1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill No. 92) Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 555

The Air Ambulance Aid Act (Bill No. 93) Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first

reading — 555

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 555

Mr. Fraser — 563

Mr. Brousson — 568

Mr. Lockstead — 579

Ms. Sanford — 583

Statement Statement by Mr. Speaker on distribution of bills — 586

Mr. Chabot — 587

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have with us

in the House today from the Sechelt Indian Reserve: Chief Henry

Paul; Chief Clarence Joe, band manager; Gilbert Joe, councilor;

Teddy Joe, councilor; Gilbert Gerwin, representative of the

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; Terry Miller, representative of

Non-status Indians of British Columbia; Lea Paul, band

secretary; Audrey Joe, student; and Derwin Owen, band

councilor.

As well, two outstanding residents of Texada Island my

sister and her brother…rather, her husband. Mr. and Mrs. D.

Fretts. I'm the brother. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: You're the Hon. Member for Mackenzie, too.

(Laughter).

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I ask the House to join me in a great

welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr.

Speaker, we have a group of students from Eric Hamber high

school accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Klassen and Miss

Marsh. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to thank somebody for the apple; I

don't know if they polished it. (Laughter).

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): It was

yesterday that I was speaking, Mr. Speaker.

Among those in the gallery today are some 34 members of the

local Council of Women from Nanaimo. They've picked an

excellent day — wonderful weather for a drive, and the

Minister of Health is speaking this afternoon. I'm sure

everyone will welcome the 34 members from Nanaimo.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I would like to welcome three

members from the food industry from the Okanagan sitting up in

the Speaker's gallery. And I think all the Members had a chance

at an apple this morning.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

92 intituled

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 92 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

THE AIR AMBULANCE AID ACT

Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 93 intituled The Air Ambulance Aid Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 93 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for New Westminster.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am debating the motion whether or not you should leave

the chair. I feel you should stay right where you are for the moment, Mr. Speaker,

and I will attempt to keep you there for a little while.

But in any event, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are

discussing of course is the whole question of this budget. And

we've heard some flip and frivolous remarks from across the

floor: names for the budget — I think that's one of the

common practices.

I think that nothing can dissuade me and, I'm sure, my

colleagues on this side of the House from supporting this

budget, Mr. Speaker. This is a budget that has increased the

services to people by $191 million in just three departments

alone: Health, education and welfare. Mr. Speaker, I think

that's indicative of the kind of budget that it is.

Sure, we support the budget. It's creative; it's forward

thinking, Mr. Speaker. It puts the priority

[ Page 556 ]

where it belongs. It puts the priority around the needs of

British Columbians. And that's why we're elected, Mr. Speaker,

to establish those kind of priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we ask educators; ask those

people that are recipients of the old age pension, the

guaranteed minimum income; ask people that are afflicted with

an illness in this province. Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we have a

fault, our fault is we are a Government with social conscience

and that's the kind of fault I think we should have.

Well, Mr. Speaker, before getting on to some of the areas in

my particular purview, I'd like to discuss this whole question

of the environment for a minute or two.

I think that our government is genuinely concerned over the

environment. It is concerned. The decision to implement

secondary treatment of sewage at Annacis Island promises an era

in which British Columbians will begin to respect the

magnificent natural condition of our province.

In the future the Department of Health will be working

closely and co-operating to the fullest extent with those

involved in the environment, Mr. Speaker. Health will have an

influence on the formulation of policy, especially that policy

relating to sewage and water quality control.

One of the greatest weaknesses of the legislation setting up

the Pollution Control Board was the failure to recognize

Health's role in this particular area. I have many examples of

problems that arise and that have arisen from that failure.

It's not going to serve our purpose particularly, I feel, to go

over old letters, old files, which merely indicate a lack of

communication because of the shortcomings of that particular

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, another major shortcoming with respect to the

legislation is that it set a civil servant in essentially a

political position. That made it impossible for other

departments to work properly with the board, and what's worse,

impossible for B.C. citizens to employ normal political

processes to effect pollution control policy in B.C. The

overcoming of these great shortcomings in this vitally

important area, Mr. Speaker, will be seen in the future as one

of the most important accomplishments of this Government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another area that I think we should cover

today is this whole question of pathology and radiology

laboratories. I must report to this House that the situation in

British Columbia with respect to pathology and radiology labs

is quite unsatisfactory as far as I am concerned at the moment.

Frequently the same professional personnel operate public and

private labs and this gives rise to the situation in which

doing an excellent job in the public service may detract from

the same person's private interests. It also greatly

complicates the planning of public facilities. I often

encounter pressure to extend certain services in certain areas of the

province, but find that difficult to do economically because of

the presence of private facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I have been east three times recently for the

Government and on one of those visits I encountered and visited

with Dr. Potter, the Minister of Health for Ontario. He told me

of his grave concern about the presence in Ontario of some 800

private labs, Mr. Speaker, and he also dealt with the immense

difficulty that situation has developed in that province. Now,

Dr. Potter warned against allowing similar situations to

develop in this province. Mr. Speaker, I am taking that warning

seriously.

