfort or immunity. All we have it this Premier repudiating himself and abandoning altogether the commitment to principle he made in 1979.

The only good feature of this bill is that, as everyone expected, there has been a temporary increase in the value of BCRIC shares. It went down a bit today. I have no idea what it closed at in Vancouver at 3 o'clock today. It went down a bit today, compared to last week. Nonetheless, there is some small improvement, and that's good. It's obvious where the action is coming from. It's coming from big companies and big shareholders positioning themselves to take over if they wish and can make it coincident with the interests of their own companies. Otherwise, there's no reason why people should be investing. Unless people think there's a quick profit by virtue of a takeover, there's no reason for them to invest in BCRIC. If they weren't interested in a takeover, they could have bought the shares before at a lower price. The only reason anyone would pay a higher price, as they have in the last few days, is in order to position themselves for a takeover. Logic and rationality can have it no other way. If all they wanted was 1 percent, they would have bought the 1 percent at the lower price long ago.

Obviously we will not support the bill. Obviously we will not support the hypocrisy of a government that would say what it did with such fanfare in 1979, that would turn around and eat crow, that would turn around and abandon principle as cynically, callously, negligently and sadly as the Premier has today. It's really a shame that this Premier continues to meddle in BCRIC. It is a shame that he did what he did when BCRIC started, and got it off to such a difficult beginning, through the much criticized board of directors and much criticized chief executive officer whom he personally appointed in the first place. It is understandable why, prior to the next election, the Premier wants to do whatever he can to manipulate the stock value. To the extent that it goes up, at least that is some small comfort to the people who may take immediate benefit from it. But as an act of principle, what he's done today is reprehensible. As an act of community principle in this province, whereby small shareholders who used to be protected by the 1 percent rule no longer are, what he and his government have done today is reprehensible. It should be an embarrassment to them. With any luck, it will continue to contribute to all those other things that will lead to their defeat in the next provincial election.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In closing the debate, let me just assure the first member for Victoria that once again his flights of fancy have gone far beyond reality. There is no major lobby group that has come to the government to change its mind on this issue, or anyone mysteriously in the wings who has requested the government to make this amendment. Let me very strongly assure him of that. In assessing what has happened to BCRIC in three years, and looking to the best interests of the small shareholder, the government has removed the restrictions.... From looking at what has happened to the bid-ask price of those shares since the announcement, they have been restricted from the type of value the market would place on them.

In arguing that we keep the restrictions, the member is arguing against the price increase in the shares. I will take every opportunity to tell the people who own BCRIC shares that the first member for Victoria is against this move that would increase the value of their shares by freeing them and making them subject to the same regulations and restrictions that apply to other Canadian companies. What that member wanted was restrictions that would keep the price depressed. Do you know why? Because he thinks he can get elected again if the price stays down. He doesn't care about the shareholders of BCRIC; he cares about the future of Charlie Barber. He's not concerned whether they have increased value. He's trying to keep his job. I recognize that I should not have referred to a member by name — the first member for Victoria.

It's very clear that this move has been beneficial to all the shareholders. For him to suggest that somebody could take the shares away shows his lack of understanding of business, finance and economics. The fact that he's proud he doesn't own any shares in BCRIC indicates that he has very little interest in being involved, except in a political way when it's convenient for him and his party to attack it. That is what they did a few years ago, to the detriment of the little shareholders. They speak against measures today which would allow those shareholders to receive higher value, and after the market has established a higher price for those people, they argue in favour of retaining those restrictions which would be detrimental to the little shareholder of BCRIC. Nobody can take their shares away from them and they don't have to sell them, just as the member for Victoria didn't have to buy them or receive them. He made his choice. He made his judgment of that company on a political basis long ago. He has spoken time and again to try to justify his judgment, oft-times to the detriment of the little people who have shares in that corporation.

He giggles and laughs, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to have that on the record. His approach from day one has been not only to exhibit a lack of understanding of market factors, but particularly his wish to receive some political benefit somehow in the future if it fails, or doesn't meet expectations. We've heard statements in the past on what is now, and has been for three years, a private-sector corporation, a corporation that has been under political attack. Not an economic attack, which is the normal fortune of a company, but a political attack has been waged strictly to enhance the election possibilities for New Democrat members in this province. It has nothing to do with the operation of BCRIC, nothing to do with helping the shareholders. In fact, an attack carried out on a political basis has hurt them. Today we hear the final conclusive proof that the shareholders needed after the market responded to our move on behalf of the little shareholders of BCRIC. Having responded in a positive way and increased the value of their holdings, the first member for Victoria has come out of the closet and let them know that he doesn't want that value to stay up; he wants it to fall. That's why he's opposing the measure that we propose in this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have difficulty telling the people of British Columbia what took place today, but I'll have to, because I want them to continue having confidence. If at some future date, next year or the year after, the first member for Victoria, with his record of meeting payrolls and running businesses, becomes the Finance minister in some New Democratic Party government, they know what to expect from him. They know the measures he will take, and they know full well what will happen to the value of their shares. They have been forewarned this afternoon, and forewarned is forearmed. Never let that member for Victoria, and never again let that party, again under the cloak of looking after the little shareholders, ever lull them into believing that

[ Page 9007 ]

they're sincere and looking beyond their own political fortunes. Today the member for Victoria has come out of the closet on this particular item. He's told the shareholders that he is willing to oppose this measure which the markets show has increased the price of their shares. He's against it; he wants the shares to fall in value.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Bill 67, Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

MR. LEVI: I ask the forgiveness of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), for preempting his speech. I want to ask the minister four questions on four items that I'd like him to comment on. Last year I had discussions with some of his officials about the government's policy for dealing with drug addicts, particularly the methadone program. In February 1982 I wrote to Dr. John H. Smith, who is connected with the Alcohol and Drug Commission, asking him for the commission's policy with respect to the use of methadone. Mr. Smith wrote to me on May 17 and I'll quote some salient parts of the letter.

"The Alcohol and Drug Commission has found methadone maintenance to be a particularly difficult policy issue. There are very strong arguments both for and against the use of this drug. While there is no question that maintenance can be a very beneficial program for some individuals, we have also become aware that strong pressure can be exerted by others to be put on maintenance when it is difficult to justify and less desirable than having the person accept a withdrawal.

"You may also be aware that the quality of illicitly available narcotics has declined. The use of methadone, a potently addictive narcotic, has to be evaluated in relation to the fact that most current narcotic users do not have the level of physical dependence that was common in the sixties and early seventies.

"This letter is not to suggest that we have made a decision against methadone maintenance, but only to indicate some of the difficult issues involved."

