1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2093 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Health department lists. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2093

Routine proceedings

Status of Men and Women Amendment Act (Bill 75). Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2093

Oral Questions

Consumer education kit. Mr. Phillips — 2094

Environmental studies for proposed steel mill. Mr.

McGeer — 2094

Funding of employment of students by small businesses.

Mr. Wallace — 2095

Consumer education kit. Mr. Schroeder — 2096

Delays in prosecutions. Mr. Gardom — 2096

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates

On vote 103.

Mr. Phillips — 2097

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2099

Mr. Smith — 2100

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2101

Mrs. Jordan — 2102

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2104

Mrs. Jordan — 2104

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2105

Mr. McClelland — 2105

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2107

Division on vote 103 — 2107

On vote 107.

Mr. McClelland — 2107

Department of Health estimates

On vote 64.

Mr. McClelland — 2107

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2108

Mr. Wallace — 2109

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2112

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2114

Mrs. Jordan — 2117

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2118

Mrs. Jordan — 2118

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2119

Mr. McClelland — 2120

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2121

Mrs. Jordan — 2121

Mr. Phillips — 2122

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2122

Mr. Phillips — 2123

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2123

Mr. Gibson — 2123

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2123

Mr. Chabot — 2124

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2125

Mr. Chabot — 2125

Mr. Wallace — 2125

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2126

Mr. Smith — 2127

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2128

Appendix — 2129

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I don't have this

honour very often, but I would like to welcome to this House

today 45 pupils from the Pinecrest School from my home town of

Quesnel in the Cariboo. These pupils are accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. David Hudson and Mrs. Tina Quinn. Also, two of

the parents are accompanying the pupils: Mrs. Jean Mack and

Mrs. Diane Myers.

These students have travelled 500 miles by bus to see

democracy in action. I would request all Members to behave

themselves today.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have

today visiting with us in the gallery His Worship Mayor

Harding, in company with his brother Les, from the Village of

Nakusp. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to

them.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, the

strength of any political party is in its constituency

associations, as you know. I'm very pleased today to be able to

welcome and ask the House to welcome in the Members' gallery

members of the executive of the Saanich and the Islands Social

Credit Constituency Association.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with

leave of the House, I would like to make a statement — which I

could make during question period, but I might take up time in

question period.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a

question by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). He asked

me about a little black book. I described what I thought to be

the black book that he was talking about. There happens to be

two lists. The list the Member for Oak Bay was asking about was

merely a list of anomalies — quite a benign list....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: The one that the Member for....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Quiet, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: The one that the Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) would describe as a "malignant" list is a list

that, as I said yesterday, I had ordered: that's a list of

doctors who extra-bill, so that we establish whether or not

they are making it a habit and a pattern. That one is for

purposes that I described.

The other list that I should have been describing to the

Member for Oak Bay was the list of doctors or billings that are

relatively anomalous in that there is a different method of

billing or that kind of thing that they have to do by hand

instead of through the computer. As I described it, it is a

relatively benign list. It has nothing to do with the other one

that I described.

There are two lists now. You sorted one out that wasn't

really ever made public before, Mr. Member. Well done!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): How many names are

there on the list?

HON. MR. COCKE: Quite a few. Not very many in contrast to

the number of doctors, but if you take the two lists, the one

that the Member for Oak Bay was asking about, some 20 or 30

possibly, maybe more, which have to be hand-done. The other

one, I can't tell you. That I will be discussing with the

association as time passes. Neither one of them is, to any

extent, a large fraction of medicine in B.C.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, they will be informed.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we get on with question

period?

Introduction of bills.

STATUS OF MEN AND WOMEN

AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Status of Men and Women

Amendment Act.

Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to

[ Page 2094 ]

be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

CONSUMER EDUCATION KIT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I wish to direct my

question to the Minister of Consumer Services. With respect to

the consumer education kit now being circulated by the

Minister's department, and being circulated to teachers in

British Columbia, can the Minister tell the House to what

extent and in what manner the Department of Education

participated in the preparation of this kit?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I wish to

thank the Hon. Member for asking that question. The Minister

was given a kit a short time ago for her cognizance. My Deputy

Minister was in touch with her Deputy Minister early last fall

concerning our proposals on the teachers' kit. He was in

complete agreement with the plan and with the development of

the materials on the topic of advertising. The only new item in

the package.... Everything else has been published previously,

and it has only been brought together in the kit. The

advertising project was jointly developed by this department

and the provincial education media office of the Department of

Education in Vancouver. We provided them with the funds to work

on the text, the art work and the acquisitions of rights to

several of the films that are used.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Prior to

distribution of the kit, can the Minister inform the House if

the kit and its contents were discussed with any of the

following: school board administrators, B.C. Teachers

Federation or school trustees?

HON. MS. YOUNG: They were not discussed with any of those

associations. We felt that this was under the aegis of the

Department of Labour, and we dealt with the Department of

Labour.

I'd like to read a letter....

MR. PHILLIPS: The Department of Labour?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I mean the Department of Education.

I would like to read a letter from the superintendent of

schools for Surrey.

"Dear Ms. Bridgeman:

"Thank you for the consumer education kit. I have

passed it on to Mrs. Buyers, our supervisor of

instructions, special services, and have asked her to make appropriate

arrangements to see that all teachers in our school district are aware

of the material and how it can be used.

"Yours very truly."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I really think that it is enough

to summarize what information was given to the school boards,

rather than reading out letters which otherwise could be tabled

if the Member so requested.

MR. PHILLIPS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Contained

in the kit is a bibliography of consumer education booklets recommended

by the department. One of these is entitled: "Sue the B*st*rds."

Since this is an American publication dealing chiefly with consumer

court proceedings and small claims proceedings in American courts,

under American laws, does the Minister consider this book appropriate

or relevant in British Columbia?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I think, if the Member will read the

particular item further, he will see that it says specifically

there that it does not necessarily apply to British Columbia,

and they should seek other authorities.

I would also point out that in the bibliography there are 20

Canadian references and 21 American references to various

topics on consumer matters, including articles from

Fortune magazine.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

FOR PROPOSED STEEL MILL

MR. McGEER: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Economic Development. Now that we know the government is

considering a steel mill for four million metric tons a year, I

would like to ask the Minister whether there are environmental

studies that will give communities considering accepting this

steel mill an idea of the extent of pollution that it will

create.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, as was announced some time ago — last September when

the studies were being commenced — phase one of the studies

would be a subjective review of several sites in and around the

province.

Phase two, which is going to be commenced later this month,

will take into consideration the environmental impact, the

social impact and other matters involving the economics of such

a steel mill.

In keeping with that, we hope to have a full public dialogue

when the information from phase two is available so that the

communities that are on the short list of sites that may be

chosen for such a mill will be fully apprised of those facts

and be able to

[ Page 2095 ]

give us their opinions about whether or not they

can manage

such an establishment within their community.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, at the beginning of question period the Hon. Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) introduced a subject to

the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young). The Hon.

Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) had a supplementary which

the Speaker did not recognize. We now have had the introduction

of a new subject by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey, with supplementary questions allowed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the obvious answer....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, this happened last week. Would you

please indicate whether in fact the Chair is going to recognize

supplementary questions or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will do its best to recognize that it

is a supplementary question being asked, and I will certainly

return to the Hon. Member for Chilliwack. I am sorry that he

escaped my notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary

to the Minister of Economic Development. In the light of the

Premier's statement that no community will have a refinery

forced on them against their wishes, does the Minister's

statement today that there will be environmental studies done

and that communities will be entitled to give their views mean

that no community will get a steel mill forced on them against

their wishes as, indeed, the Minister himself indicated to

Kitimat, as reported in the Northern Sentinel not too

long ago?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the

article that appeared in

that newspaper was referring to public hearings in

communities.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): You said you didn't like

them.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the communities

in which a steel mill may be established, if there's not

cooperation from the community and the labour force and the

business leaders of that community to operate a steel mill,

certainly it would be mad to try and put one there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I take from the Minister's statement

that we have the assurance now that the same policy will be followed in

the case of the steel mill as the Premier enunciated in the case of the

refinery, and that therefore a local authority has the final veto on

the establishment of any steel mill in its general area?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, no small community has a final

veto on anything that this assembly or the Government of

British Columbia may or may not decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LAUK: Certainly this government would be

irresponsible if we did not take into consideration the

opinions of a community in which we wished to establish either

an oil refinery or a steel mill of a major size. It seems to me

appropriate that this government, unlike the previous

administration, listens to communities before establishing such

projects. May I remind the opposition Members of the way that

the Delta port at Roberts Bank was forced down the throats of

that community without consultation? We're doing the

opposite.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I take

the Minister's statement today as the definitive government

statement of policy...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think that the question is out

of order, as the Member well knows. You're merely summing up

what the Minister has said and asking him if that's what he

meant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am asking him whether the

conflict between his views and those of the Premier have been

discussed and whether or not the latest statement represents

government policy.

FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT OF

STUDENTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Minister of Labour a question with regard to government

funding for student employment by bona fide businesses. What

procedure does the Minister employ to screen applications and

ascertain that the applicant is a bona fide small

businessman?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have a local committee in

each region of the province which screens applications and

makes recommendations for acceptance or rejection.

My department has received applications for funding from

virtually every Social Credit constituency association in the

province. Only in one instance, in the case of Prince Rupert,

was that local association registered as a non-profit society.

As such,

[ Page 2096 ]

their application was recommended for acceptance by

the

local chamber of commerce. Fortunately my department was able

to determine that although they were registered as a non-profit

society they had not in fact submitted a report since 1971 and

hence they were not in good standing.

I want to assure the House that as a matter of policy the

Department of Labour will not consider the funding of any

political organization.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the question he asked.

HON. MR. KING: I view these applications most seriously. We

have had a statement from the president of the provincial party

indicating that this was simply a test to determine whether the

department was on its toes. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that's

akin to pilfering a store to test the security of that store,

and I think that's an irresponsible position to take.

I want to say further, for the edification of all Members of

the House, Mr. Speaker, that I view this matter so seriously — where

certification is provided by all of the local presidents

of the Social Credit constituency associations that they are in

fact a bona fide small business when that appears to border on

a false statement at least, and almost a fraudulent application

for government funds — that I intend to ask the

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) department to

consider what action the Department of Labour should take in

this matter.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the party

concerned has chosen to publicly come close to making

accusations regarding my particular position in this House and

relating the funding by government of political activity to

this specific measure, could the Minister give the House the

assurance that at no time was I involved in any discussions on

this issue and, furthermore, that this is not...