Here's just an indication of our lab situation in B.C. It is

estimated that we spend — and this is within just a few

dollars — we spend, out of our total health care dollar,

$43 million in the Province of British Columbia on laboratory

procedures. I can just go down them very quickly for you, Mr.

Speaker. The basic costs for labs under hospital insurance is

$24,488,719. Indirect costs are roughly 15 per cent, so that

adds $4 million. That creates a figure of $28.5 million,

roughly. That was in 1971. To the hospital insurance figure, we

add the payments made under the medical plan, the overall

medical plan, for lab and radiology procedures of another

$14,455,000. We come up with a grand sum of $43 million. Mr.

Speaker, that is an immense portion — that's a large

portion of our health costs in B.C. and I think it has to be

looked at very carefully.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Is that just lab and X-ray?

HON. MR. COCKE: Lab and X-ray. Pathological laboratories and X-rays.

Mr. Speaker, this is the set-up in the province as far

as labs are concerned. In the Vancouver area the pathology work

is 86 per cent in the hands of private facilities and 13.4 per

cent in the hands of public facilities. In the Victoria area it

is 57 per cent in the private and 42.7 per cent in the public.

In the other areas of the province it is 57 per cent to 42 per

cent. Roughly the same as the Victoria area.

Radiology in Vancouver is 85.6 per cent private to 14.4 per

cent public. In the Victoria area it is 65.4 per cent and 34.6

per cent public. In other areas in the province it is 48.8 per

cent and 51.2 per cent public. That is radiology.

Then we have other electro diagnosis which is 72.1 per cent

in Vancouver and public facilities, 27.9 per cent. In Victoria

it is 76.2 per cent private and 23.8 per cent public. In the

other areas of the province, however, for those procedures it

is 100 per cent public.

So we are heeding the advice of other Ministers across the

country with respect to this whole question. We are going to

look at it very diligently. I do

[ Page 557 ]

not know the answer to the problem as yet, but I do know

that it will involve a great deal more participation of the

public sector in the provision of lab services. That will

require extending and up-grading present public

facilities, and probably will also involve some purchase of

some private facilities — if, in fact, those facilities

are available.

While these policies are being worked out and implemented

with full consultation, Mr. Speaker — and I mark that,

full consultation — we will naturally have to look very

hard at any proposed expansion of private lab facilities or

changes in existing ones, just to ensure that such proposals do

not further complicate the task before us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another area that I think we

should deal with and that is the whole question of hospital

boards. We are trying our best in this province to decentralize

the administration of health services. We don't know yet

precisely how that decentralization will take place in all

areas, but we do know that hospital boards will play an

immensely important role in the whole scheme of things.

Therefore, it is important and more important than ever that

hospital boards be representative of the whole community

— of the total community. We will therefore be suggesting

in our model bylaws for hospital boards that they ensure

representation of medical staff — yes, medical staff and

paramedical staff, nurses and non-professional staff.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: But most important we are proposing that the

majority of board members represent the patient, Mr. Speaker.

We believe that to do that there should be wage-earners

on the board as well as professional and business people. There

should be women as well as men, and there should be Indians as

well as white people and all the other varieties.

Mr. Speaker, there will be some adverse comment on our

recommendation to ensure participation of

non-professional staff on hospital boards. We know that

there will be some adverse comment. And in anticipation of that

comment let me say two other things. In my work as a pension

consultant I have worked with labour, management, and all

sections of society, but particularly labour and management, in

the design and administration of pension plans. Contrary to

some views, Mr. Speaker, I found labour representatives to be

both responsible and able, and that is one reason why we are

making the recommendation.

There is a more important reason, Mr. Speaker. It is neither intelligent nor

responsible to talk to labour only about wages and then complain that labour

only talks about wages. They have to be brought into the whole scheme of things.

So let's underline that. Let's not expect them to talk of anything but wages

if, in fact, that is all we ever talk to them about.

It is neither intelligent nor responsible to suggest that

whole segments of our society be systematically excluded from

all the decision-making processes of the system, and then

complain that these segments of society are not responsible to

that system.

Hospital boards of course are a very small, although

important, element in the system. The decision to make this

recommendation will not play an important role in the unfolding

of the argument about the right to full participation. I refer

to it here because I believe it is symbolic of the kind of

approach we have to use in many of the areas with this

Government.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are other areas. We have been

seeing a number of articles of recent days. I see one today in

the Vancouver Province , "Top medical men leaving, doctor

claims." There was one in another newspaper — a New

Westminster newspaper, I believe. T he reporter is sitting up

there so I will mention the name — the Columbian .

Mr. Speaker, there are some rumours afoot. I would like to

say that the people of this province who are in the business of

providing health care services have a right to expect a clearly

defined statement from me relating to their role as I see it in

anticipated changes and new concepts in the delivery of health

care.

I am referring at this point of course to doctors, to nurses

and other paramedical people who may see their roles changing

with the appearance of community health centres and other

alternatives in the whole scheme of the delivery of health

care. So I owe them as well as the people of this province, the

consumers of health care, an explanation of how I see our

delivery system changing.