I did write to the medical association, which has passed a resolution in favour of the use of methadone as a treatment mode for heroin addicts. I'd like to know the decisions of the ministry in respect to the methadone program.

My next question to the minister relates to the legalization of heroin for terminally ill patients. The minister is probably aware that on July 16, 1981, Monique Bégin, the federal minister, announced that she was putting together a committee to look at recommendations to the government respecting the use of heroin for terminally ill patients. On that day she had received a submission from Dr. Walker and some people from southern Ontario containing 15,000 signatures. I would like to hear from the minister what the position is of the B.C. government. The use of heroin for medical purposes has been banned in this country since 1955, following a ban by the World Health Organization on the manufacture and importation of heroin into various countries. Very quickly, in 1955 the Canadian government imposed its own ban.

In 1973, I was in Switzerland. At that time we had set up the Alcohol and Drug Commission and were looking again at alternate modes for dealing with addicts. I went to Geneva and met with the international narcotic control people to discuss the question of treatment for heroin users. At that time, one of the officials said to me that the manufacture of legal heroin was being outstripped by the manufacture of illegal heroin. As a consequence of the international police attack on heroin trafficking, the legitimate use of heroin as a painkiller was being denied to people who were not criminal addicts, but people in pain who suffered great discomfort.

I think it's rather ironic. It's a matter of looking at justice in our world when people who abide by the law and have terminal illnesses are denied what is — from what the specialists in the field say — by far the best pain-killer which would give them some relief. I'd like the minister to tell us whether his ministry will be supporting Ms. Bégin's.... First of all, the committee is going to be set up and there will be some discussion, and obviously the provincial ministers will be involved as to what thou, ht the minister has given this question.

The third one I'd like to ask the minister is whether the government has made any decision or formal reaction.... I guess it's a little early. You got a brief from the health professionals on July 14, 1982. It's a little early in the game; I hadn't realized it only so recently came. It was originally raised with me by the dieticians, that they wanted to look at some form of regulation. I'm not going to get into that, because we can't discuss legislation here. I just wonder whether they have prepared a response to the brief that was given to the government in July 1982. It's on the health occupations legislation, a position paper prepared for the government of British Columbia by the B.C. health professionals' legislative committee.

I have another question I'd like the minister to answer. It's to do with Erhard Seminars Training. better known as EST. I'm glad the minister wrinkles his brow, because I wrinkle my brow when I realize what EST stands for. About a year ago there was a serious problem in the ministry in respect to the services delivered to children. I understand that EST — as the minister may know — is a belief system that is commercialized. The Erhard Seminars Training is described as an evangelistic profit-making organization that aims to transform the world by transforming individuals and institutions. Last year. according to the very excellent study done by Stephen Hume in the Colonist, the corporation collected something like $24.2 million in revenues.

As I understand it, the ministry undertook to do a report. If I'm not mistaken, Dr, Peter Ransford headed the inquiry group. The issue that was before the ministry and to some extent before the public.... We need an answer from the minister on this. There's a unit in Victoria. called the integrated services for children and family development, which operates on Cook Street; it's been there a number of years. It turns out that people whose children were receiving treatment from that unit were being required to take the EST courses. I'm not commenting on the EST course itself, but if nothing else. I would say that that would represent something like a deterrent fee imposition on anybody wanting to have any

[ Page 9008 ]

connection with the Integrated Services, if that's what they were required to do. Apparently they were, and also some of the staff were. I'd like to hear from the minister what has actually happened. Is there a report? If it's been completed, is he prepared to release it? Because if nothing is being done, then presumably many of the parents whose children are receiving treatment at this unit are still having to take the course. It's not inexpensive; it's $400.

I have one further question for the minister. I don't know whether he's got any of his epidemiologists here. I recently met with Dr. Nick Schmitt, who has a great deal of expertise in the whole problem of the presence of lead. He's done some studies on the presence of lead — because he was the health officer in Trail at one time — particularly as it relates to children. I gather from looking at this and talking to a number of people that there is still no agreement with the federal and provincial authorities on the funding of what should be a fairly substantial study on this matter. There are some studies, but no definitive studies in Canada. There has been some pushing for quite some time. It may be something the minister doesn't know about, but I'll write him anyway about it.

I have raised five matters with the minister, and I'll sit down now.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On the last one first, if the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would drop me a line on that then I could respond,

Some of the questions the member brought forward today, I think, involve a certain amount of philosophy as much as policy. The medical people in the ministry and others with whom we've had some contact with respect to methadone seem to offer both opinions very strongly as to the continuation of methadone in the treatment of heroin addicts. The member has repeated information which is freely available from people involved in that therapy and treatment who offer their very strong opinion with respect to the dangers of methadone itself, and the value of methadone as a substitute for heroin. The information about the quality of the heroin now commonly used by addicts, compared to the heroin of some years back, is that apparently the quality is very different today.

In 1978 policy was established by the government to continue with a program of methadone maintenance for those who were on the program. The policy established back in 1978 was not to accept new clients into the program. Some of the treatment services since that time have focused on a drug-free approach to drug dependence aimed toward elimination of drug use. That's where I think, as well as policy, some of those responsible in the program develop some philosophy with respect to what the best treatment might be.

Many of the people responsible prefer the drug-free approach over methadone maintenance, which they claim attempts to manage the addiction by providing a substitute drug. There is a lot of opinion with respect to the desirability of continuing the program as it was for so many years. There seem to be two very strong schools of thought. Presently we are continuing with the policy established in 1978, to continue maintenance of those who are on methadone, but not to encourage new clients into the program.

It's being reconsidered, although it's not a new program. The policy established in 1978 is being reconsidered, or perhaps just considered, as to its desirability as a therapy for narcotics addicts. No decision has been made yet. The matter was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Commission, who have completed a review, but no decision has been made on a modification of the policy which has been in place for a number of years with respect to the methadone program.

I might mention that we receive very little information with respect to that. When we do, it seems to come in waves. For a period of time there seems to be an interest in it, and then it drops off once again. It seldom comes to our attention as it once did. So the program will remain as is for the time being, subject to the report from the Alcohol and Drug Commission to see if they are making any new recommendations.

On the legalization of heroin for terminally ill patients, I suppose history repeats itself frequently. At one time, as the member would be aware, heroin was used for that purpose. The federal Minister of Health and Welfare, Monique Bégin, made a statement of some kind recently with respect to looking into the question of the advisability and legal complications of administering heroin to terminally ill patients. The provincial government has not decided on this matter. I don't believe that at this time we have yet been asked to take part in the committee, but I'm sure we will. If any province should be asked to take part in anything relative to heroin, it should be British Columbia. We certainly would join in that committee.