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Clean.

MR. WALLACE: ...related to the subject of the Act which the

Premier has stated he will be bringing in related specifically

to election expenses.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly do that. I can

say further that I anticipated that this might arise today, and

had it not (laughter).... Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat

peculiar that the official opposition, who are supposed to have

the stated purpose of scrutinizing legitimate government

expenditures, would not themselves have raised the question on

this matter. But I did anticipate a question from someone who

is validly concerned with public expenditures, and had there

not been one, I intended to ask leave of the House to make a statement

this matter. The Member for Oak Bay certainly had no

part in

that. I can assure him that this is

an Act of the Legislature.

The Special Employment Programmes Act was passed by this

Legislature; the intent of it is clearly stated, and it bears no

resemblance or relevance to the possibility of a special

elections Act.

CONSUMER EDUCATION KIT

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, back to the

subject of the consumer education kit. Does the Minister agree

with statements made by Rod Kerr, and quoted in this morning's

paper, that the kit is strictly anti-business?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary.

MR. SCHROEDER: A supplementary. Could the Minister give an

example from the material contained in the kit which would

demonstrate her view that this kit contains a balanced

presentation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It becomes argumentative, and the

kit speaks for itself, whatever it is. I don't know what it is,

but it must speak for itself and is not subject to question

period.

DELAYS IN PROSECUTIONS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I note

from The Province a report that provincial court Judge

Frank Dodding has refused to sentence a juvenile convicted of

arson because of a lack of government facilities. The report

carries on that another youth has been convicted of breaking

and entering in the same incident, which razed a warehouse. The

learned judge says: "I am wasting my time in court under this

situation."

I would ask the Hon. Attorney-General just how long this

outrageous situation is going to continue. Or is he prepared to

order a moratorium on prosecutions, or enter stays? Or is he

prepared to assure the general public that adequate facilities

will be provided forthwith?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The government will

be proceeding with dispatch to implement the recommendations of

the fourth report of the commission of Mr. Justice Thomas

Berger.

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon.

Attorney-General. How does this assist the situation in Merritt

where the individual concerned was remanded and apparently is

going to be continued to be remanded, and the judge says

that

[ Page 2097 ]

there is no place to put this boy, who is a

convicted

arsonist?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The fourth report deals with the

necessity of some assessment, sometimes in close-custody

circumstances, and it is dealt with extensively in that

report.

MR. GARDOM: But it seems to me that here we have a

situation...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: ...of a judge requesting a facility. He's not

requesting a report; he is requesting a place to have this

juvenile put today — right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry about that. It's the end of question

period. It was one speech too many.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much.

(Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 103: general administration, $2,939,174 — continued.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, when

the House adjourned last evening, 10 minutes ahead of time I

might add, we were discussing the cost of the administration of

this Department of Housing. We noted with some alarm that the

cost of administering this department has gone from $301,476

last year to the staggering, astronomical figure of $2,150,674 — an

astronomical increase. We noted that there is an increase

in the personnel employed in this department from 44 persons to

We are concerned because of the poor job done by this

department last year. Are we to take the attitude that if

something goes wrong with the policy or if the theory that the

government is working on does not sell with the people of

British Columbia, strictly by adding an additional 140 bodies

will cure the situation?

Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need this many administrators to

continue to shove up the price of land in British Columbia and take it

out of reach of all of the citizens, particularly the younger people

who are trying to provide housing for themselves. Not only do we have

this astronomical increase in the administration, which is strictly for

personnel, but we also have an additional $690,240 for salary

contingencies, bringing the total for wages in this department this

coming year to over $2.8 million. On top of that, we have additional

expenses for office expense from $40,000 to $110,000, travelling

expense from $2,500 to $140,000, and office furniture and equipment

from $17,000 to $38,500. I just have to ask, Mr. Chairman: how many $92

stacking chairs are going to be purchased as office equipment?

Advertising is $150,000. Printing and publication is $250,000. This

brings advertising, printing and publications in this department close

to $400,000.

Every budget we go through this year, we see large gobs of

the taxpayers' money being used for advertising, printing and

publications. After the waste of $731,000 by the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia in an advertising campaign to sell

that corporation to the citizens of British Columbia, a

campaign that totally failed, a campaign that was not needed in

the first place because the people of this province have

nowhere else to go for their insurance, why was it necessary to

waste $750,000 on advertising the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia? Why is it necessary to spend $400,000 in the

Department of Housing — to advertise what? Is it to try and

cram this government policy down the throats of the taxpayers,

using taxpayers' dollars to pay for the advertising?

As I have said in the Legislature before this session, taxes

are bending the backs of the taxpayers in this province. How

long will it be before the backs are broken? How long will it

be, Mr. Chairman? I think this type of waste of the taxpayers'

money has gone just a little bit too far with this

government.

I for one have no faith or trust in the way that Minister

administers his department. I am most unhappy about $400,000 of

taxpayers' money being used for advertising in this department,

advertising not necessarily to inform the public of where

houses are available but advertising, printing and publications

to try and sell the people on their way of becoming the serfs

in this province, renting from the state and living in state

homes. There is just absolutely too much of this type of

extravagance and waste in the budgets of the various cabinet

Ministers whom we are discussing here.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): You said that yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would also like the Minister

of Housing to explain to me, after the addition of 140 bodies

in his department, after a sum of close to $2.8 million for

salaries in this department, why we have an additional $100,000

for consulting services. Yesterday afternoon the Minister

[ Page 2098 ]

of Housing stood in this Legislature and talked

about

interest rates. How far would the money that this department is

spending buying up land and on the administration of this

department go if it were put back in the hands of those young

people who want to buy homes?

How far would it go to relieve some of the high interest

that Minister is talking about? How much greater help this

would be to assist these people who want to buy homes, to

assist them with acquiring land at a lower price. How much

further this would go if it were used by the department to

assist the municipalities in servicing land so that it could be

made readily available for those wishing to acquire

accommodation.

I'm afraid that in these estimates we have department after

department with nothing but waste of the taxpayers' money.

Waste and extravagance. How much of this money is going to be

used for propaganda? Will there be ads by the Department of

Housing in the Democrat? How much of this budget is

going to assist in the publication of the government news? How

much of this budget is going to assist the new information

centre the government is setting up, which will be strictly a

propaganda machine for the government? We have, time after

time, in these estimates the government buying the people with

their own tax dollars.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): How much was "Ask your government"

that you paid for?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Attempting to buy the

people.

MR. PHILLIPS: Attempting to, yes, and they're not doing a

very good job at it.

Buying the people with their own tax dollars while school

taxes go up, while property taxes go up, while the cost of

hydro goes up, while the gasoline tax goes up, while the cost

of natural gas goes up.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): While hot air goes

up.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't take kindly to the Minister of Health

chirping and smirking when I'm talking about increased taxation

because, unfortunately, we predicted in this Legislature that

taxes in British Columbia under a socialist government would

increase. That is exactly what has happened in the short two

and a half years they've been in power in this province.

MR. LEWIS: It's increased in every province.

MR. CHABOT: Not to the degree that it has here. Almost as

bad as Russia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not only have taxes gone up, but the surpluses

that were left to this government have been squandered on their

ideological ideas.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I notice the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Ms. Young) having a chuckle to herself. We went through

her department where she tried to mislead this House on the

number of persons she was going to hire in her department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw the imputation that the Hon. Minister tried to mislead

the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want me to say that she did mislead the

House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I would ask the Hon. Member, according to

the rules, to unconditionally withdraw this imputation.

MR. LEWIS: Consider where it comes from.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. We'll

just have to consider the facts, and that's what we're doing.

And that's what the people of British Columbia are doing — they're

considering the facts. They're considering the value

that they're getting for their taxes in this province. They're

considering it well. You know, you can fool some of the people

some of the time, but you're not fooling the people of British

Columbia. You're not fooling the people of British Columbia

with your wanton waste of their tax dollars. They know what's

going on in this government. They know the waste and the

extravagance.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): What was

that again? You can fool some of the people what?

MR. PHILLIPS: You should know, Mr. Minister. You've been

trying to fool people for two and a half years, you and your

do-nothing department. You and your do-nothing department;

you've been trying to fool the people ever since you got your

portfolio. What have you done in your department? Absolutely

nothing. How many jobs have you created?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Stand up and tell us what you have done.

You've done nothing!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member return to

vote 102, please?

[ Page 2099 ]

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to return to the

vote, but would you mind drawing the cabinet Ministers to

order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Delighted. Would the other Members, and the

Minister for Economic Development, please not interrupt this

Hon. Member?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm just trying to get his speech

straight.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just want to put on the record that

it makes me sick at heart as I go through these estimates.

MR. LEWIS: Sick in the head, isn't it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Look at the waste of taxpayers' dollars in

every department. As I say, here is a prime example: $400,000

for propaganda for the Minister of Housing. Glossy brochures

with the taxpayers' money. How long do you think the taxpayers

of this province are going to put up with this wilful

waste?

MR. CHABOT: Not very long.

MR. PHILLIPS: If they were reducing the taxes, if they were

giving service for the tax dollar, we could even take a little

lighter view of this. But all of this wilful waste, waste and

extravagance that we see in these estimates before us, is being

foisted on the people of this province while their taxes are

increasing.

MR. CHABOT: There's a red cloud over the Treasury.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

said that she couldn't reduce the pupil-teacher ratio because

we were in a recession. As you look at the waste and

extravagance — wilful waste and extravagance — in these

estimates, you would think we were in a period of boom, not in

a period of recession — not in a period where people are

striving to pay their taxes, and having difficulty.

Maybe the Minister would like to try and explain why he needs

$400,000 and why he needs an additional $100,000 for consultive

services when he has added an additional 140 people to his department

at an additional cost of over $2,500,000. There are additional costs of

personnel, printing and publications to try and cram down the throats

of the taxpayers of British Columbia the fact that he must buy up all

the land and must provide housing for them without one single, solitary

positive approach to reduce the most expensive cost of housing, the

most expensive item, which is the land itself.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) yapping down there, Mr. Chairman. I feel sorry for

that Member, I really do. He really doesn't know where it's

at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: He really doesn't know where it's at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member return to the vote,

please?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers in

that Member's constituency will know where it's at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member return to

the vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: They'll know where it's at in the next

election.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member speak to the

vote, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've voiced my opinion on this

wilful waste and extravagance in this department, Now maybe

the Minister will stand up, wiffle-waffle around and try and

justify it. But it's waste and extravagance. I'll tell the

taxpayers of this province exactly what this government is

doing to them: increasing taxes and wasting their money at the

same time.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Actually, most of

these questions raised by the Hon. Member for South Peace River

were asked last night by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

As I pointed out last night, there are considerable new

programmes that were introduced by legislation last spring. The

staff for implementation of these was not included in the

estimates, as that was the procedure at that time.