Doctors, nurses, paramedics and the public have been and are

being invited, through Dr. Faulkes' health security programme,

to make known their needs and their wishes and their desires

and concerns, so that we can collectively come up with the best

possible structure to look after the health and welfare of us

all.

There appears to be concern in some circles that changes in

the structure will threaten the independence and security of

some people involved. I refer now to doctors — and

specifically to an

article that was in the Columbian on

February 16 and an

article today in the Vancouver

Province .

The one in the Columbian was dramatically titled,

"B.C. losing top medics, local physician warns." This one is,

"Top medical men leaving, doctor claims." Notice that it is the

same doctor that is quoted, by the way, in both. That is an

incidental remark, Mr. Speaker. Mind you, there are more than

one who have that opinion.

It would appear to me that some doctors — and I

believe very few really — are taking the same kind of

[ Page 558 ]

worry pills. Do you remember the ones that they manufactured

in Saskatchewan in the last decade? That's the 1962 worry pill,

Mr. Minister. Remember the spectre? The spectre was Medicare at

that time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a new spectre that seems to be

appearing and this is the spectre. I'll just quote you a couple

of lines from this newspaper report: "Six to eight highly

qualified people have already left this area" this doctor told

the Columbian . "Considerably more than 20 others are licensed

and practise in the U.S. and many are quietly slipping across

the line to pick up U.S. licences…" and on and on.

"I was particularly upset with the loss of one particular brain surgeon."

They name the brain surgeon who left. Oh, he left — people do leave. Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest, however, to those people that while they might have

been involved in concerns over Medicare, I haven't heard any of them recently

get up and, say that it was no good. Medicare is here to stay. It was without

a doubt the most difficult birth of any piece of legislation in Canada virtually.

Many of our colleagues in Saskatchewan still bear those battle scars and birth

marks. But they're not opposed to Medicare now.

So I challenge any doctor or any person in this House to get

up and ask that Medicare be scrapped. The protest is a result

of the fear of the unknown. Let's not let that happen again.

Let's communicate and understand one another, Mr. Speaker.

I'm reminded of a story. One of my campaign workers worked a

little bit long and too hard in the election. Finally, the day

after the election day, she went to the doctor with a sore

throat.

He said, "Why did you neglect your sore throat like

this?"

By way of explanation she said, "Well, I was working in an

election campaign." She told him who she was working for and he

really admonished her again.

He said, "Now look, you know the ramifications of that

victory. That means that you're going to have to line up in

doctors' offices and wait for three hours for an

appointment."

She said, "Well, doctor, you know I had to wait

two-and-a-half hours today, so it wouldn't be

very much of a change."

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that we're not bent on any

particular course that's going to lead us down the garden path.

What we're doing in this province is working for the betterment

of the delivery of health care, period. We're asking input from

every

section of society, as our ads have indicated. Naturally

we're looking at community health centres along with a number

of other kinds of systems.

I want to suggest right now that if community health centres are adopted —

let me tell you this — the people who will work in community health centres

— and we're encouraging that kind of experimentation — will be the

people who choose to. Nobody's going to be forced into it. People who choose

to, that's who.

So, contrary to what some doctors feel, it's a basic fact of

life that many of their peers want to work in this type of

situation. If they wish to, other people's fears and concepts

should not deny them this freedom of choice. If a doctor wants

to work in that kind of setting, or if any other person

involved in health care wants to work in that kind of setting,

or if the people that are deriving the benefits of health care

want that kind of delivery system, then it's up to them.

There are hundreds of doctors in this province right now

working for salaries. They're in our public health departments.

They're at universities. This doesn't threaten the independence

of doctors on a fee for service. Not at all. There are hundreds

of doctors in the province who work regular hours and are never

called out at night or for emergencies. It doesn't make them

sluggards, Mr. Speaker.

Many, many doctors are questioning the present use of their

skills and the present use of their time that they've spent

training. Nine years of their lives have been devoted to

advanced schooling and learning skills at a great cost in money

and effort to themselves and at a staggering cost to the

taxpayer.

O.K., how do we utilize this pool of talent, skill and time?

Well, Mr. Speaker, how much of this superbly trained

individual's time is taken up with filling out forms, recording

case histories, seeing drug salesmen, administering allergy or

vaccine shots, removing sutures, dispensing birth control

pills, family counseling and many other tasks that do not

challenge or require the level of training that the doctor has

acquired? Similarly, many of our highly trained and highly

qualified nurses spend their time and their careers in

administration.

Mr. Speaker, in this age of specialization and technology we

have resisted the change to better utilize people's skill, for

fear of upsetting the sacred doctor-patient relationship.

I submit that this relationship has become somewhat of a myth,

Mr. Speaker, and will become more so unless we relieve the

unnecessary burden of work from our medical profession. A six

to 10 minute visit in a doctor's office does not promote a

doctor-patient relationship, nor does a four-hour

wait for sutures in an emergency ward while the hospital

attempts to locate your own doctor. Practically all operations

are now performed by specialists, with whom the patient had no

time to build up rapport, or little time. Successes in surgery

surely vindicate this transition.