Mr. Member, I think your earlier remarks touched on something very important: that is, the question of heroin with respect to any value as a pain reliever. It certainly has been overshadowed in modern times by the criminal element associated with the drug. If there is value in heroin for medicinal purposes, particularly for those who are terminally ill, then it's certainly been widely ignored for a long time because of the shadow of crime. We'll look into it, along with the federal government. We take no prejudice into such discussions or examination. It could have some interesting legal implications. Since it would come under the Criminal Code of Canada and some of the specific federal statutes, I'm sure they would offer their input. We will, with no hesitation, take our place in such discussions without a prejudiced approach to it. I really don't know if we'll be supporting the federal initiative, because I don't think the federal initiative has been crystallized at this time, but we certainly will watch.

The question on health occupations legislation.... The member mentioned one organization, I believe, who sent in a brief earlier this month. We are constantly in receipt of positions from health professionals who all have basically the same desire, and that is to have a statute devoted to their profession, just as we have for some other professions within the province. There seem to be a number of arguments from the associations as to the need for a statute. It is suggested in many of these discussions that much of what they seek is available to them now under the Society Act, were they to incorporate as a society. The weakness which they identify — and I think examination would agree — is that the society concept is voluntary, and any person who would be subject to its regulations or rules would do so in a voluntary way. These organizations who are involved in the health world appear to want something more definitive and mandatory with respect to regulations. The concern we have, not just with us in British Columbia and not just in health, but in many provinces and in many professional areas, is whether such legislation would restrict the capacity of individuals to practise in certain fields of endeavour or whether it would be necessary first for them to be accepted by one of these organizations which has its own statute and to be approved,

[ Page 9009 ]

in effect, just as we have for members of the bar or for medical practitioners in the province, who have to have membership in an organization first; whether we would be expanding that type of requirement for individuals, and how many of these groups, which operate now without statute, if legitimized — for want of a better term — would then split into sub-organizations which would want the independence that they have today and then perhaps later come back to look for their own legislation.

I believe the province of Quebec has been addressing this problem for some years, and I believe it's the province of Quebec which has experimented with what they refer to as umbrella legislation. The umbrella legislation approach would, rather than bring about an individual statute for an organization, produce a statute which would give government the authority to grant certain controls to organizations in various fields to run their business as they determine it should be run, but we have not yet come to that same conclusion. We in the Ministry of Health and, I believe, in the Attorney-General's ministry and in others that are under similar lobbying by groups and organizations to raise their own statute have not yet come to a conclusion which seems to satisfy all. So at this time we're not putting forward any legislation.

The specific brief referred to by the member is not familiar to me at the moment. I may have seen it; I'm not quite sure, but we will be responding to them. I think the paper has been received by the ministry and is being considered at the moment.

It's a tough problem right now as to whether we wish to encourage more and more organizations to have their own statute or whether it would be preferable to have some type of umbrella statute which would give us the authority to provide most of what they seek.

Mr. Chairman, on the EST review, we had quite a study on this after statements had been made and reports issued. We appointed a review committee about six months ago to determine whether staff hiring or promotion at Integrated Services was conditional implicitly or explicitly on an association with EST. We also wanted to determine whether clients of Integrated Services received either treatment based on EST or recommendations to enrol in EST courses. We also asked the review to assess the impact or influence of EST upon Integrated Services and whether such influence or impact would be appropriate for a government agency. We also asked them to make recommendations as to whether a comprehensive review of Integrated Services, as it is now and as it may be, should be carried out. The review has been completed and the committee's report has been submitted.

The people within the Ministry of Health have been reviewing this report. Among some of the information received so far, the review of Integrated Services by the ministry found that hiring a full-time staff was not conditional on association with EST and that no instances were substantiated of staff members recommending EST as therapy, although it may have been recommended in a very few cases to adults as educational experience. There are no facts to support the contention that the directions of integrated services changed because of EST influences. A comprehensive review of Integrated Services' long-term goals and objectives should be carried out because of its relationship to new facilities and its providing children's services in the Capital Regional District. The staff at Integrated Services have been told that discussions relating to personal-growth movements must be limited to staff's personal time and dissociated from Integrated Services. A comprehensive review of Integrated Services to establish its long-term goals is under review, and those objectives will soon be identified.

Mr. Chairman, EST or other programs which are made available, whether they're personal-growth programs or whatever else, seem to find their way into our system frequently. On occasion prominent people are openly identified with them. The investigation we had into Integrated Services indicated to us that this EST did not seem to have the influence that some people feared at that time. As well, I understand there's an action underway with respect to some of the statements which were made. However, that will not involve the Ministry of Health. It is, rather, an independent action that is being conducted. The report that we received, as I said earlier, indicated that, in the eyes of the investigators, this EST concept was not a dominant factor in that particular service. I've heard basically nothing since that report was prepared. So either it's functioning much better now, or no one is overly concerned. I can send the member, even though it would be available in the transcript of Hansard, the summary in point details for his own perusal.

MR. LEVI: I have two suggestions for the minister. One relates to the.... When he talked about the idea of umbrella legislation for various professional groups, we did have one experience here. about four years ago, when the Psychologists Act came in and we had quite a debate. I, personally, do not favour that kind of umbrella legislation for this reason: if people were encouraged to obtain the legislation via the private bills committee, what you give is an opportunity for there to be hearings, and all of the people who have some kind of vested interest, or are opposed, can be heard. We have no procedure at the moment in the Legislature. We have no committee system. except the private bills committee, which would allow us to have such a hearing, and that's always very useful. Some years ago we dealt with accountants, and we had a number of accountants' organizations come forward to object to a particular group; at least we had the hearings. It seemed to me that in terms of professional groups applying for legislation, that's a worthwhile way of going. You get people who make representations and give you the very real arguments. the hard arguments, the practical and professional ones, as to why they object or support a particular group. That's a very worthwhile exercise. I can well recall that when we did the Psychologists Act, had it not been for the fact that in this House at the time there were about five or six people who worked in the area of counselling, we would not have been able to debate this from a professional point of view. But it sometimes happens that when you don't have people with any professional interest in that particular group, you're not going to get that kind of debate; what you're going to get is a lot of unhappy people out there who really have no vehicle, because it comes in as a government bill. So I strongly suggest to the minister that we might look at the private bills committee as a vehicle. If necessary, let the committee sit when the House is not sitting. But let's use the committee system. which would give people an opportunity to have a hearing and make submissions. It's much more desirable than umbrella legislation.

The other observation I have to make is that, while I know it's a little early for the government to make submissions about the legalization of heroin for terminally ill people, I would point out to the minister that there are 37 countries in

[ Page 9010 ]

the world today that are using heroin for medical treatment in a very legal way. I realize that we are part of the various international protocols relating to the control and importation of heroin. Some of this, of course, grew out of the World Health Organization's position and some from the International Narcotic Control's position.