The extension of the elderly citizen renters grant was a

case in point. Last year it was made available to all renters

in the province, not just elderly citizens. There was necessary

staff with which to implement that programme.

The Conversion and Mortgage Loan Act. We're making

conversion and leasehold mortgages. We're making many leasehold

mortgages in small towns.

[ Page 2100 ]

Particularly because there's not an equity in the

land, it

is necessary to have very close building supervision when

people are constructing their own homes, either by contract or

by providing their own sweat equity, which a lot of them are

doing. It's very commendable. In order to supervise that the

investment of the Crown is properly secured, it has been

necessary to implement staff. Last year we had in the estimates

just the home acquisition branch that handled the home

acquisition, the second mortgage at that time, the grants, also

the homeowner grants — it made legal opinions and such on that — and

the elderly citizen renters grant. There has been a

tremendous number of increases in programmes so that 44 persons

are presently 95 persons. There is approval for several other

positions for regional branch officers; not all of them have

been filled. So there is allowance for some increase in

staff.

The matter of printing, publications and advertising. It is

very necessary in bringing in programmes such as have been

promised and for which legislation has been introduced. The

renter's grant, for instance, will be changed to the income

tax; yet it will be available to the elderly citizens. So that

this can be explained, it will be necessary to have advertising

for the widest possible dissemination of that information which

is of vital concern to the people in the province and so that

they can avail themselves equally, not just in the cities where

there's talk on hotline shows but in the rural areas as well.

There should be the widest possible dissemination of

information.

When we decide at the request of some of the municipal

councils to extend the deadline for the homeowner grant for

people who perhaps through some fault of their own or not might

have missed the deadline — we try to be reasonable and extend

it as the Act originally intended might be done — we have to

advertise this as well. It's in the interests of the

people.

We have many requests for the booklet, "Housing for People." The

SPARC organization outlines some of the programmes

that the provincial government and the federal government and

other agencies are providing in housing. They outline the

information and the brochures that can be brought in. It saves

a great deal of staff time. Rather than answering everything

individually, things that tend to be repetitive can be

answered. When you consider today the cost of writing letters

and such, I think it's a good investment to have a good

informational package for people that outlines our programmes

and how some of these programmes dovetail with Central Mortgage

and Housing programmes and the records in this particular

area.

I do not plan that we will be taking out an ad in the

Democrat .

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): We've listened to the

Minister trying to justify the increase in this expenditure in

this particular vote 103. One of the reasons he's given, just

before he took his seat, is the fact that he now has to

administer the elderly citizen rents grant and for that reason

there had to be a build-up in staff. While I don't intend to

reflect to any great extent on the vote, I would have to query

the Minister and ask him why he has to build up staff in that

particular department when the vote this year has been reduced

from $12 million to $4.5 million. Why do they need more staff

to administer one-third the number of grants that were provided

for in the budget last year?

Now I'll get back to vote 103, which deals with this

specific instance. So quit running red herrings by the House,

Mr. Minister. Quit running red herrings by Members of the

opposition, because that's all you have done since we started

debating your portfolio.

If I had to view one portfolio of government and point to it

as the greatest disaster perpetrated on the people of this

province, it would be this one — unless we dealt with Mines and

Petroleum Resources, but then we've got a Minister who is

probably over the hill and at an age where....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is

returning to a consideration of vote 102.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind him to ask detailed questions

on vote 103.

MR. SMITH: I'll get on to vote 103, Mr. Chairman, if you

will bear with me for just a few moments.

We have a vote which indicates an expenditure of $2.9

million, a tremendous increase from the year before when the

total vote was $360,000. Let's take a look at it.

Under the vote there are 25 different categories which are

new this year as compared to last year. I think that all the

Members of this House would be prepared to accept some of that

increase in the number of votes, and some of those

appointments, if there was an indication that this department

had done a job for the people of the Province of British

Columbia. They haven't. It's been a disaster. So we must ask

why the Minister thinks he has any right to request those types

of funds when he has no proof or indication that his department

has the ability to do the job for the people in this

province.

Twenty-five new categories. Let's take a look close to the

bottom of page L 110. There's a completely new category of 25

new clerk-stenographers 3 for a do-nothing department at a cost

of $218,400 to the

[ Page 2101 ]

people of this province. It's a do-nothing

department, and

yet he's prepared to hire, in one new category alone, 25 extra

personnel.

There's half-a-million dollars' expenditure for advertising,

for consulting services and for printing and publications. For

what? Does anybody in their right mind think that we have to

tell the people of British Columbia that there is a shortage of

housing in this province? I don't think so. I think everybody

is aware of that, particularly those who are looking for

accommodation, particularly the young people who would like to

have a home of their own. You don't have to tell them that, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. They already recognize

that fact, so why the $0.5 million slush fund? For what

purpose?

You don't have to advertise the fact that we have a shortage

of housing; everybody already knows that. The true test of the

operation of this department and the effectiveness of it in the

minds of the people of this province will be when they produce

one new home that was not presently on stream. To date we

haven't seen that. We've heard lots of talk. The department has

purchased a great deal of land, but in what respect does the

purchase of companies and land have to do with the number of

personnel that you anticipate you need to hire for this

department?

No, Mr. Chairman, this whole vote, with the exception

perhaps of $250,000, is a complete farce. It's padding. It has

to be one of two things. It has to be padding built into the

budget in order to give the Premier some breathing space if he

needs it at the end of the year; or if this is in fact the

intention of the Department of Housing, then everybody in

British Columbia has been led down the garden path by that

Minister, because to date he has given no indication to this

House, to the public at large, or anyone else who is concerned

about housing in the Province of British Columbia, that the

appointment of these extra bodies and the hiring of these extra

civil servants will do one thing to provide more houses for the

people in this province. In that respect it is a disgrace, it

is a farce; it shouldn't even be in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 103 pass?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'm filibustering my own estimates, Mr.

Chairman.

These people pop in and out of the House. I know that

yesterday, and of course it was recorded in the press, a couple

of Social Credit Members were left all alone in this House

because they had driven the rest of their Members out. I know

the public is concerned about that. If the Member can't hear

answers to questions that have already been given twice.... I

would have trusted that you had been listening on your speaker,

at least, if you were in your office doing your constituency

work.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): We don't have speakers in our

offices.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: As far as discussing these types of

activities goes, for instance, Mr. Member, back in 1970-71 the

activity of the home acquisition branch that administers second

mortgages and such was about 1,806 approvals monthly of either

the $500 grant or the $2,500 second mortgage or the $1,000

grant or the $5,000 mortgage. In 1971-72 the activity level was

2,200; in 1973 it was 2,400. In 1973-74 it was up to 3,100 per

month. There has been an increase in activity just in those

programmes alone as a result of enlightened policies such as

extending them to Indian reserves and such as that. You see, we

have made to date.... The Second Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) asked about the number of acquisition grants,

This increases the activity — the need for clerk-stenos and

administrative officers and such which you find in there.

The $500 grants on older houses on Indian reserves is just

one example of the increased activity requiring more staff

under this vote. There were 225 on older houses for $112,500.

The $1,000 grants on new houses on Indian reserves

necessitated, since this government came, 1,306 grants. That is

a total of 1,531 grants, or $1.418 million, Mr. Member.

Also, as I have explained at least twice now, the elderly

citizens renters grant programme of last year was expanded.

Renters' grants were made to all persons. We had to hire new

staff who were not there last year.

Also, in addition to that, Mr. Member, the Conversion and

Mortgage Loan Act making first mortgages made activity just

within the home acquisitions branch.

Besides the expanded activity of the old programmes that

were introduced by your government and expanded by our

government, last year I believe there were 44 employees in that

vote — this year there are approximately 60. We have a staff

right now of about 35 in the development branch. These people

include architects who are doing inspections of the tremendous

amount of activity.

The budget which you had when you were in office for the

elderly citizen renters grant was $1.5 million; we make that

kind of grant to one project today, Mr. Member. We have to have

architects and engineers on staff. We need more staff,

qualified people, to look at these. These were done in-house in

the old days by Public Works, but we have people in-house in

the department to look at these.

MR. SMITH: You make that much money available under the

renters' grant?

[ Page 2102 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I am now talking about the Elderly

Citizens' Housing Aid Act, non-profit societies, and

supervision of architectural details and such in proposals. So

we have an increased activity from about $1.5 million to about

$12 million in that area, so it requires closer supervision.

Those people come in the development branch — people who are

taking

part in the utilization of Central Mortgage and Housing

funds.

I just had a phone call this morning from the Hon. Barnett

Danson, who wanted to know where we could deliver, perhaps, more

of these federal-provincial funds and how they could be

expended. We need the kind of staff to respond to these. We

have requests from almost every municipality in the province.

We have to be able to meet with those.

In your riding, Mr. Member, we have to be able to respond to

demands at Fort Nelson. I know they don't ask much of you

anymore, except your silence. That is what they requested from

you in an editorial after you had criticized the fine work

being done by the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for

northern. affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler).

MR. SMITH: We'll see.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They begged for your silence and that you

just don't show up in Fort Nelson anymore, Mr. Member.

MR. SMITH: We'll see.

HON. MR. NICOLSON : In Fort St. John, where 40 units of

public housing now, in conjunction with CMHC are being

constructed....

MR. SMITH: What has that got to do with this?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, we need staff people to

look after these programmes. We are not just doing them in

Vancouver anymore, Mr. Member; we are doing them up in Fort

Nelson, up in your part of the riding. We need staff to follow

through on these.

Right now we have 35 people in that development branch. As

I've said many times, we have right now 95 of these people

acquired. We also have approval for certain branch positions,

so we can have branch managers in the north and in the Kootenay

and Okanagan interior region. They will need the necessary

secretarial staff. Certainly, we have good support in this from

municipalities. Where we do have one of these people, I have

had very good reports from the Kootenay area. Mr. Daniels,

hired in Cranbrook, is with the CMHC office. In other words,

they are located in the same towns as the CMHC offices So, Mr. Member,

this is the necessity for staff.

After all, when you are administering not really just the

$69 million housing fund...but when you multiply those funds

by the funds that are involved in Central Mortgage and Housing,

we are involved in expenditure of hundreds of millions of

dollars. It's necessary that some small portion of that be

allocated so that the funds are spent wisely and so that

priorities are set.