But if the medical profession and the public they serve wish

to continue the fee for service, that's their prerogative.

Medicare will continue to support that system. This Government

does intend, however, to

[ Page 559 ]

make available for those who wish to participate, some

alternatives in the delivery of health care. Among these will

be the community health centre concept. There is plenty of

evidence to indicate that there will be no shortage of staff or

patients. We're convinced that the level of care as well as the

cost will be improved. That's how we feel at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most natural new services that will

be tied to the community is the home care programme as well.

This century's involvement toward a nuclear family concept

— a lot of people feel that's an old one. But really,

this is the first century of the nuclear family. In the past we

cared for our older generation along with our children. Now

it's just mother, father and the kids. It's a relatively new

concept.

Anyway, with this concept, coupled with medicine's advances

in the geriatric field — as the Hon Member across the way

knows — a whole new subculture has been created. That

subculture is the elderly citizens, living alone or with other

elderly citizens and dreading the day when they will be forced

to submit to extended or chronic care. Mr. Speaker, this

Government is proceeding with all possible haste to provide

these badly needed facilities.

We will also be embarking on a programme to postpone, for

months and perhaps years, the time for elderly people to move

into these institutional settings. We feel that that's the

direction. There's more than just a suspicion among medical

people that many of the illnesses that incapacitate older

people are precipitated or at least become more acute because

of loneliness and boredom. It's our intention to provide the

care that the people need in their homes to make their lives

brighter, healthier and more comfortable and to ease the demand

for costlier institutional care.

Many of the services required by elderly people can be

administered by home care workers with a minimal cost of

training. To a senior citizen crippled with arthritis, washing

one's hair or sweeping the floor or having a bath or getting a

meal and disposing of the garbage is a chore of sufficient

magnitude to force them to consider a rest home. That's the

problem. Loss of one's independence is a tougher malady to

fight than pneumonia.

Mr. Speaker, acute care hospitals are in similar situations.

They find that their patient stays are frequently extended

because of lack of facilities in the home during the

recuperation period. So part and parcel of the home care

programme would be to encourage and co-ordinate the many

volunteer workers presently in the community. There are many

successful voluntary organizations, such as Meals on Wheels,

Canadian Mental Health, CNIB, Alcoholics Anonymous — you

name them. There are many that are quite successful and many

others that have shown us the way.

We feel that the Government has an obligation to provide the

financing, standards and supervision, as I've said before in

this House. But the community must be given the opportunity to

assess and fill their own needs. We must never lose sight of

the value of the volunteer workers but neither must we expect

the volunteer workers to shoulder the responsibility alone.

Mr. Speaker, we plan a wide-ranging programme over the

next few years on home care. We don't mean a limiting kind of

home care programme that is just homemaker or just one

particular section. We feel that home care has to be expanded

so that it takes in all sorts of levels of care in the home

— nursing care and others. Therefore, when I'm talking

about home care, I'm talking about the whole programme of home

care. Let's review the problem just for a second.

We could increase day surgery. We could increase

out-patient surgery. This is lowering the costs of health

care and it's also providing people with a less alienating

experience.

The day surgery and the out-patient surgery are

particularly the areas where some home nursing care is

needed.

Now, in, acute care, we can reduce the length of stay; in

chronic care, up to a point. We can keep people out of the

institutions. It's better at home than in the institution, Mr.

Speaker. Not only can we save on the cost of care, but we can

provide a far more relevant level of care and also the kind of

care that people want.

We often think of home care just for the older person Or

just for saving some other facility. But just think in terms of

the person: how about a young family woman? She's got a young

family and she's had to go to the hospital for a rather major

operation. If we can have some help for her in that home

— a nurse and a homemaker — she can get home to

those kids that she wants to be around. She can be brought back

to health a lot faster in that environment than she can laying

in the hospital worrying about those children.

So as soon as the acute phase of illness is over, we feel if

we can provide the care: Get them home.

Mr. Speaker, the post-op man — all he would need

if has care in the home is maybe a little nursing care. So why

shouldn't we provide it to him where he lives as opposed to

providing it for him in the hospital where it is costing us

anywhere from $50 to $55 a day?

Those two examples are, of course, post-acute.

An old couple living in a home or in an apartment are

relatively happy, and the thing that might keep them in that

home is maybe a little bit of nursing care. Maybe she needs a

little bit of help around the house, or maybe she needs some

help with him. Maybe they need some physiotherapy and because

[ Page 560 ]

the fact that it's not available at their home level, then

he or she or maybe both wind up in an institution.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important area; all

these examples that I cite are real needs. The real need for

service is in the community and I think the community knows

about that need and they can best identify it.

So who are we talking about when we're talking about…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Right on. Who are we talking about when

we're talking about home-care people? Well, we're talking

about nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech

therapists, dietary people, counselors, homemakers,

housekeepers, meals on wheels — this kind of service. Our

direction must be to keep people at home as much and as long as

possible.