Nevertheless, I would think that the government does not have to wait for an invitation. We are constantly reminded, daily almost, in the press and media of the number of people who are in treatment for cancer or dying from cancer. The debate is very much on, even to the extent that we've now gotten to the debate of the idea of the right to die and all of those concepts. It seems to me that the ministry might very well use this opportunity, but how or through what vehicle.... I don't want you to set up a bureaucracy to do it, but it might be very worthwhile to have a small committee that would receive submissions.

In terms of the medical profession, that can be done internally, because that's a professional judgment. But there are a lot of people who are not doctors involved in the whole area of hospices, grief counselling and a variety of other services, that are now attendant to people who have terminal illnesses. Then, of course, there's the whole question of pain. The reason I raised this question initially is because I find it quite horrible, in this day and age, that we have denied it to law-abiding people who have had an incredibly difficult time with the illness they've had, simply because we've been concentrating on trying to control international heroin trafficking. As a result, that particular medication has been deprived.

I know that you juggle two major issues there, but there's no question that other countries have now made this move. Apparently it's medically desirable. Certainly if 37 countries, including Great Britain, are doing it, there are some very good grounds. It might be worthwhile for the minister to engage the ministry in a kind of public dialogue. It's worthwhile. You need that kind of support.

I don't want to get into an emotional harangue about this thing. Nevertheless there is a sufficient body of medical opinion around — some in British Columbia, the rest in Canada and internationally — that will argue in a very firm way for the objectives of the committee that.... That's something the minister might look at in terms of dealing with that particular question. I think the public should be involved in that particular one.

I'll be in touch with the minister on the matter of the lead levels in children and that kind of situation.

MRS. WALLACE: I have several unrelated items I want to raise with the minister, so I'll run through them quickly. Perhaps he can take notes and then respond, because they do cover quite a variety of different topics.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It's my understanding that the Minister of Health is the individual charged with the enforcement of the regulations relative to the living accommodations of employees, be it in a logging camp or another type of institution. Can he tell me why those regulations are not enforced for farmworkers? That's the first question.

The second question is relative to B.C. medical insurance. Apparently the medical plan rules are that they run their year from July 1 to June 30. An application for a subsidy for B.C. medical insurance is based on the previous year's income, which is taken from income tax in April, to take effect in the following July. The case that has come to me is from a woman who retired from work in June 1980. Since that time she has been living on Canada Pension and old-age security. Her current income is $584.28 a month. Because of the way the system is set up, she will not be eligible for the subsidy until July 1982, two years after she has retired. I think the minister might look into that particular section of the regulations which causes those long time delays. Certainly a woman's suddenly going from a reasonable earned income onto that kind of restricted income and having to pay the same premium over a two-year period until she is eligible for the subsidies doesn't really seem to be fair.

The question of ostomates has been raised in the House before, but I would like to ask the minister just what he is proposing on Vancouver Island. I have a letter from an ostomate who lives in Duncan and who is concerned because he has heard that there will be a curtailment. He says in part — and this is a letter to the minister, so I'm sure he's aware of it:

"This has astounded and astonished me. It proves that obviously, beyond any doubt, he and his staff have no idea what ostomy is and why it's so vital to have facilities available.

"On the Island alone there are several hundred ostomates, and yet there are only three registered and qualified enterostomal therapists. Of these three, two are semi-retired, so, in effect, we have only one active enterostomal therapist on the Island. The sole clinic on the Island is at Royal Jubilee Hospital. It is a minimal operation, very barely equipped, and it's housed in a condemned building.

"How can you possibly cut this any further without harming the ever-growing number of people who suffer from that affliction?"

So my question is: what are the minister's plans for this clinic on the Island, and can I assure my constituent that it will be a continuing service available for him?

We are facing a time of restraint, and certainly it seems that staff replacements are very slow in coming. I'm particularly concerned with the report from the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit, in which they list their urgent staff requirements, some of those positions having been vacant for as much as five years. When you start from that far behind and then face a hiring freeze, it makes it very difficult. I'm particularly concerned about the type of vacancies, because they're nearly all in the preventive area: a home-care administrator in Duncan, retired in 1981, still vacant; three homecare administrators and no qualified assistant administrator at the CVIHU. The implementation of assistant administrative positions has now been in arrears for two years in Nanaimo and Duncan, five years in Parksville — which, of course, is out of my constituency but part of the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit. We're still awaiting the establishment of a permanent home-care aide position in Lake Cowichan, and also in Ladysmith — which is also no longer in my constituency — and two positions in Ladysmith and Parksville are still vacant, Mr. Minister, when you start with those kinds of vacancies and then put on a hiring freeze, it makes it very difficult for the people who are trying to administer the job of health care. My particular concern is that so many of those positions are in the preventive areas, where it's much cheaper if we can keep people out of acute-care hospitals beds. So I

[ Page 9011 ]

would like to hear from you that the hiring freeze, if there is a firm freeze, isn't going to apply to some of those longstanding preventive positions in the Cowichan Valley area. Another concern that I certainly have, and so has the Central Vancouver Island Union Board of Health, is the fees that are being charged for inspection. I have a letter — again, with a copy to the minister — from the chairman of the Central Vancouver Island Union Board of Health indicating that the board members, boards and councils whom they represent have expressed concerns about the wholesale implementation of user fees. The options expressed by the board members at the meeting were that there could be some form of user fee where land development was involved, but that those inspections carried out to protect public health should not be charged for. I certainly support the concept that it's a very dangerous business to start charging fees for services that protect the public health.

I want to raise with the minister the problem in the Strait of Georgia. I have here an article which is entitled: "Is the Strait of Georgia Becoming A Toilet Bowl?" It goes on to detail the problems that occur with pleasure craft which dump their sewage and waste into the strait, and it concludes by saying: "Two things are needed as soon as possible. The provincial Ministry of Health must initiate legislation designed to protect our waters from sewage contamination originating from pleasure craft, and an effective monitoring program for the entire strait should be instigated if we are to prevent further depreciation of water quality." Certainly that relates to a preventive measure. It will be much cheaper if we can prevent any further deterioration than if we completely ruin all the water in Georgia strait. We have done that in many of the more populated sections, and we are fast moving towards that same situation in some of the more outlying areas.

Finally I want to talk about the situation that has developed relative to the Cowichan District Hospital as a result of the programs instituted by this minister during the past few months. I'm probably going to be accused of crying havoc, but I want to quote from a letter to the editor from Dr. Hayhurst, chief of staff at the Cowichan District Hospital. The letter is headed "Doctors Dismayed at Hospital Cutbacks."