We also have need-and-demand studies. We have staff who have

prepared need-and-demand studies, keep these up to date, follow

up, make visitations into these small communities and look at

situations which can change very quickly in a small community.

It's most necessary that we have this staff. There will be

further staff positions required in the upcoming year.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I really hadn't intended

to enter into this debate, for a number of reasons, but when I

sat here this afternoon listening to this Minister being

soothed by the sound of his own voice, I could hardly believe

that we could have such a situation in British Columbia. To

hear this Minister defend the expenditures of his department in

this Legislature has to be nothing short of a joke. Mr.

Minister, the evidence of your actions out there is not an

increase in housing in the private sector for people; it's an

increase in expensive bureaucracy which is fumbling and

burnbling over itself.

I will give you just one tiny example. You talk in soothing

tones of an office in this area and an office in that area.

Your office in this area is sitting next to an office of

Consumer Services, next to an office of ICBC, next to an office

and an ICBC claims area. Office after office after office by

this government.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Next to an empty

office.

MRS. JORDAN: Next to an empty office, costing the taxpayers

of this province money that they can ill afford for an image

for the NDP. They want their money to go to services for

people. Let's not forget the $38 million overdraw of ICBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to

the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: Maybe one day the Minister of ICBC will explain

why he paid $140,000 for a piece of $60,000 land in the Vernon

area...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: ...which has not yet been used.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member speak to

the vote, please?

[ Page 2103 ]

MRS. JORDAN: And if the Minister of ICBC (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

would stay awake, he'd know that my colleague was referring to

another purchase of ICBC land....

(Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please? I

would ask the Hon. Member for North Okanagan to speak to vote

103. It's called general administration.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your sleight

of hand with the button is just another example of NDP actions

in this province. All I was going to say was that the Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw

any suggestion that this is not done by anything except the

House itself. This Chair is in effect the House, and I would

ask the Hon. Member to respect the House.

MRS. JORDAN: I know that the Chairman is not a magician. But

the Minister who was chattering should know that ICBC has

purchased two pieces of land in the North Okanagan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I again ask the Hon. Member to

speak to vote 103, general administration, Department of

Housing.

MRS. JORDAN: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. But you could say

almost the same for both these Ministers' departments, because

they are both very poorly administered and they are both

responsible for the frittering away of thousands and millions

of dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak in

the singular, please? We are considering only the Department of

Housing, vote 103, general administration.

MRS. JORDAN: It's almost unbelievable to the Members on this

side of the House, but it would take two Ministers to create

the chaos that the Minister of Housing has created in British

Columbia. Perhaps we should at least acknowledge his ability to

create the chaos capable of two Ministers all by his little

lonesome.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: No, I wouldn't accuse him of telling the truth.

It's quite evident during these estimates that this is not one of the

priorities of that Minister.

Mr. Minister, this multiplication of staff that, through you

Mr. Chairman, the Minister talks about — he tries to soothe

this House with the efficiency of his department. I'll just

give him one example. And if I'm incorrect, I certainly stand

to be corrected, because it would appear that either someone in

the department is terribly stupid or, in fact, the bureaucracy

is falling over itself — or perhaps a third alternative: it is

stalling.

We have an instance in the North Okanagan where a group of

people got together to try and undertake the development of

senior citizens' housing, and it has been nothing but a matter

of delay after delay after delay to the point where they are

writing about revised plans to the department about the plans

that they had before the revision. In one instance the

department wrote back and criticized their plans for

landscaping 3.5 acres of land when, in fact, the land was 2.5

acres.

This same group sent down revised plans that had been

approved by CMHC, and the department wrote back commenting most

severely and in a most critical way on their plans, which in

fact were the plans before the revision. Now if it sounds a

little bit complicated to you, Mr. Chairman, I suggest it's

very complicated to those people and, in fact, to the architect

involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out, to the Hon.

Member that there is a distinction between asking questions and

making charges. What applies to the Minister also applies to

staff people. If the Hon. Member is making charges, they should

be made by substantive motion. The Hon. Member should rather

phrase it in the form of questions.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. How much burnbling can go on in that

department under this Minister's administration? I'm certainly

not critical of the staff, because the staff can only reflect

the type of administrative capabilities of its Minister. But

this is just one example, Mr. Chairman, where there has been

lack of communication.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister asked me if that is the

Vernon Ukrainian Society. I find that a most interesting

question because it only indicates to me that there must be

another area of bungling going on in the North Okanagan in

relation to his administration, because that's not the

particular one I'm referring to at the moment.

Mr. Minister, there have been problems all along in many

areas. But I'm particularly critical of this one at

[ Page 2104 ]

this time because there's a committee in one

community that

is waiting to hear from the department. There is an architect

who is having to come down to Victoria, down to this office at

the expense of the local people, in order to straighten out

some of these problems and these misunderstandings. In fact,

Mr. Minister, all have the feeling that either there is an

incompetence that just cannot be justified because of your

administration — and I suggest probably it's lack of direction

on your part — or in fact there is an approach being taken by

you as Minister of "don't tell the people the truth; there

really isn't enough money, but we'll stall them along for

awhile."

I would like to place my voice along with the other

criticisms that it is not the staff and the number of staff

that the Minister should be extolling; it should be how many

houses, how many living units his administration is promoting

in British Columbia. It should also be the efficient manner in

which community-involved projects are handled. The Minister is

very quick to criticize municipalities and regional districts

and everyone else, but he's very, very slow to accept any

criticism on the part of his own administration — and I don't

mean for his staff, because this Minister must take full

responsibility. Mr. Minister, I concede I was out of the House

yesterday for a while, but I would like to know why, if in

fact, he as Minister is keen on private home ownership....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is

slipping back into vote 102, and I would ask her to be strictly

relevant to vote 102 — that is, to the matters that are dealt

with in vote 103.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have much more

to say; I'm just referring to the Minister's comments before I

spoke. But why there hasn't been an increase in the home

acquisition grant to young people, and why this government, in

fact, has made it more difficult for first-time homeowners to

acquire a home of their own, independent of government leases

and government ownership....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. These matters are also out of

order, and I would ask the Hon. Member to consider vote 103.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: With the Hon. Member it's.... You know,

it's customary that when most Members have difficulties in their

ridings they don't delay when they've been informed. Normally these

non-profit societies, if they go to an MLA with some difficulty.... I

don't think that they do it for political intent. I think they'd be

most annoyed to know that you've delayed in informing my office of

whatever difficulty there might be. I'm sure that if there is

something, if we're informed of it, we'll take it up as quickly as

possible.

Just last week I was in your riding, Madam Member, and I

could have arranged an appointment to see these people

personally with my Deputy, and we could have perhaps, if there

is a difficulty.... Now even right now you haven't told me the

name of that particular society. You know, there's more than

one thing happening in Vernon. I'd be pleased, if you don't

want to give the name here, if you'd write something or urge

them to contact myself or my Deputy or Mr. Nuttall — whoever

they've been dealing with.

I think the other matters are more or less under another

vote. I can only say, if I can be just briefly as out of order

as the Member, that we almost doubled the activity of the home

acquisition branch. Therefore the amount of money going out has

certainly gone up considerably.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we consider anything on

any other votes under these votes?

MRS. JORDAN: I won't comment on the Minister's past

comments, but I think the Minister's comments in reply to my

questions are very typical of the fact that he's got so much

staff — that he himself is so unaware of his administrative

responsibilities — that they're falling over each other. Mr.

Minister, your department is fully aware of this problem. If

the Minister himself was in Vernon last week and wasn't made

aware of this problem by his staff, I would suggest that they

both need to learn that the riding of North Okanagan consists

of a good deal more than Vernon, even though the NDP tend to

think that Vernon is the only part of the riding, and that it

was very much incumbent upon the Minister to be aware of this

problem when he was visiting the area.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, it was in Lumby. Your staff is fully

conversant with it.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, say so! Mr. Minister, what do you think

you're getting $48,000 plus $10,000 expenses a year for?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: For $1 million I wouldn't get a job as

your mindreader, although you need one.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon.

[ Page 2105 ]

Member speak to the vote, please?

MRS. JORDAN: I consider that sort of comment by the

Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member speak to

the vote? I would ask the other Hon. Members not to

interrupt.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you're awfully testy this

afternoon. You don't have to defend the Minister. He should — I'll

admit it's doubtful — be able to defend himself.

Mr. Minister, I would gather from your comment that when you

go into a constituency you don't either remember being briefed

about the projects in that area or you don't bother to be

briefed. The North Okanagan is not a terribly large

constituency, although it's very diversified in its interests.

At the most we have about six projects underway which relate to

your department.

Maybe the Minister could confirm this, yes or no. Let me put

it in the form of a question: does the Minister have a briefing

on all projects relating to his department before he goes into

a constituency? If he does, would he please advise me why he

was not aware of this fact and why no effort was made to

contact these people...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member is straying away from

vote 103.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask her to deal specifically....

MRS. JORDAN: It's the administration of the Minister's

department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's not dealing with the

activities of the Minister himself, which should be dealt with

under vote 102, but rather the specifics of vote 103.

MRS. JORDAN: In the general administration, was the Minister

advised by his staff of the number of projects relating to his

department that were under discussion, underway or under

observation in the North Okanagan before he went in? If so, why

was the Minister not concerned enough to contact these people — the

Lumby Senior Citizens' Society — when at the very time the

Minister was in the valley, in the district, in the

constituency, the people were waiting for a call from one of

his staff?

Is the Minister going to answer?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Madam Member, I am informed at one time or

another of all the projects that are going on. I think I've been aware

of all of the projects going on at one time or another in your area. We

were not visiting Lumby; we went into Vernon. We went in for the

specific reason of visiting the council and meeting some of the local

builders and such in the area.

After this rather indirect approach, certainly there are

some problems in the Lumby project — the proposed 44 units.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't have to give me the information; I

know it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The land is being sold by the department

to the society. We picked up the land costs, the interim

funding for this. We do have to look at the eventual cost

because it will be financed by Central Mortgage and Housing. It

will have to carry itself at an area.... It certainly is in

the matter of costs that there are some problems there.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions for

the Minister. I was interested to hear the Minister lecturing

the previous speaker about how efficient his department is and

how quickly he answers telephone calls. I might remind him of a

problem I gave him some time back in December. I handed it to

him, as a matter of fact, when we were on tour together of a

project in Meadowbrook in Coquitlam and then wrote him again on

January 23, because he never answered me and never gave me any

indication he was doing anything, Then I attempted to phone his

office later than that and wasn't even able to get through to

the Minister. In fact, the secretary told me that there was no

way that I could reach the Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: He was on holiday.