There are so many advantages in keeping families together,

couples together. We feel the major advantage is that it is

just the downright, humane way to go so that it is the least

alienating experience.

There's one group that I want to talk about just for a

moment. I want to pay special attention today to the homemaker.

Not to say that the others involved in this level of care are

not important; they are important, extremely important. But the

reason that the homemaker is so important is the fact that the

others are well-recognized, well-defined, and can

be worked into the system. The homemaker is a little harder to

identify. We haven't really created a climate for the homemaker

at this point.

The Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement

— that mouthful, Mr. Speaker, that you have such a great

deal of difficulty with. I'm not going to say it again, either.

I hope they change that name. But that department and our

Department of Health are working out programmes and strategy

right now to develop a large core of homemakers in this

province.

Our communities have many, many people — particularly

women — and a lot of these women are either unemployed or

under-employed, middle-aged women. This programme,

in my view, will be able to draw on the maturity and expertise

and the availability of many of these women.

Many of them have heretofore found that their age had

relegated them to the economic scrap heap. Now it's a different

situation, providing they want to go this way. I don't think

there is anybody better trained as a home care worker than a

middle-aged woman with years of experience in caring for

people.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the direction.

I don't feel that it will require an extensive training course, Mr. Speaker,

Some training, of course. But most of the training they get will be on the job.

We need some supervision, but that basically is it. We'll be watching; we'll

be setting standards.

The government is most interested in this programme. We need

the service of those women, Mr. Speaker, and they need the

work. This is a work-intensive programme and we're proud to be

associated with it. We'll provide a needed service and they

will have a fulfilling, meaningful occupation.

Mr. Speaker, there are about 30-odd groups in the

province right now that have been doing home care work, and

doing an effective job as much as they could, let's say,

because they really haven't had the kind of co-operation

that they need. We are going to help co-ordinate the

service. We're not going to drive people out of the service;

what we're going to try to do is help and expand it and make it

more successful.

One early suggestion that I make for the whole homemaker

corps in the province, regardless of where they are in what

city or what town or what village: I think they should be

provided with a uniform, a really smart uniform. I think it's

the kind of programme that really develops some pride, and I

think they should be proud of themselves. I think that they

should be displayed to the public in uniform, a smart uniform

with a hat and a little badge if they want.

AN. HON. MEMBER : Badge of honour.

HON. MR. COCKE: A badge of honour on the uniform.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: We want them recognized, particularly in

view of the importance of their job. So I think, Mr. Speaker,

that will be one of my very first suggestions. As a matter of

fact, I'm making it now publicly.

There are lots of good examples of uniforms, let's not kid

about it. Who kicks about the airline stewardess' uniform, all

of you fliers? (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what he said!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, now we've got a nicely

uniformed person employed in a highly useful occupation —

and we can't forget that word "employed." That's where it's at.

This will be a really labour intensive kind of service, and

we're hoping that people will really co-operate and try

to provide the level of care that is inadequately supplied

now.

Mr. Speaker, let's hope we keep a number off

[ Page 561 ]

welfare. That will please my colleague to the left no end,

won't it, colleague? (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Our direction is clear, Mr. Speaker. It's

going to be home care, and that's the way we are going. We're

going to expand it as quickly as possible.

One thing in passing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention.

Another way to keep people out of chronic hospitals we've found

lately is to provide, where possible, oxygen. For a lot of

people, the difference between having to be admitted to a

chronic care or an extended care facility is just to provide

the oxygen that they require from time to time. They don't

necessarily need it all the time, but they need it from time to

time.

So we're expanding this particular area. I'm not quite sure

how quickly we can go, but we certainly are providing it where

we see a real need and where there's a way for us to do it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, many of the Members in this House are

getting telephone calls, letters and all sorts of things from

small restaurant owners, campsite owners and so on —

people who are involved in providing food.

As you know, I think it was November, 1971, there were three

orders-in-council that were quite restrictive in

that they set up some very rigid rules. We've decided as a

cabinet to relax some of these rules to this extent: we're

allowing under our new orders-in-council, in these

three areas, the medical officer in the area to have some sort

of flexibility so that he can hand out interim

certificates.

This is what that interim certificate will look like. It

gives the new order-in-council and the old one, and

so on.

Now I'm not suggesting for one second…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: The crack-down started in the last few

months because your order-in-council had one year

to go before it was implemented. Of course that came in while I

was Minister, so we've just relaxed it, that's all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: A little cookie from Alberta? I'm not sure

of the significance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Okay.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we don't want any kind of regulations to discriminate

against the small operators, and that's what was happening. The big operators

had no trouble. They've got all the facilities and the money to buy facilities.

It was the small operators.

Therefore, we're looking at it very carefully. I insist,

however, that we're going to watch the sanitary conditions.

We're going to be going on with inspections. If the inspections

indicate that the sanitary conditions are not being lived up

to, it won't take us very long to move in. There's no question

about that.