"The medical staff of the Cowichan District Hospital views with dismay and apprehension the recent decision of the hospital board of management to reduce the number of beds in the hospital and hence their availability to the local population. While deploring the necessity, the medical staff sympathizes with the board for its very unpalatable decision, which was forced upon it by the restraint program as promulgated by the provincial government. It is therefore to the latter body that the ire and despair of the medical staff is directed.

"It is the feeling of the staff that the provincial government has its priorities all wrong, and that its concentration of funds for high-profile and visible projects such as B.C. Place, etc., where latter-day gladiators attempt to divert the attention of the populace from the pressing problems of the day, smacks of the bread-and-circus philosophy of the ancient Romans prior to its decline and fall.

"The medical staff has sworn to maintain the present high standard of medical care, ably assisted by devoted and skilled nursing."

It goes on to say to the people of the valley that they'll try to do their best. Certainly that's an indictment of the policy of this minister and his restrictions on hospitals.

Cowichan Valley is a very well-run little hospital. They had done a good job. To have to cut back and hold within the limits set by this ministry has made it very difficult.

Many examples have come to my attention. Stroke victims, who are extremely limited both in medical and physical capacity.... In one instance this particular woman used to be often out of bed twice a day — once in the morning and once in the afternoon; she has to have complete assistance. Now she is often up every other day. The rest of the time she just has to lie there. Those are the kinds of heartbreaking things that her husband has to face when he goes to visit her.

The psychiatric day-care centre is now closed down. I had a call from a woman who has had psychiatric problems for ten years; she couldn't even leave her home. Twice she was in the psychiatric ward at the Cowichan District Hospital; it's a costly business. She was on that day-care program for ten months, and she now has a part-time job. She's panic stricken that that day-care facility is gone, because she doesn't know whether she can continue to function without it. It's short-sighted economy if that woman is forced to return to the psychiatric ward because of the lack of that day-care psychiatric program.

One problem facing the Cowichan hospital results from the closure of other facilities. The family and childrens' service that was available at EMI in Victoria is no longer there, so what happens to the children? It's another load on that hospital which it's not equipped to cope with.

The number of rehabilitation beds at the Gorge Road Hospital has been cut in half.

The Nanaimo rehabilitation centre has been almost entirely closed. I have had calls from doctors and patients who are expressing concern about that particular closure. It is one of the best multidisciplinary rehabilitation centres in British Columbia.

I have a lengthy letter from a physiotherapist who worked at that institution. She outlines a couple of cases as examples of the kind of work they did there. One is a stroke victim, who, if able to continue at that centre, would probably be completely rehabilitated. She would learn to get around in her home, to do her housework, to lead a reasonably normal life. Without that care, she's going to spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair, and she'll probably spend a not of that time in acute and long-term care facilities — extremely high costs when compared to the costs of two or three months at that rehabilitation centre. The other case that this particular physiotherapist outlines as an example is that of a young chap who suffered severe burns. Without the care that's available there, he will be disfigured and disabled for the rest of his life. A woman who is a neighbour of mine and lives just a few doors away was involved in a vehicle accident and sustained severe neck and nerve damage. She is sitting at home barely able to get around. and will be in and out of the acute care beds in Cowichan Hospital as time goes by because there is not the kind of care that could rehabilitate her. Surely that is shortsighted policy as far as expenditures go. We have to concentrate on the preventive: we can't go ahead dealing with people in the acute situation. or our costs are going to continue to escalate. If we fail to make that preventive move, we are going to have more and continuing problems.

The minister says to contact him if we know about a case, but that's not the answer. Several members on the government

[ Page 9012 ]

side have said: "Instead of complaining about all of these things, you should phone up the administrator or talk to the Minister of Health and get those people the kind of care they need." In the first place, you can't get that kind of care if it's not available, if the rehab centre has been completely closed. Secondly, it is certainly a patronage system when someone who knows somebody supersedes the medical skills and knowledge that have placed people on a list of priorities, and somehow you go around that and put someone ahead on the list. That is patronage and that is wrong, wrong, wrong when related to the medical system.

AN HON. MEMBER: MLAs represent their constituents, and that's patronage?

MRS. WALLACE: Someone who uses political influence to move a patient ahead on a list, ahead of the doctor's decision as to where that patient should be, is using patronage and nothing else.

I want to talk briefly about another item that is very preventive. I don't know if I have the minister's ear on this, but I hope the minister will move to do something to regulate smoking in the province. We learned very recently that something like 30 percent of hospital beds are filled with patients suffering from self-inflicted illnesses. That relates to a lot more than smoking, of course, but smoking is certainly one of those. If people want to smoke, if the minister wants to smoke, that's his business, I guess, but I certainly don't want to breathe that smoke-filled air. All I am asking the minister to do is to ensure that in public places, people who do not smoke have the opportunity to breathe clean air. I hope the minister would make some moves.

I know I'm probably very close to being out of order, because I'm talking about legislation which has been introduced here in the form of a private member's bill. I will just leave it at that, with a strong request to the minister either to let us discuss my bill or to introduce one of his own. It has been very successful in areas where it's been tried, Minnesota in particular. The one prerequisite seems to be public opinion and support. It's my opinion that in British Columbia you have that public support for controlling and regulating smoking in public areas, and I would urge you to take some action.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just very quickly, I think the member indicated earlier that some of the questions could be taken on notice, in effect, if detailed answers are required, and some require that.

On the question of the services for the ostomate, Mr. Chairman, we are contacting the groups involved in this. Why some services would be cut back on that is a bit of a quandary for us, because, as the member would know, that is a decision made by the board or whatever. We will be reviewing every hospital in the province with respect to what they have indicated to us they are cutting out. We will be responding to them; in fact, we will be responding to them in a very personal way with what services we believe should be modified, improved or replaced. I would like to say that in my opinion there should be no reduction in that area of service in the province. I really can't understand why they would even choose to reduce any of it. So we're looking at that very specifically.

We give first priority to filling positions in the preventive health side. We've been getting along quite well with the central unit since they came to see us, and we went over some problems. There are certain positions that are extremely difficult to fill anywhere in the province, because of the shortage of people in that, but we do give the preventive area first priority.

We disagree on the user fees, obviously.

Regarding the Strait of Georgia and pleasure craft, I think it's an absolute disgrace that we even have to have that concern about people who choose to dispose of their waste in such a manner, when there are services readily available at marinas and other places for eliminating that. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Environment is involved in that in some way, and we'll contact them to find out what perhaps could be done. I don't know how you toilet-train boaters.