MR. McCLELLAND: Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Minister does

have some staff who are capable and competent. I was able to

reach some of his staff at least but certainly never a comment

from the Minister whatsoever on this problem.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

raised this question in the House earlier and the Minister

promised to investigate it. It involves government second

mortgages with regard to a condominium complex in Ladner.

People are now being charged interest, going back a couple of

years, for a project that was pretty marginal to begin with for

the government to be getting involved in the financing. These

people are now faced with pretty heavy debts. After having been

given advice, apparently, that they should walk out of the

complex, the Minister promised to investigate. I would just ask

whether he has investigated and

[ Page 2106 ]

whether or not he is ready to make a statement on

this whole

question.

I'd like to comment for a moment on Burke Mountain and ask,

with regard to the administration of the Minister's department,

who really is administering the department. I'm sure it's not

the Minister. I rather think it's the president of the Dunhill

Development Corp. who really is the administrator in charge of

the Housing department. I noticed the Minister making certain

comments about the density and the amount of housing which will

be going into Burke Mountain when it's done. The president of

Dunhill comes along and says: "Oh, don't pay any attention to

the Minister. Those are just broad breaststrokes that he makes,

not something that'll ever be developed. You listen to me

instead and I'll tell you what's going to happen in that

development." I wonder in how many more instances Mr. Paulus,

the president of Dunhill, tells the Minister what to do.

There's a serious concern in the Burke Mountain area and in

Coquitlam as a whole about environmental....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. This has

been thoroughly canvassed during vote 102. We're now on vote

103, general administration, and he's way off.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, I would

ask the Hon. Member to relate all of his remarks directly to

the vote that we're considering.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, we're talking about the administration

of the Minister's department, and the Minister is obviously not

in control of the administration of that department.

It is interesting to me that last year the government took

steps to force taxes up on vacant land and this year starts

buying property. What kind of administration is that? It's a

grand plan that this government has to establish a programme of

confiscation of property through taxation. We've heard that

from so many Ministers, and here we're doing it again.

Coquitlam seems to be a priority area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member does

not understand the point. I would just refer him to standing

order 61(2): "Speeches in the Committee of the Whole House must

be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." Under

vote 103 there are a number of items listed. The Hon.

Member should be referring to the specific items in this

vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to close by asking one other question

[ Page 2107 ]

about whether or not the government and the

Minister will

give a commitment at this time that it will, when it's

developing these properties in the Coquitlam area, whether it's

Essondale or where....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, I would draw to the

attention of the Hon. Member that the matters you are

discussing really ought to be considered under the Minister's

vote rather than under specific items under vote 103.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with

you. This is the general administration of the department. It

deals with Deputy Ministers — all of the Deputy Ministers, as a

matter of fact — Associates and housing management and property

negotiators. It's pretty broad, and we're dealing with the

entire department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask the Minister if....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister on a point of

order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think the question the Member is

attempting to raise now could be brought up under vote 107,

housing and development.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you directing the Chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Any Hon. Member is entitled to

make a point of order. I don't think that it's against the

rules of the House for any Member to make a point of order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm ruling on the point of

order that was raised by the Hon. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's always the practice in committee to deal

with an item under the most appropriate vote. On the point of

order, I think the point of order is well taken in this case. I

would ask the Hon. Member for Langley to deal specifically with

the items in vote 103.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you wish me to deal

with it in vote 107, I'll wait and deal with it in vote 107.

That's easy. But I'd like an answer from the Minister on the

other point that I raised with regard to the administration of

his department.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The answer to that, Mr. Member, is that I

am having a very thorough report prepared. The matter goes back

to 1969. It involves, I think, three different developments — at least,

to my knowledge. There is one person working on this

full time. I think it will take him a couple of weeks to get

the report prepared.

Vote 103 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Wallace

Gardom

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Vote 104: elderly citizens renters grant, $4,500,000 — approved.

Vote 105: grants in aid of construction of homes for elderly

citizens, $10,000,000 — approved.

Vote 106: grants in aid of special care homes, $2,000,000 — approved.

On vote 107: housing and development, $69,720,459.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on the question of the

development of housing in the area of Burke Mountain, and also

in Essondale, which is apparently delayed somewhat now because

of the concerns of Coquitlam council, I just wish the Minister

to assure this House and make a commitment at this time that

the government will be prepared and will act just the same as

any other developer is forced to act within a municipal

council.

This Minister needs to commit himself to a course of action by which

the government will abide by all zoning regulations and public hearing

requirements in the community before it is allowed to go ahead with any

developments in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or anywhere else.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, or anywhere else, that's right —

throughout the province.

The vice-president of Dunhill, John Northey, once again has

been expressing what he calls real concern about the delay over

the Essondale project in Coquitlam. We've seen this happening,

with the Minister threatening municipalities that he will take

some kind of action if they don't cooperate with him and the

president of Dunhill threatening he will take some kind of

action if the municipality doesn't cooperate with him. Now the

vice-president of Dunhill apparently makes veiled threats

against the municipality that if they don't cooperate then the

municipality is going to face some kind of action.

So at this time I think that the municipalities need to

know, Mr. Chairman, whether or not this government will behave

like a responsible community developer, now that it is up to

its ears in housing projects, or at least the planning of them — we've seen nothing but concepts, and in fact very few of

those. Nevertheless, the government has to make a commitment

this time.

Secondly, I think the people of Coquitlam have a right to

expect the government now to release the environmental studies

which have been done in the Burke Mountain area so that they

know exactly where they stand and so that the municipality

knows where it stands as well.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that now is the time for the

government to make these commitments.

Vote 107 approved.

Vote 108: salary contingencies, $690,240 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 64: Minister's office, $96,345 — continued.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll be brief. I want to go back what seems

to be a long, long time when this Minister's estimates were up

before for a brief afternoon sitting.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister attempted to gloss over the need

for intermediate-care facilities in British Columbia by

telling us that we didn't have to worry because there was $19

million available in the Human Resources department for

intermediate-care facilities.

[ Page 2108 ]

Well, Mr. Chairman, that's really a cop-out, because it's

there because it has been there before and because it is needed

to take care of people who are in receipt of the funds from the

Human Resources department to look after their needs. Whether

or not they are in intermediate-care facilities, the chances

are pretty good that they are getting those kinds of funds

regardless of where they are today. So that $19 million is not

a transfer payment, Mr. Chairman; it is a legitimate expense in

a department, this time the Human Resources department.

The fact must remain that there is not one nickel in the

budget of the Health department this year to provide for the

intermediate-care facilities that are so desperately needed in

British Columbia today. The latest report from the GVRD says

that there are 3,500 beds needed now in the greater Vancouver

area — not tomorrow or the next day or a week from now, but

today. Yet not one nickel is in the budget of the Health

Minister for the development of these kinds of facilities.

The intermediate-care hospitals that came on stream most

recently were started in the previous regime of the Social

Credit government with 150 beds in Victoria, 150 beds in

Vancouver, 150 beds in Burnaby and 192 beds in Kamloops, of

which 128 were considered to be personal care, and 50 beds are

coming on stream, as I understand it, in Cumberland. Mr.

Chairman, those are all apparently pilot projects which are now

on stream but which are not being followed up.

Last year in the budget we had $1 million set aside for

intermediate-care, which was little enough, and which had no

hope of ever providing any ongoing programme, but this year we

have not one nickel. Yet, as we have said and as other Members

have said over and over again in this House, if there is one

concern in British Columbia today in the field of health care,

that's it — the need for that ongoing, vigorous programme to

provide the care for those people who are caught in the

squeeze, the people who aren't being provided for in the

present health care delivery system and who are being

penalized, both financially and psychologically, because the

government isn't keeping up to the needs. So, Mr. Chairman, for

the Health Minister to cop out by saying that there is $19

million available in another department is shameful and

certainly a slap in the face of those citizens of British

Columbia who had hoped for much more than they are getting now.

There must be more alternatives made available, Mr.

Chairman.

I understand as well — and the Minister, I am sure, will point this

out in his response — that it's very necessary that Ottawa start living

up to its commitment as well, that the national government share in

these programmes which they so far have refused to share in even though

they recognize the problem. But I think that the Minister and his

colleagues have to start pressing Ottawa with far more vigour to share

in these kinds of programmes. If Ottawa refuses to share in them, then

we have to get back to some kind of solid planning in this province

where we stop the waste, stop the contribution to inflation so that we

can drag the money out of the economy to go ahead with it on our own if

necessary. But we must get going on a programme of intermediate-care

facilities right now.

It's not enough either for the Minister to say: "Well, we

are going into home care." We know we are going into home care.

We know that's a programme that's successful and is being

developed, but we can't do it in isolation. We have to develop

that programme along with the kind of facilities that are

needed to look after those people who I mentioned earlier. So

along with a programme of vigorous pursuit of Ottawa to get off

the pot and start sharing in the costs of intermediate-care, we

also need, Mr. Chairman, to commit ourselves right now to

embark on the programme by ourselves, if necessary.

The money would be available if we weren't fanning the

flames of inflation and if we weren't caught in an era of no

accountability among many of the Ministers of this government

and certainly caught in a web of waste in which we see the

money, which should be going towards intermediate-care and

other health care delivery systems, going to just keep the

wheels of government turning and to keep the bureaucracy alive

in British Columbia, The Minister, Mr. Chairman, shouldn't be

allowed to get off the hook as easily as he did earlier because

of his statement that we are proceeding with intermediate care,

because it is at a standstill at the moment and we don't seem

to be going anywhere.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): I don't think anybody

really could have interpreted what I had to say during that

other encounter as "glossing over." At no time have I glossed

over the need for intermediate care in this province. As a

matter of fact, I think if the Member was aware of the number

of people who I have spoken to over the last three years, the

number of speeches I have made on this whole question, he

wouldn't really make that kind of remark.

His remark indicates that I showed the $19 million in Human

Resources. What I want to tell you about now is what actually

happened last year. We did have $1 million in our vote to pick

up the losses on intermediate care. We found that it wasn't

working out. As a matter of fact, it didn't work. Therefore the

funds have been transferred to the Department of Human

Resources. That's the department that is funding both the

intermediate care on a basis of need and also the intermediate

care as we have it in our

[ Page 2109 ]

pilot projects, where it is not necessarily predicated on

need. So it's an area of health service that has been

floundering, and it didn't begin floundering in the last two

and a half years. It's been floundering for lo these many

years.