We're not going to be rough. All we're saying to people is,

"If you've got a valid argument you're going to be heard."

That's where this interim permit will work out.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people around are interested in a

court case that we had recently. It was the Attorney General…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: It was the other fellow, I guess, that

started it. It was the Attorney General versus Stark —

and the Attorney General lost that court case.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): You can't win 'em

all. (Laughter).

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Justice Verchere was the Supreme Court

justice, and he found that the osteopath, Dr. Stark, qualified

for equal treatment under Medicare — equal, that is to

medical doctors. Therefore, he found that our regulation 409

(a) (6) is ultra vires. So this is the judge's findings, his

reasons — and also a note from the Attorney General of

this province indicating what course I should take. So this is

the course we are going to take.

Basically, the reason he gave was that osteopaths are

licensed under the Medical Act in B.C. We're going to

have a problem with Ottawa, because Ottawa says that osteopaths

are not eligible for sharing, Mr. Attorney General. I hope that

you can work us out of that one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll phone David Lewis.

(Laughter)

HON. MR. COCKE: In most other provinces, Mr. Speaker, osteopaths are

licensed under a different Act altogether. But in this province they are licensed

under the Medical Act and so therefore we're different in that way.

In consultation with learned counsel we've decided not to

appeal the case. Therefore, Mr. Justice Verchere's findings are

final as far as we're concerned. We're going to send them to

Ottawa and hopefully they'll take a second look at this whole

situation, Mr. Speaker. So osteopaths will be in the future

treated in

[ Page 562 ]

this province under Medicare exactly the same as

doctors.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What about

chiropractors?

HON. MR. COCKE: That's a little different story. That's

quite different. We're not even suggesting that acupuncturists

be under Medicare at this point. But these things are all being

discussed.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened to my colleague, the

Minister of Agriculture and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo (Hon.

Mr. Stupich). He suggested that he was going to go on working

toward fluoridation of the water in his area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, Prince George and Kelowna

fluoridate at the present time, and they've had a marked

reduction in tooth decay — a marked reduction. There's

nothing stopping any district in B.C. from going that way if

they wish.

Presently in North America 100 million North Americans are

drinking fluoridated water. It seems that in the past there's

been a great antipathy, however, for fluoridation in B.C.

Therefore, a suggestion I made recently to the dentists was for

an optional method of fluoridation. That would be to fluoridate

milk — for those who wish to buy the marked fluoridated

milk, they can buy it.

Now I have heard, on a number of occasions, that that is not

an effective way to get fluoride into the system. But I've seen

two studies recently that indicate the reverse is true; that's

it's quite effective…

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's too

expensive.

HON. MR. COCKE: It's expensive. Oh, yes.

Those who wish fluoride, however, could buy especially

marked milk. For the adults we might have an alternative route,

Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, these studies do indicate that it is quite

effective, and I agree with the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that it is relatively

expensive. But those people that wish it can certainly have it.

For those unable to drink fluoridated water, the dairies could

very well provide the alternative. I'd like to see some

discussions with them until such time as something else happens

in this province.

Anybody that wishes the results of these rather recent

surveys…one was done in Switzerland and one was done in

the United States, neither of them dramatically large. The

American one indicates 80 per cent reduction in caries.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'll tell you what to do. You can come over

here and make policy when you're over here elected.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what we are doing

— dramatically increasing our preventive dental programme.

If you notice in your estimates this year, we've added 25 staff

just in that particular area alone. That's not to say that

we're going to stop there. We feel that this is an area of

public health that needs some very quick attention.

Presently the health security programme is also looking at

this particular area. They've had a number of reports. They've

met with a number of dentists. We've also been promised, from

the dentists' official organization, the report of their

studies that are going on at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, our direction here is, again, prevention. One

thing I'd like to say about prevention at this point is to

congratulate the dental college for their very effective

campaign, I think. They've even got me using dental floss

regularly and brushing the right way after a number of years of

doing it quite incorrectly.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go on for a moment or two with the

question of health education. We're very conscious of the fact

that probably the best asset we can have as far as our

department is concerned is a population that's well informed

about their health. We'll therefore be adopting various

measures of health education.

I remember during my speech on the throne debate I mentioned

fitness. One of the areas I think that we should discuss now is

this whole question of nutrition. We're active in this area

— not as active as I'd like to see us, but we're going to

expand. We're certainly going to get the information out as

best we can.

We want to provide consumers with assistance in judging

food costs and values. We've had slide shows and TV programmes

and consumer cards and forums put on by our nutrition people.

We'll be continuing to expand these programmes, especially as

they relate to nutritionally vulnerable groups — pregnant

women, infants and children, and the aged, Mr. Speaker.

The programme for the aged we put on recently was entitled

"The Senior Chef," and it was shown on the Victoria TV.

I think probably some of you might have seen it. That show cost

us about $200 a show and it was put on eight times — so

$1,600. And we got 1,515 requests for brochures as a result of

that show. We're moving it all over the province, Mr. Speaker.