I am only presuming the Cowichan Hospital has responded to our communications to them. I don't seem to recall hearing from them myself, but probably people in the ministry have. Again, we can look at that and see where the situation is. I'm not familiar with all the details of that specific hospital.

One comment, Mr. Chairman, with respect to what is becoming somewhat of a distorted message. I said in the House some time back that if a member had a situation involving an individual, there's nothing prohibiting him from bringing it to my attention and we'll look into the matter. It's not that we have the capacity to modify waiting-lists at all. Waiting-lists are developed by the hospitals and the doctors involved. From information coming to us by way of the patient, doctor or someone else, we have found frequently that we get an entirely different story when we contact various people. As an example, someone was told six months for a certain operation; upon investigation we found that the total waiting-list is only three months. There seemed no explanation as to why this elderly woman would have been advised that she had to wait six months for a cataract operation. We can look into these matters very quickly, and frequently we find that the situation is quite different then.

On the smoking issue, the member is probably right. I would think the figure of 30 percent of our beds occupied by people who are there for self-inflicted illness is probably extremely modest. It's probably much higher than that.

I might mention that most of the Richard Blanshard Building — our Ministry of Health building — is non-smoking, except for the private areas where a person may do it to himself.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm going to do it a little differently. I'm not going to attack the minister; I'm going to praise him. One specific issue is the Dease Lake clinic. I'd have to say that for what this minister has done for the residents of Dease Lake and the surrounding area he has to be congratulated. He put in a clinic, and I appreciate the work that he did for my constituents in Dease Lake. I know we talked about it a number of times, and we raised it in the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It sure wasn't from your efforts.

MR. PASSARELL: Why don't you be quiet? He must be jealous. Anytime somebody says anything positive in this House he has to argue about it. I'm simply saying to the Minister of Health that I appreciate the work that he's done for the residents of Dease Lake.

[ Page 9013 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you tell that to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)?

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, can you bring the member for South Peace to order? We're trying to have a reasonable, positive debate.

The second thing I would like to praise the minister about is the excellent work he has done on the air service branch. The air ambulance has been really appreciated by many northern residents who have to use it when there's a medical emergency. The program is working very successfully, from the letters that cross my desk. On the second issue, I'd have to praise him.

The third issue I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the rural health corps program that was announced two years ago. The Premier announced it in the budget speech at the time. It's starting. I'd like to have the minister's reaction to when it's going to be 100 percent implemented.

Basically what I'm standing up for today is to praise the minister for the work he's done on the Dease Lake health clinic. On behalf of the residents of the area, I appreciate it and thank you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is most refreshing to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). He speaks the facts, which should be reiterated by every member in this House. It should be reiterated by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). It is true that British Columbia leads the nation in health care. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) does not help the issue at all by spreading the currency of fear that the health system is deteriorating. It is anything but deteriorating, It's increasing and getting better all the time. There have been no cutbacks in health or health education. It's progressing all the time. It's getting better all the time.

A few days ago we were treated to members of the opposition with buttons saying: "Stop the deterioration of health." They had health people lining the galleries with the same buttons on. As he spoke, he pointed to them and said: "Look at them up there." Those people had no interest in health in the province. Those people were only interested in their pay, that was all. I condemn them for it. I condemn the opposition for this method of attempting to deteriorate the health system in British Columbia.

In the B.C. Medical Journal of June 1982 it says: "The annual meeting of the college was, if possible, duller than usual and got the small turnout it deserved. Our annual banquet would be improved if we had a guest speaker, if we had anyone at all. We should reject completely the idea of having our spouses and ourselves confronted by yet another medical-political speech." That's what we've been hearing in this House for the last three days: medical-political speeches knocking the system, when it's the best system in Canada.

Have you ever been to the hospital in Cowichan? The valley is proud of it. It's a beautiful hospital. The hospitals in Dewdney, New Westminster, Vancouver, Atlin and all through British Columbia, and the air ambulance service — all this for the people of British Columbia.

I don't think my brief remarks could end without quoting from an editorial in the Delta Optimist of Wednesday, May 19. This is what they are saying all over British Columbia. It says:

"Visions of the sick staggering through the streets because of closed hospital beds and understaffed hospitals have been evoked. While such panic-stricken images may have shock value, they are far from the truth. The reality is that hospitals are in the same economic boat as the rest of us. They must learn to trim down to help keep the boat afloat. There has been no cutback. There has been a 15 percent increase in patient charges and a 7.7 percent increase in funding, for a total revenue increase of 9 percent."

We're talking about cutbacks and the deterioration of health care. Hon. members, why don't we speak the truth in this House? Why don't we get the opposition and government together? We're willing to go along. Why don't you tell us what it is? A system of health care that's the best in Canada.... Ask the people in the hospitals what they think. They're all happy with our hospitals. There isn't a better hospital system anywhere.

The health critic for the NDP, the member for New Westminster, clearly was condemning the home-care system; one of the finest systems and an idea of this government. He talked of cutbacks. There was no cutback in the system. Last year it was increased. This year there's even been an increase. What is he talking about? He's talking about the fact that a new system started and got a little out of control. Some people were taking advantage of it. So the government decided to pull back and reschedule the appointments of the people. We're spending more money and getting better value for the public. The member for New Westminster does not in any way reflect what the people who are getting this remarkable service are saying. The people who are getting that home-care service are pleased and happy.

All British Columbians are happy with their medical service. Most of the doctors are happy; the health professionals are happy. Everyone is happy except for a few disgruntled people who want more money — the element of greed. It's not the element of healing that's of concern. I think we should be more responsible here. At any hospital that I know of — the Maple Ridge Hospital, the Mission Hospital, the New Westminster hospital — the people are so pleased with it; it's such an excellent system. I sit here unbelieving that anybody could criticize a system of this nature. When the health-care system takes one-third of our total budget, how much more can we expect to put into it? There can be no more! I have to tell the health-care system that it must live within these means somehow. If it means reductions and cutbacks in salaries, let it be so. It must be done. Let's not say its going to be increased every year. We must have the same care and better, for less money. We cannot allow the health-care system to absorb more than 30 percent of our budget. It cannot be done.

There is no deterioration of health services in British Columbia. What this opposition has spread continuously is the currency of fear. They frighten the people on the street, but they're not frightening the patients in the hospitals, because they know they've got good care. I'm just saving that I am disgusted, I am displeased. There's no way I can understand this continuous attack, especially from the member for New Westminster. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) speaks of the Sunny Hill Children's Hospital, tearing at our heart strings. There is no better institution; that's a first-class institution. We have such an institution in Maple Ridge — first-class, nothing like it in the world, yet it's being criticized.