We still have a real problem around extended care. It's been

a major priority. This is, of course, the people in chronic

care who are bedridden. We still can't satisfy that need as we

would like to. We have had some significant problems in some

areas in eliciting the assistance of regional districts and

others to recognize the need. But for the most part now they

are all agreeing, and we are going ahead. For instance, the

Greater Vancouver Regional District has agreed that it's a

priority. So now, all of a sudden, we have a flurry of building

there — the Queen's Park hospital, the hospital at the UBC, the

other extensions of extended care in the City of Vancouver and

its environs. There is work being done.

As to how we shall deal with Ottawa on this whole question,

as recently as yesterday or the day before yesterday we had

four senior officials out from Ottawa to discuss our

priorities, the intermediate-care situation and the

possibilities and the probabilities of sharing. Work is being

done in this regard. As I announced earlier at the last

federal-provincial Health Ministers' conference, we did make

some headway, which had not been the case heretofore. I am

delighted that the headway has been made. We will, in my view,

be making real strides in the direction of going into

intermediate care.

I have also said on behalf of the government that with or

without Ottawa, it is a priority with this government to the

extent that we will go it alone. I have made that statement on

a number of occasions.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. MR. COCKE: But certainly we elicit sharing on the same

basis that other people are chronically ill receive it. There

is a lot of work being done at the present time, Mr. Chairman,

and I suggest to you that at no time has this government or my

department or, for that matter, myself glossed over the

significance of the need for intermediate care. It will

continue to be a major priority with us.

I do want to say in passing, however, that it is interesting

to hear a Member of the opposition indicate that we over here

are fanning the flames of inflation by introducing new

programmes and other matters such as that. I can just imagine,

Mr. Chairman, if in fact we had introduced intermediate care to

its fullest extent in the last few months, the hue and cry we

would have had on this whole question of fanning the flames of

inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. COCKE: We are talking about a significant amount of

money.

Mr. Chairman, we are not backing off in any way, shape or

form. Intermediate care will be delivered in the Province of

British Columbia and is being delivered to the extent that we

can now. But we will say this (Mr. Member, I think you know

this; I am sure you know): without a good home-care backup

programme, intermediate care is going to be an inflation factor

the like of which neither you nor I would want to see. We must

keep people in their own homes, the least alienating situation.

We can only do that through a good home-care programme.

I must say that there is a complementary programme building

in this province as has never been before. That is the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and his homemaker programme,

and our own home-care programme, which includes physiotherapy,

home nursing and other paramedical resources.

We are making progress in this province. We do recognize the

needs of people and will continue to do so.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The Minister really has been

very general in his comments on the problem of intermediate

care. I would like to try and be more specific for a few

minutes. I think it is unreasonable for anybody to stand in

this House and expect this government or any other government

to solve the total spectrum of the different levels of care in

one year or two years or maybe five years. But I think it is

very reasonable to look at priorities that exist among all

levels of citizens requiring some measure of assistance in home

care or some level of institutional care.

I really feel it is a very valid criticism to level against

this government that there are some dreadful injustices in the

present system, even if you didn't spend another dollar.

Frankly, this is my personal view: we have gone overboard in

trying to help certain levels of illness, with the best of

intentions. But politically the government refuses to take

another look at the fact that we are making the situation very

easy for certain patients and well-nigh impossible for others.

The Minister knows what I am talking about. I am going to quote

figures in a moment.

I would agree that the kind of money we could be spending at

all levels of care is a bottomless pit. I think that has to be

agreed. If we extended benefits right, left and centre, I agree

that, as you say, the inflationary effects and the total cost

would be enormous. What I am saying and what I think is a very

reasonable proposition is the one I have reiterated many times.

I wonder if the division between the sides of the House is

ideological or if

[ Page 2110 ]

there is some other reason. The Minister can probably tell

us.

To be specific, I am talking about the people right now who

are in nursing homes in intermediate-care beds in this

province, who are not on social assistance and who are paying

the total cost themselves. Let's not talk about two or three or

four or five years away or last year or last week; let's talk

about today.

I am saying that anybody who is objective at all, who can

look at the picture, will realize that I can go into an

extended-care hospital or an acute-care hospital and pay $1 a

day for one week, six weeks, six months. Yet if I happen to

require that intervening intermediate level of care, the latest

costs — I have just checked out today at Sandringham Hospital — are

$600 a month and $550 a month at Glenwarren.

Mr. Chairman, regardless of how long we might argue about

the longer concepts or the total spectrum of care, which would

surely be our ultimate goal from all parties in this House,

let's just try and focus on that group of citizens who really

are not getting fair play in relation to the government

assistance which is available to other levels of care.

Back in this House on February 10, 1971, the Minister, who

was then in the opposition, said: "One of the sad facts of life

is that illness and chronic health problems in many cases are

unavoidable during the retirement years. We've repeatedly

advocated government action to provide adequate chronic-care

facilities in British Columbia. That need still exists and is

still a top priority." That is a quote from this Minister four

years ago, when he was in opposition.

I'm saying: could we not at least bring in some immediate

legislation to cover those patients at least presently in the

nursing home setting?

As I said earlier in the House, it's a very interesting

study in Alberta. I'm not here to say that it's that government

which now happens to be Conservative or whatever; many of the

actions were started by the former Social Credit government,

and I give them credit for that.

They went into a nursing home programme in 1964 and took the

attitude, which the Minister outlined today, that if the

federal government won't meet its commitment, we will go it

alone. The Alberta government of that day took up that

initiative. As recently as January of this year, the costs in

the nursing home programme in Alberta were $11.75 a day per

patient paid by the government and $3 a day paid by the

patient.

This keeps coming back to the whole question of the total money in

the system. We cannot afford to pay every dollar of every hospital cost

out of government revenue. If we accept that premise, then certainly we

will not be providing nearly rapidly enough or in total quantity the

facilities that are needed. Therefore I plead again with the government

to follow the suggestion of your own Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) and move the money around. If some of the people who really

could very readily afford to pay a little more than $1 a day put some

money in the pot for the people who aren't getting any help at all,

surely this is just an equitable measure to try and bring about fair

play for the people presently in great need who are not getting any

help.

In the last debate the Minister stated that the costs were

enormous; I think he quoted a figure of somewhere around $100

million. I want to say that the kind of care that costs $14.75

a day in Alberta, multiplied by the 6,000-plus-or-minus

patients, which the Minister has mentioned in the addendum to

the budget, adds up to $30 million a year.

If this government believes we can subsidize automobile

insurance to the tune of $34 million, and that's exactly the

sum of money that's required to look after the 6,000 patients

who need the nursing home level of care, I just say that in my

particular book surely that $30 million should not be an

overwhelming obstacle for this government to finance, either

out of its existing revenues or in a rearrangement of its

priorities, or by changing the patient contribution at certain

other levels of care such as extended care and acute care.

I notice again that in Alberta at one time they had a charge

in the acute-care hospital for the first 10 days. If the

patient needed more than 10 days of care, the charge was

dropped.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

There are various ways, in my view, that some patient

contribution of funds is not at all unreasonable. After all is

said and done, Mr. Chairman, if the principle of any sum of

money, whether it was $1 or $2, was correct at the initiation

of this programme, the principle is correct in 1975. It's just

that the value of money has dropped by 50 per cent and costs

have risen by three times, or whatever the figures are. The

fact is that this $1-a-day charge is now a farce — an

absolute farce. It does not contribute anything other than a

bookkeeping cost and little more. One dollar a day when the

accurate cost in an acute-care hospital gets close to $85 or

$90....

Either you might as well scrub the dollar a day completely

and save all the bookkeeping costs and problems of collection

sometimes or make the actual contribution a realistic fraction.

That kind of money would then be available to close this gap of

$30 million for 6,000 intermediate-care patients.

I'm being oversimplistic by quoting these figures, I

realize that; but these up-to-date costs in Alberta: $14.75 a

day. The Minister has calculated, according to the addendum

that was on the budget, that there

[ Page 2111 ]

are about 6,000 patients in need. I'm not too far off in

these figures, I don't believe.

The question that should be resolved is whether we can move

the money around in having certain patients contribute more in

other ways or in other amounts so that the intermediate-care

patients have some realistic help. I don't want to belabour the

point further this afternoon, but I wonder if the Minister, who

at one time had said that he felt that $5.50 a day would not be

an unreasonable figure.... And we have had the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), in reply to me during a debate

on his estimates, mention that there was some rearrangement of

charges to patients on Mincome in extended-care hospitals. I

don't know whether the Minister would care to go into more

detail on that, but the Minister of Human Resources did state

that they were reconsidering whether or not a person on Mincome

should perhaps contribute more than $1 a day in an

extended-care hospital.

Very quickly, I just want to refer to the fact that in the

last seven years in Victoria we've had an increase in

extended-care beds of about 194 beds, but at the same time

we've had an estimated increase of 33,800 patients.

I agree with the Minister in taking over modern facilities,

as he has done. I might interject and say that he suggested at

one time that I was in favour of the commercial private

ownership of hospitals for profit. I have to deny that and make

it plain that I've never believed that was an appropriate place

for commercial investment. I don't believe it now.

At any rate, by taking over these facilities and creating

extended-care beds, there are, as the Minister knows, some of

these patients who do not qualify for extended care. They have

to be moved or there's pressure on them to move, and any

pressure on an elderly person to be shifted around from one

place to another is a thoroughly undesirable influence. I hope

that the regional board in this area will certainly get ahead

as rapidly as possible with the 150 extended-care beds to be

built on the Glengarry site.

On that same subject, I would like to ask the Minister just

a quick question on the peninsula hospital. Since we last

debated the health budget, the health and planning advisory

planning commission to the capital regional board has made its

decision, after consultation with Agnew Peckham Consultants on

the peninsula hospital. I would like to ask to what degree the

Minister is now involved in the functional plan, I understand

that in the last two or three weeks there has been some lack of

clarity as to just exactly how much the Minister's office will

be involved in expediting the functional plan. We waited this

long for the addition to the peninsula hospital in Saanich and

it would be tragic if we can't just go ahead at a very rapid

clip now. The land is there, the servicing to the land is

there, and the actual development of these 75 acute-care beds should be a fairly straightforward

project from this point onwards.