We feel that it's very important.

We've done little bit of costing. We feel that that $1,600

we spent probably saved in the order of $75,000 to those people

who took notice. That is, I think, very important.

We are considering something quite similar on

pre-natal nutrition, perhaps with the National Film

Board, if we can get their co-operation. This would be

partly to counteract a number of myths right now that are held

by old theories that have sort of carried on through the

generations. These theories should at least be shown to be

false. Many of them are dangerous. Some of the theories that

pregnant women are faced with are dangerous to herself and

[ Page 563 ]

dangerous to the fetus. So we're trying to expand this

information that should be readily available to every person in

B.C.

We are also considering special programmes in infant feeding

and adolescent diets. Adolescents and hamburgers are sometimes

a worry more than just to the health department. Fish and chips

— no, just the chips — chips and gravy.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be aiming at people who

are troubled with obesity and diet problems and also any other

area in which we feel there is a specific need right now. And

in general information to the general public.

The same staff may be looking into qualifications of people

giving diet counseling. Remember our public health nurses are

around, and we've had some in-staff training already in

this area. We're also thinking in terms of getting that

information out to health spas and reducing salons. Sometimes

they could use a little bit more knowledge than what they have

to date.

I should add that we've discovered that food costs for a

family of four in this area have increased over 30 per cent

from 1967 to 1972. Yes, 30 per cent. For a Victoria family with

two teenagers that has meant an additional $35 a month. And

that has to be a concern as well. What we want to make very

clear is that people have to look at the cost — costs are

so relevant that they have to be very careful not to neglect

their diet.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member of Omineca (Mr. Kelly),

across the way yesterday complaining about doctors in isolated

areas. Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly share

that concern over these isolated areas. As you know in the past few months we've been working very

closely with our Medical Man Power Committee and they're

looking at the whole province. Vancouver General Hospital has

done a recent study on delivery of medical care in isolated

areas. To date we've got one doctor into the Chilcotin area,

which I'm very pleased about. That's almost midway between

Williams Lake and Bella Coola — in that area that was

very much neglected. I want to see the same kind of thing

happen up in your area, Mr. Member.

We've had all sorts of suggestions you know — double

the fees, and have a fee-and-a-half, and all

sorts of suggestions. I'm suggesting that we're prepared to go

for a salary in a situation like that. Because even if you

multiplied the fees by four, sometimes it wouldn't be enough.

And it's a crazy way to do it in my view. So we are suggesting

that that's a course, and we're prepared to discuss it with any

area.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude this brief presentation — I expected to be much,

much longer. But I know you're looking tired now and you know I'm so grateful

that you've given me this time, I don't want to over do it.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, I'm really excited about the

prospects for health care in this province. I'm really excited.

And the reason that I'm so excited is because the

co-operation level couldn't be higher, it couldn't be

better. We are getting co-operation from every level of

health care worker in this province. From the doctors to the

nurses, board people, to every person involved in the delivery

of health care. And since that's the way it seems at the

present time I'm going to do everything I can to keep this

level of co-operation up. I thank you for the time. Mr.

Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members,

I'm always happy to take my place in this House as the

Member for Cariboo. I would like to congratulate the Hon.

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) for his remarks. And thank

him on behalf of the people of Chilcotin to see that a general

practitioner has been located in that large remote area, and

remind him that it is in the riding of Cariboo. Thank you very

much Mr. Minister.

I have some comments, Mr. Speaker, to make on the federal

budget and how it affects the citizens of British Columbia. I

would say that the federal budget that was delivered last

evening in Ottawa by the Minister of Finance could be called an

expansionary budget. This no doubt is because they want to

expand the job opportunities and help the growth of the great

nation of Canada.

It also appears that the federal New Democratic Party is

going to support this expansion budget of the federal

the budget that is before us today by the provincial New

Democratic Party which is a policy of no growth, and turn the

lights out.

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget handed down yesterday

provides for an increase of $17.12 in the basic old age

pension. Previously there had been a scheduled increase of

$3.73 as of April 1, 1973. It is now quite clear that the

provincial Mincome plan, resting as it does on the level of

income available to pensioners from the Old Age Security

Act of Canada and in payments under the social assistance

portion of the Canada Assistance Plan is the baseline from

which the provincial government has calculated the portion it

must pay to achieve a $200 guaranteed income for those over 65

years old.

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the

Government of British Columbia has an ethical and moral

commitment to now use the new baseline federal figures for the

calculation of income to pensioners. But the Mincome Plan in

fairness now to the 100,000 — I believe the 110,000 was

reported as

[ Page 564 ]

calculated by the province — should be amended

forthwith to raise the minimum available to pensioners under

this plan to $217.12, and preferably to $225.

Mr. Speaker, any other course would be unfair to those

thousands of British Columbia taxpayers who, as a result of

previous provincial action, in fact will receive nothing from

the federal budget. The only gainer will be the Minister of

Finance of the Province of British Columbia, and it is

unthinkable that he should bring this windfall into the picture

as an offset against the cost to the province of the Mincome

Plan.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Some gainer.