[ Page 9014 ]

It's time we stopped criticizing. It's time we got together and said: "We have the best system in British Columbia." We had a group of hospital people trying to mount a program: "Don't get sick in British Columbia." What nonsense! What tripe! What a terrible attitude! We should be altogether proud of the one shining light in the diadem of British Columbia's health-care system. It's time the opposition recognized that and told it as it is. I tell you, as this editorial said, their remarks are untruthful. The system is good. It's appreciated by the sick, but it's being criticized by the well. I tell you, that is a sad commentary on this House and on the helpless, negative opposition. It's time they woke up and recognized the true facts, and said that British Columbia leads in health care — and we do lead in health care.

MR. MITCHELL: It never ceases to amaze me when I listen to these personal attacks made on members of the opposition.... When we bring factual information to this House, there is a series of personal attacks on individuals. It's like shooting the messenger — not because you don't like the message, but because you don't like what he is saying. I think it's important, if we are going to maintain any semblance of democracy in this country, that we must have an opposition that is bringing facts to this House that have already been taken through the ministry, the bureaucracy and the different levels of government.

I find it interesting that we are accused of causing fear in this province. It is not the NDP who cut back money to the hospitals and told hospital boards to cut back or shut down extended-care beds. Last year when I was trying to get constituents into extended-care homes there weren't any. Now out in the Gorge Road Hospital they've cut nearly a floor out. And you tell me that there hasn't been a cutback, when you have beds going empty and $20,000 bonuses paid to acute-care hospitals to put in more extended-care beds, and at the same time you're shutting down a floor of beds. You say that there are no cutbacks, and we are being accused of spreading fear. My phone calls and mail have tripled. It has gone on and on in the last month because of the cutbacks by this government in health care. The fear that was generated was not generated by us. It was generated by something that people did not understand.

I think it's important, if there's going to be a program of cutbacks and restraint, that that program of restraint fall on everyone equally. You don't take political Brownie points by hitting this civil servant or that civil servant or that health faculty. If you're going to have restraint, that restraint program should go on wages and at every level of government and society. It shouldn't make certain people scapegoats....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you in favour of that?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes. If you're going have a restraint program, have it equally; have restraint on wages, prices, interest and professional fees. Have a restraint program that is properly explained by the government to the public so the public will know that there is going to be some type of equality. Don't make, like you did last year.... Last year you cut $55 off welfare parents. This year you're going to hit civil servants. All the political gimmicks you use are not a real program.

We're not looking at cutting jobs. You must have a program that is going to create full employment. If you look into history, there was a time when they were promoting our health care.... My colleague ahead of me was stating that we have the best.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's no colleague of yours.

MR. MITCHELL: No, he's no colleague of mine, but he sits on my side of the House, and I accept George as one of our people. You wouldn't recommend him for the cabinet, and he's forced to sit over here.

What I'm trying to get through to this minister and House is that we must have an opportunity to bring problems to this House. But in spite of what the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) said in his attack — that we only bring problems to this House, that we do not take them to the ministry — I would like to say to him that everyone on this side of the House has worked through the ministries, through hospital boards, and has made representation on behalf of their constituents in many cases. To make attacks on us because we bring something to this House.... We bring it to the House because we could not get satisfaction through the bureaucracy. The minister knows that and the members know that. We attempt to get something solved at every level of opportunity. Unlike the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I am not afraid that when I have worked my way through the various forms of bureaucracy and have gone to this minister and that minister.... After reviewing all the information or evidence or factual statements and letters that I've presented, he did make a change in the regulations.

For the benefit of this House and for the record, I would like to say that I was approached by one of my constituents with four children suffering from Pierre Robin syndrome. I won't go into the details of the traumatic effect that has on a on a family or the cost to correct it. They went to their doctors, their dentists, their medical plan. To have a series of operations done on those four children to correct this problem would have broken that family financially. In spite of the best system we've ever had, the Medical Services Plan did not cover that particular family. I went to five doctors. I went to three specialists in the Pearkes clinic. I collected letter after letter, which I won't read into the record. We presented a case to the minister. I would like to say very honestly that the minister responded. He took the first step and issued a $2,000 grant to that family, with an assurance that he will try to change the rules and regulations within the province. I say that is what every one of the MLAs in the opposition does day after day on various levels. To say that we are the ones who create the health problem.... I'll tell this House that it is not the opposition that creates ill health or fear; it is the government.

There are a few other things that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention. These are issues that affect my particular riding and a lot of the constituency problems that I am faced with. The regulations dealing with septic tanks.... I am not sure how they were originally written or why they were written in the manner that they were, but you have a problem in rural areas that are not serviced by sewers. The only method of disposing of household waste is through the septic tank. But you have a set of regulations that do not work, and they are open to abuse by every developer and person who wants to make a quick dollar.

When they want to put in a septic tank they have to make an application to the health department. They make their application, and in filling it out — the developer, homeowner,

[ Page 9015 ]

builder, whatever person's involved in making the application he writes down what the perk test was. He can put down anywhere from 9 to 12 minutes and then he goes in and if it's not deep enough he says he needs another two feet of approved fill. On the strength of that application the health inspector must issue him a permit, providing these figures are within the guidelines. When the inspector goes out, he has so many feet of septic field in place, because of the number of bedrooms in the house; they measure the particular field, the depth of the soil, and then it's all covered up. But the big problem is that there is no method of testing if the perk figures that were given are correct, and in many cases they are not. There is no method of stating what is approved fill. Last winter I went out to various subdivisions and with the health inspector I viewed field after field where you dig a hole in the ground and three weeks later it's still filled with water. You should bring in some type of regulation that when a perk test is made there is at least some spot-testing made throughout the area.

I can point out in my own particular riding subdivisions that were owned by one owner. When he made a series of perk tests he found that the land would not perk. It was sold to a real estate firm, another developer came in with a series of perk tests and today in the wintertime you go in there and the land around the house is so hard — it's not that it's slough — that the water will not perk through it. As I say, in rural areas the septic tank is the only thing that allows a proper subdivision, and at the present time the regulations are not strong enough to protect the health of the people living in it. I have had doctors, real estate salesmen, owners and people within the Health ministry who feel that they are hamstrung because they have no way of enforcing what is needed in a perk test and how and what type of tests should be made. I bring this to the minister's attention because it is becoming a problem in the higher-density subdivisions throughout the riding.

Another problem that I would like to bring to the minister's attention, one which I know the ministry is going to be faced with, concerns some of the difficulties that are predictable with the new location of the Victoria General Hospital. I am not going to get into debate on whether or not it should be located in that particular area. One of the problems that I think this House should review is that this hospital, a major one for the greater Victoria area, is located in a small, unincorporated community. That particular community, though they are hardworking, has a small tax base, and their essential services in the way of fire are serviced by a volunteer fire department. Now you have in their midst a highly sophisticated hospital that will be servicing the greater Victoria area. Normally a hospital of that size and that complexity is located in an area with a tax base that can support essential services, that can support the need when there is an emergency.