One or two of the other points I'd

like to raise quite

quickly relate to a subject which the Minister struggled with

for many years, I realize, and it's the whole problem in

podiatry in this province at the present time. I don't propose

to give a long outline of the total problem, but the astounding

thing to me is that when we're emphasizing the economy and the

validity of paramedical personnel of various kinds, and when

we're living in a population where the number of people over 65

is steadily increasing, and where the whole problem of the

health and the functional ability of the feet is so important

to elderly citizens, and when we have some elderly citizens

with failing eyesight trying to look after their foot care and

cutting their toenails, and instead of that they cut their foot

or their toe and get an ulcer and finish up in a hospital bed,

then it makes a lot of sense that we should be looking at the

whole field of podiatry to see if we can at least make the

service available and encourage training of personnel.

The sad truth, as the Minister knows, is that we have no

podiatry training facilities anywhere in Canada, Worse than

that, the present regulations, as they're interpreted by the

podiatry association, are to the effect that only those who

have taken the training in certain centres in the United States

are given a licence to practise podiatry in the Province of

British Columbia. I don't propose to get into a long debate as

to how one decides on the quality of training in other centres,

but this, essentially, is the problem; we have no training

centres in podiatry in Canada.

There are individuals who have immigrated to Canada, with

training in other countries such as Australia and the United

Kingdom and elsewhere, who have the most immense difficulty, it

seems, in having a fair opportunity to have their training

evaluated and obtain a licence to practise their training here

in British Columbia. I wonder if the Minister could maybe make

some note on that, simply because there have been pages and

pages of communication over the last several years.

When you try to look at it objectively, it does seem as

though there is some room to either try and start some training

facility or introduce podiatry at our vocational schools or

colleges. At least, since we're sensitive, and naturally so,

about our own national identity and our provincial identity, it

seems to me that training in podiatry should not be a difficult

course to introduce at the appropriate level of our

post-secondary education facilities. I think the Minister, in

conjunction with the Minister of Education, would really be

creating a tremendous boon to the kind of services available to

the elderly citizens if podiatrists could be trained in our own

province and we could get away from all this bitterness and

haranguing which goes on between

[ Page 2112 ]

people who can't get licensed, in effect, when they can

produce two or three years of training in other centres, which

on the face of things seems very little different from the

American training.

Much along the same line, I wonder if the Minister would

care to comment on another issue that's been brought to my

attention which is somewhat worrying, and that relates to the

practice of psychologists. I've had one particular

communication from a citizen who drew to my attention the fact

that in British Columbia there really is no specific procedure

by which a person practising psychology in the community

requires any licensing or any proof of ability or otherwise. I

understand the B.C. Psychological Association is located in

Vancouver and most of the psychologists are on the faculties of

universities in the province. But there is nothing to stop a

person hanging out a shingle and calling himself a psychologist

and going into practice.

I've had this letter from one particular citizen in the

province who sought advice from a psychologist who had the

title of "doctor," and in the course of receiving

treatment he became unhappy and uncertain, made some inquiries

and found that this person really was presenting himself in a

way and espousing a certain amount of training and professional

expertise which could be questioned without much doubt. This

citizen then went about exploring the situation to find out how

one gets authority and the licence to practise publicly as a

psychologist and discovered that there is no such scrutiny or

examination of the intending practitioner.

I've made some inquiries, and it's amazing to find the

different titles under which this practice can be entered upon.

There is the clinical psychologist, vocational counselling,

intelligence testing, aptitude testing, industrial psychology,

career guidance, personnel selection, child guidance, child

therapy, marriage counselling, alcoholism, et cetera. I wonder

if the Minister has been approached on this and whether or not

we might consider (that) the practice of psychology has the

potential for serious consequences if badly handled, just as

much as anyone giving bad psychiatric advice could create

serious problems for the patient.

I wonder if the Minister would perhaps care to comment on whether

this is a matter which might justify legislation such as applies to

doctors or dentists or anyone else promoting a professional practice

which can quite seriously affect the individual concerned. In this

particular instance drawn to my attention the person was also paying a

very substantial fee privately to the psychologist, and since he

discontinued the treatment he's been under considerable harassment by

the psychologist concerned. So it seems to me it's an area that would

merit a bit of inspection. In the research we've done, I notice that

there is a bill, for example, in our neighbouring province of Alberta

which tries to create some kind of screening procedure and some

mechanism that the applicant has to satisfy.

A last point. The Minister has talked a great deal about

home care, and I agree entirely that there has to be an

integration of all levels of care in the hospital, out of the

hospital and in the home.

I had a disturbing situation brought to my attention the

other day where the area nurse, or the former VON, was

attending a patient in a home only to discover that the same

patient was also being visited under the services provided by

this new Upjohn nursing organization. This was being provided

under the Department of Human Resources, and this other nurse

who was working for the regional Health department was also

attending. In other words, there was this serious duplication

of service.

I would just like to ask the Minister to what degree the

provincial government is employing or calling upon the services

provided by Health Care Services Upjohn Ltd., a

community-oriented health and home-care programme. I think all

Members of the Legislature probably received the brochure with

all the details of the service. While it seems to provide an

excellent service with well-trained personnel, and I've heard

favourable reports on their work, I'd like to be sure that we

are not duplicating service by providing home nursing care

through the regional hospital district and at the same time

having overlapping service provided by either Upjohn or the

other one I've heard about, Medox, both private organizations

which provide services in the home.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I thank the

Minister for allowing me to speak, because I want to raise very

briefly with the Minister some of the same subjects he dealt

with for the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and that is the

question of intermediate care.

I've spoken about it many times before, and the Minister has

been acutely interested in this particular problem ever since

he first came to this House. I have to say to the Minister

again, that in agreement with what the Member for Oak Bay has

said, I can't understand why we cannot move some of the money

around, why we cannot direct the tremendous power the

government has towards a solution to this particular

problem.

The Minister has, in his wisdom and based upon studies which

were made for him and for his department, embarked upon the

British Columbia medical centre programme. I could speak in

disagreement with that programme, but that's not the point. The

fact of the matter is that once the government determines that

a particular course of action is acceptable and advisable and

in the best interests of the community with regard to health,

that tremendous financial power can be directed

[ Page 2113 ]

toward a solution. Yet we have had for years and years and

years this continuing problem of intermediate care, and it is

not getting that kind of attention.

I wonder if the Minister could advise the committee the

extent to which studies have been made into the extent of the

intermediate-care problem. The Member for Oak Bay mentioned the

figure of 6,000 people who needed intermediate-care assistance.

Can the Minister confirm that 6,000 is the figure which can be

relied upon? Can the Minister advise the committee where in the

province the greatest demand is for intermediate-care services?

Is it required throughout the province? If so, how can this

care be provided in all of our communities? Can it be attached

to existing hospital units? Can it be attached to elderly

citizens' housing complexes? What are the alternative

possibilities in making intermediate care a reality in this

province?

Now it is easy to see what can be done in the large urban

areas. But, Mr. Chairman, in the constituency which you

represent, the problems of intermediate care are there, and I

would think that the Minister and his department should be able

to indicate to us quite clearly how these problems in the

outlying areas can be resolved.

We have some alternatives to examine. For example, the

Member for Oak Bay talked about the private nursing homes. I

wonder why the government does not enter into a contract for

service with the private nursing homes. I happen to believe

that that's not a bad idea, Indeed, the government itself does

not hesitate to use the contract method in other areas.

The Department of Human Resources, for example, when they

are dealing with a particular group of young people who are a

problem, do not hesitate to contract for the treatment and care

of those people with existing organizations who have special

facilities and specially skilled personnel to provide that

need. The Browndale organization is an example. It is

extensively used by this government at the cost of millions of

dollars. Now I am not criticizing that programme. I just say

that it is convenient for the government to contract out

certain services, and I don't know why that intermediate care

cannot also be looked at in the same connection.

The Minister has already experienced the consequences of not

handling in that way. He has been obliged to acquire some private

hospital institutions who find themselves in the position of being

unable to carry on and give the service on a fee-for-service basis. So

the government eventually gets into the situation where in a crisis

they have to put the people's money into the acquisition of facilities,

I wonder if it wouldn't be better, Mr. Chairman, for the government to

consider the extent to which they could contract out that expense — the

figure, as the Member for Oak Bay says, is something like $14 per day —

and call upon the patients to make a contribution towards that cost of

care to the extent that they are able. You would find that in the

Province of British Columbia there are a number of institutions that

would be able to provide better care than they currently do if that

opportunity presented itself, rather than as is the case now where the

funding of private institutions is limited only to those areas where

the patient falls within the scope of the Department of Human Resources.

The nursing service that the Member for Oak Bay mentioned is

another area where the government has seen fit to contract out

service. One of the classic examples of this is the Victorian

Order of Nurses and the tremendous service they provide in the

communities in which they are able to operate. No one would

suggest that the Victorian Order of Nurses should not be

supported. They have been supported by public and private

funding for years. What is wrong with continuing that kind of a

programme as part of the home-care system and, indeed,

expanding that programme, not necessarily through the

organization of the VON but in similar organizations, to ensure

that the home-care service is provided?

There is another aspect of intermediate care and the

provision of facilities which I think the Minister and his

department must be investigating. That is the criteria by which

one determines whether or not a person falls within the scope

of intermediate care. We have talked about intermediate care in

this province for years, and yet the regulations don't exist

which really define the intermediate care. Or, if they do, they

have only come into existence in the past few weeks, Mr. Chairman,

there is another area of care which does not

fall under the scope of this Minister, but it is one which is

very close to intermediate care. I am talking about personal

care, which is most often provided in non-profit, elderly

citizens' facilities. But the elderly citizen who is in a

personal-care situation very easily slides into the

intermediate-care situation, and perhaps with some assistance

slides back out of it again. It seems to me that the government

has to recognize this, particularly when a Minister suggests

that a proper home-care service is so essential to support the

in term intermediate-care concept.

It is all very well if you think of an individual who lives

in a home with a family requiring some skilled assistance of a

home-care person who would come to the home and provide

physiotherapy, or whatever the case may be, but when you have

most of the elderly citizens requiring this kind of facility

already in a personal-care home, then the problem becomes much

more difficult. I would hope that the Minister has made the

studies and is in a position to advise us that a programme is

being developed. If he is not, then I

[ Page 2114 ]

urge the Minister to turn some of the power that his

department has to focus on this particular problem. At least

let us make a thorough examination so that we know the number

of people who are affected, what the costs of the programme

would be, what the alternatives might be with regard to the

provision of service, and all the service that goes with

it.

I would think that this would be a matter on which the

Minister might publish a report, a White Paper, so that people

who are concerned about this continuing problem of intermediate

care can fully recognize the extent of the problem and what the

cost to the province would be of providing a solution.