I know the minister has been approached, as has the hospital board, by members of the volunteer fire department, asking for some assistance in financing some of the training and equipment that will be needed to service the new hospital. If the minister hasn't been through it, I know that some of his staff have been through. There is a board in that hospital for the location of fire — a large, integrated identification board that identifies where the fire is, etc. The only thing is that when you have a group of volunteer firemen who must respond to that call, if they are not trained on a daily basis to understand the problems they may face when they get into that particular hospital, and when you have volunteers who work all day on a job — or they may have a business — and they are called on.... They are well trained to fight a house fire, but they are not trained to do the program that is needed in a hospital of that size. I recommend to the minister — and I know agreements have been made with the DND fire and backup support from Saanich.... The initial response time to any fire is especially important for saving lives or putting down that particular fire. I say that the minister should be giving more money to the View Royal volunteer fire department so they can have more equipment or have an earlier first response from other fire departments.

A second problem that I feel confident in predicting is the.... Again, it's a matter of location. I won't speak to the minister. but will direct this information to his deputy. I know the deputy may be a little more aware of what happened in this particular case. Those who have been involved in emergency service, especially in major accidents on weekends, know that the majority of those accidents are caused by alcohol-related drivers or their passengers. I know one of the things that happens in emergency hospitals is that the ambulance attends, they take the victim or those who are injured to the hospital, they arrive at the emergency ward and a few minutes later the emergency ward is filled with fellow drunks and fellow passengers who must get in the way of the hospital workers. They have to look after their buddy, and it causes chaos in the emergency ward. Because of the location of this particular hospital.... Again, it is located in an unincorporated community that is serviced by the RCMP, and for those who know anything about policing — especially the RCMP, who do a great job, but they are still understaffed.... Many nights you only have two, three or four men on shift. If you have a major accident, they have one or two at the scene, and if anything else comes up they do not have the manpower to cover a lot of drunks landing up in the emergency ward.

I know from actual experience in the greater Victoria emergency wards, from going down there many a time covering the city or Saanich or Oak Bay…. I have known a policeman who had to go down there because of the problems of drunks arriving at the emergency ward because one of their buddies or one of their friends was involved in an accident, or because they wanted to get the guy who was the driver of the other car. I feel that in an emergency of that nature an agreement should be made with other departments to cover the problems that are going to arise in that particular area.

I bring this to the minister's attention because I know that if it is not faced, problems will arise. I would like to see him make a positive attempt to settle this before the hospital opens and to come to some agreement with the View Royal volunteer fire board and emergency service about what security is needed in that particular hospital.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. hon. members. We're going to have all summer to debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in this debate. I know you are reluctant to recognize me from time to time, but every member in this House should have the opportunity to speak on such an important subject as this.

Before I make my comments, I want to compliment the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) on his presentation in

[ Page 9016 ]

the House today, which was a positive outlook on health care in this province. I think the member for Dewdney stated it very well. We're very fortunate to live in British Columbia, having the services we have here.

I'll even go so far, since there has been the odd bouquet put across the floor today — one from the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), although he did touch on cutbacks, etc., brought up some interesting issues that the Ministry of Health can deal with.

The one point that seems to come to the fore when the opposition are speaking is cutbacks. They seem to implant fear into those people who hear the comments.

I think members of the opposition in this House, when they address the question of health care, should recognize that when they make their statements about the small boy or senior citizen who has a problem the news media will quite often report it as a spectacular issue. As a result, those people outside this House face fear and trepidation because they feel it applies across the board. In many cases, if you're not satisfied with the service you get from the bureaucrat, and presented those problems to the minister because his office door is open, I'm sure he could address and resolve them without having to put the comments in the news media from time to time. Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes I have I want to mention, as other members have mentioned in this House, that we've seen the health-care budget not be cut back but rise from $1.97 billion to $2.3 billion, which is about 30 percent of the total budget for this province. The revenues generated by the economy of this province are redirected into people services. Our prime service, of course, is health care, closely followed by the other major expenditure of the government budget, education.

It seems that from time to time we end up seeing a campaign of fear that really is carried out on the backs of the sick, disabled and elderly of this province. That is unfortunate, because it does put that fear in the person's mind out there who is exposed to the best health care and services in Canada. It puts them in a state of concern, and I think that's highly unfortunate.

As the member for Boundary-Similkameen, and not as a minister, I want to touch on my area, because I think it's important. Then I'm going to pose a question to the Minister of Health and hope he can resolve my problem for me.

I think we have an excellent track record in my riding regarding what the Ministry of Health has done for us. We have four hospitals operating in my riding. In 1981-82, $22.5 million was spent on the operating budgets of those four hospitals. In 1982-83, their budgets total $24.8 million, an increase of 11.04 percent. Thirty-eight acute-care beds have been added in the Penticton Regional Hospital. In my riding, intermediate care is very important because of the average age of the people who live in that area. A lot of people retire to the Okanagan. Recently we opened up in Osoyoos a 50-bed intermediate-care facility called the Sagebrush Lodge. We also opened up a 30-bed intermediate-care facility in Grand Forks called Hardy View Lodge, to serve the people in that area.

With the operating costs of those facilities and the capital expenditures that have been made, I can say that I feel pretty proud of the track record of this minister and this ministry, given what they've done in my riding. I'm sure every member here could get up and indicate to this House and the people of British Columbia what activity has gone on with regard to the Ministry of Health, the capital expansion and operating budgets of the various hospitals and facilities in this province, as opposed to making a big issue of one specific item which catches the headlines and puts the fear of God into a lot of senior citizens or disabled people in this province. I find that very unfortunate, as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) mentioned in his speech.

I just want to mention to the minister that as he knows, two capital expansions are on the books and scheduled for my riding. One that has been in progress for a number of years, it seems to me, is the Summerland Hospital's 35-bed extended-care expansion. I would ask the minister for his support and endorsement, and possible quick action, to have that goal achieved for the people of Summerland.

With those remarks, I am pleased to support the vote of the Minister of Health.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I move the committee rise and report progress.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the report of the British Columbia Racing Commission for 1981.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the report of the corrections branch of the Ministry of Attorney-General for the years 1981 and 1982.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the report of the British Columbia Police Commission for the year 1981-82.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the 1981 annual report of the B.C. Marketing Board.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the first annual report of the Yukon River Basin Committee.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the thirteenth annual report of the activities of the joint Fraser River Advisory Board.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.