It is my guess, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this

province, being concerned with this particular issue, would

overwhelmingly support the government in providing the

solution, whether or not the national government is prepared to

contribute its share. I am sure that would be the case.

MR. WALLACE: Alberta has done it since 1964.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Member for Oak Bay reminds me, as he

said, that Alberta has done it since 1964. I don't think we

have to have comparisons with other jurisdictions in order for

us to do what is right. The government, with pride, has said we

are the first in Canada with Mincome. No one criticizes them

for that. I think that no one would criticize them, once they

recognize the extent of this intermediate-care problem, for

moving ahead on our own and solving it.

HON. MR. COCKE: Some good points have been made in this

whole area of intermediate care. There's no question about the

priority of it, and if I can, somehow or another, I am going to

try and deal with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) at the

same time on the question because so many of the areas

overlapped. It would be kind of ridiculous for me to try and

answer the Member for Oak Bay and then the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound unless I do it at the same time. After

that, I will try to answer the other questions of the Member

for Oak Bay.

We know about the injustice in the system of payment in the whole

area of intermediate care as compared to acute care and extended care.

I am on record as having talked about that for some length of time.

However, what we are trying to do now is develop a new system that will

be all-encompassing for people who are chronically ill. In doing that,

part of our negotiations have been along the line of what the best

approach is to this whole area. Now the Member for Oak Bay indicated

that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has made some

changes with respect to his Mincome payments to people in chronic care,

which is quite right. But we don't really feel that that's likely. This

isn't final, but in looking at the whole area we don't necessarily feel

that that's the final resolution to this problem.

One of the things we

have been discussing is the whole question of room and board as

distinct from nursing care. If you're living at home, you are paying

room and board — it may cost $4 a day, it may cost $5 a day, whatever

it might cost — but that's a distinct factor and, really, not part of

the nursing aspect of intermediate care, or extended care for that

matter. One of the questions that we have been discussing with the

federal government in this whole area of sharing is around whether or

not this might be recognized as a concept that they might accept. We

believe they are getting to that point right now, so possibly the wait

might have been worth it in a way.

One of the things I must draw to your attention is that

intermediate care, personal care, or any other level of care,

extended-care patients in private hospitals, are all being paid

for by the Department of Human Resources if, in fact, they have

no personal resources or are down to the level where they

qualify. So we really are talking here about people here who do

have resources, and I am not going to stand up and suggest that

they shouldn't be cared for under an insured programme either.

I am suggesting that we get into a programme in which we know

where we are going.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

brought up some very interesting points about the whole

question of how many are there, and that's valid. We are not

entirely sure. It is very, very difficult to get to those kinds

of statistics, because in estimating how many people.... For

instance, I'll give you one instance. The estimate for the

Capital Regional District for extended care was that once we

had obtained that additional 150 beds out of the first private

hospital we bought, that would satisfy the need. Then, of

course, the second one didn't, and now the third one I don't

think will either.

It's very difficult to make an estimate of what's really out

there. However, we do have some figures and I believe that,

including all levels of care including personal care — the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound alluded to personal care

as being part of the whole process, and very much it is; it is

only a matter of time, providing they live on, that a person

will move from the level of personal care to the level of

intermediate care — we suspect, and I can't give you anything

closer than suspect, but on some pretty reliable work that's

been done in the department, 19,000. We believe that if you

take the extended care and the intermediate care and lumped it

together, you will find 10,000 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said 19,000.

[ Page 2115 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: The 19,000 would include the 10,000

intermediate and extended plus another 9,000 personal care — that's

roughly. So it's 19,000 people who are affected by this

global situation. Of course, beyond that there are all the

people who live in senior citizens' high-rises and so on who

are ultimately going to move into one of these areas, providing

they should live so long. It is, of course, one of the good

reasons for home care.

The criteria for intermediate care has been, I think, fairly

well laid out, just as has the criteria for extended care and

the criteria for the lowest level of care, which is, of course,

personal care. It's all in a booklet that has been published

and is abroad.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The regulations are out now, are

they?

HON. MR. COCKE: Not really regulations; it's the

description of the different levels of care and the criterion

around that description.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

One thing that I would like to allude to just for a second

in this whole conversation around these levels of care.... One

of the best community efforts that I've seen to date has been

the Penticton senior citizens' community resource; it's just

excellent. It doesn't take in intermediate care to date;

ultimately it will. What they've done there is, in my view, an

excellent thing. They're downtown. They're not out in some sort

of isolated area where the senior citizens have difficulty

getting back and forth to wherever they want to, to — the show,

Safeway or whatever.

Another thing they've got going for them is the fact that

they've got a recreation programme that includes the whole

community and, again, helps keep people out of the facility on

a permanent basis.

I think that another exciting thing is that the noon meal is

right there. People can come from around the area, enjoy that

noon meal and have fellowship with their peers and, if they

like, thereafter play bingo or whatever people do in the

afternoon — recreation and so on. It's a very exciting concept.

I have to congratulate Penticton and those people who put that

resource together because they did a fine job.

This kind of concept has to be the basis, in my view for our

direction. It's taking time, I believe, to create all the vehicles that

are necessary. I do fear making deals with the private sector at this

time without an insured programme. We do have, however, a deal with the

private sector, and that is that any person in those facilities who is

without means is being paid for. So, from that standpoint, let's not

leave the impression that the government is turning its back on people

in dire straits. We're not at all. They are paid for at whatever level

of care they require.

We are moving in the direction that the Members are talking

about, as far as developing an insured programme around

intermediate care. It will happen whether the federal

government goes along with us or not. I suspect they might.

I think that the discussion around the $1 a day and where

we're going from there is a discussion that has changed focus a

number of times. I talked about the $5.50 a day and the

advisability of that. Now we're focusing toward the whole

room-and-board concept. Who can be sure what route is best to

follow? I can say this: we're coming closer to a solution all

the time, bearing in mind...

MR, G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You sound like Wes

Black.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...that we do have a major

building programme to go through, that we must do things in an

orderly way and we are not turning our backs on those who need

assistance.

I don't really think, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace),

that the relationship you indicated around auto insurance is

really analogous. The auto insurance programme, I think, was

all explained — how the extra funds were to be used to

subsidize motorists who are actually burning the gas. So I will

just leave that where it is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's the Member's

opinion.

In passing, one of the things I would like to just mention

around the whole question of chronic care is yesterday's

opening of the spinal cord injury unit at Shaughnessy Hospital.

I believe that to be one of the most exciting things that's

occurred.

It was a relatively small amount of money that was spent in

a capital way, only $350,000 to develop that unit in

Shaughnessy. But according to all of the reports that I get

from areas where this kind of service exists, they are not

nearly as sophisticated in most areas as we have now in B.C.

This is the first in Canada and by far the best in North

America, I am told. There is only one in the world that may be

equal and that is in Perth, Australia.

But what we might do there is obviate the need for some of

these chronic-care facilities we are talking about. We have to

have their early intervention. We have to have home care. We

have to have a lot of things and we have to put it. all

together.

I was delighted to hear the Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) echoing the fact that you don't build Rome in a day.

It's very, very difficult.

[ Page 2116 ]

MR. GARDOM: That is vintage Black. You've got the whole vote

in a day.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Socreds from 1967 — and I'm not

suggesting there was any alternative at all — started working on

extended care, and we are still working on it, Mr. Member. They

started in 1967, and we are still working on it. Those are the

facts of life we must recognize.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave that for a moment and get on to

some of the questions raised by the Member for Oak Bay around

where we are going on the Saanich Peninsula Hospital. We are

right now in BCHIS working on the functional programme. There

may be a slight delay, however. I understand that the

administrator has to be away for a month. These are the kinds

of human things that happen to set construction and plans back

a little bit.

MR. WALLACE: He cancelled his holidays last year to get on

with it.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that Member for Oak Bay knows

perfectly well that nothing has come to our department, so I am

not going to answer for that one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: No.

MR. WALLACE: He cancelled his holiday last year.

HON. MR. COCKE: No, not at all. I'm just saying that in no

way should the administrator be deprived of this particular

time off. I am saying that these kinds of human equations

sometimes develop.

We are working on the functional programme. It will be ready

just as soon as possible; I suspect in June. It is onward and

upward for the Saanich Peninsula Hospital. There will be 75

acute-care beds attached to the extended-care beds that are now

there.

Podiatry. Well, Mr. Member, I have had more problems around

podiatry. I guess it was in 1971 that a Podiatry Act was passed

in this House. That Act said that a college be set up and may

do the assessing of what qualifications were necessary to be a

practising podiatrist in the Province of B.C.

My personal opinion is that they have been a little bit

sticky, but that is just my opinion in this respect. They will

not recognize graduates from the United Kingdom, graduates from

Australia and other areas. It seems that the way it goes now,

if you are a chiropodist from England or Edinburgh or wherever

and you emigrate to Canada, you have to apply, and they will

tell you that you must go down to the United States for an extra year and study in a United States

institution. But they do have their own Act, and it is very

difficult for me to act precipitously, as I say. I am only just

saying how I feel about it. I feel that it is a little rigid,

but you can't be too sure.

We feel a good deal of assistance should be given to these

people who come out here and have to take extra training. We

have had many, many talks with the podiatrists and many, many

talks with the people who are writing to you. I number them

like the sands along the shore of Oak Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whew!

HON. MR. COCKE: But, as I say, to act precipitously on a

situation where they actually have their own Act is a little

difficult thing to ask.

MR. WALLACE: What about training courses, Dennis?

HON. MR. COCKE: Training courses are up to the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). Frankly, we are only talking

about some 30-odd people in the whole province. I know there is

a need for them. I have offered, for instance, some guaranteed

opportunities to chiropodists to work within institutions,

because there they would be covered under a different sort of

Act. They would then be under the direct supervision of doctors

and they could, of course, apply their trade. Then, Mr.

Chairman, the Member for Oak Bay went on to discuss the

psychologists. Now we come to the antithesis of what we were

talking about before. Naturally, I am wary about saying to the

psychologist: "Okay, you can establish your own college. You

can create the same kind of situation that the podiatrists have

created....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Is that right? There's one there? Well,

that's interesting. They're coming another route.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am very hesitant. So let me give you

an idea of the direction that I plan in this whole area of

health-care paraprofessionals.

I want to go in a similar direction to what they are trying

in Quebec and Ontario but start at the other end. In Quebec and

Ontario their umbrella legislation starts at the doctors,

dentists, pharmacists and nurses, I think, as I recall. They

only have four groups that they are applying the