MR. FRASER: In many previous statements to this House, the

present Minister of Finance is on record that the Canada

Assistance Act permits full share authority between the

federal government and the provinces. And in fact he came back

from Ottawa and reported by implication that he had had

adjustments to accommodate the Mincome Plan of British Columbia

which were not available to other Canadian provinces.

The Prime Minister on the other hand — that is the

Prime Minister of Canada — indicated very clearly that

what was available to British Columbia was exactly the same

formula arrangement as that which applied to the other

provinces. This, Mr. Speaker, makes the case all the more

compelling for the $17.12 to be calculated as a part of a new

base upon which both the present commitment of the province,

and the present commitment of the federal government under the

Canada Assistance Plan should rest.

We, in the official Opposition call now for the provincial

government to immediately act to amend both the Guaranteed

Minimum Income Assistance Act and the Handicapped

Persons Assistance Act passed in October last in this

Legislature. To do otherwise in view of previous debates in

this House would simply be an exercise in flim-flaming

the old age pensioners of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Cariboo, there are many large

cattle ranches. And all these ranches of necessity must have a

brand so their livestock can be properly identified by their

brand. In other words they're referred to — I think I

heard one of the rural Members yesterday refer to a farm in the

Okanagan as the AL Ranch.

Mr. Speaker, I've taken the liberty to apply a brand to this

budget — this provincial budget and I have branded it

"The three B budget" — which stands for "Barrett's Busted

Bubble."

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of uncertainties connected with any study of

the 1973 budget. First of course is the deliberate way in which the Minister

of Finance offers uncertainty about the budget by announcing yet unavailable

new directions in getting more money from our natural resources.

Historically, Ministers of Finance have had the position in

our society of keeping their fiscal thought on taxation to

themselves before announcements of any kind — which can

in a very real sense have the effect of breaking or making an

individual. Indeed, the British parliamentary system is full of

recorded occasions when inadvertently or otherwise, Ministers

of Finance have made off-the-cuff remarks which

ultimately led to their resignations because of the impact

their remarks had on the community.

I think the people of British Columbia have cause for

concern, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) clearly does not understand his role.

Secondly, during the budget debate we have also been

favoured with remarks from the Government benches which

indicate that they really don't know where they are going.

Until they find out, sufficient it will be to blame the

previous 20 years of administration. This position on the part

of the Government is now wearing very thin in communities

throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

Thirdly, we have a parade of proposals on the part of the

Government backbenchers which, if adopted as official

Government policy, would be clear indication that the New

Democratic Party, which is elected under the deliberate

camouflage of a "nice Nellie" kind of socialism, is really a

party which favours complete and total domination of the

economy by the state.

The examples from Hansard are quite revealing:

The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) wants the Government to

go into the hotel business.

The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) wants the Government to

build a 500-mile tunnel from Terrace to Vancouver which

like the ideas that one might expect to come from that side of

the House. (Laughter).

The Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) wants to

take over the real estate business in British Columbia.

The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) wants to take over the

natural gas industry.

The Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) wants to nationalize

the fishing industry of British Columbia.

The Member for Richmond and others want to take over and

dominate television stations.

The shopping list grows, Mr. Speaker, and one can only look

at this budget in terms of what the implications of all these

socialist ideas mean to the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Body shops are next.

MR. FRASER: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, one

[ Page 565 ]

of the things which they cannot say about the financial

position of British Columbia is that they found it in a mess.

For years they talked about the several sets of books in

British Columbia. Now they must honestly and openly confess to

the people of this province that there were not two sets of

books but only one. The record shows now that what they said

for so many years for political advantage was completely

incorrect.

MR. PHILLIPS: Shame!

MR. FRASER: In this budget we have the sad situation where

the Minister of Finance has actually admitted that he does not

need more money to run British Columbia but is taking it anyway

because of a political philosophy.

Assessments are to rise for all commercial and industrial

properties, be they business large or small. Corporation tax is

to be increased by 20 per cent be the business large or small.

You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that all these tax increases

will affect the so-called ordinary man.

This budget gives very little relief to the hard-pressed

municipalities of this province, Mr. Speaker. The per capita

grant being increased from $30 to $32 is not enough to even

keep up with inflation, let alone provide them with much needed

financial relief.

Due to the lack of an adequate per capita grant increase to

the municipalities by this Government you will see municipal

taxes in this province take one of the largest jumps that has

been taken in many years. This certainly will hit all the

ordinary citizens quite severely right in the pocketbook.

During the last six years the average increase of the per

capita grants to municipalities has been 29 per cent. The

increase in the per capita grant for this year as compared to

last year is 10 per cent. Strictly peanuts, Mr. Speaker.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

stated in this House the other day that there had been no

increase in the per capita grants for some time. But, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to inform this House that there have been

constant increases paid by the province every year for the past

six years.

In 1966 the amount paid by the province in per capita grants

was $13 million. In 1967 — $23,950,000; 1968 — $27

million; 1969 — $38,700,000; 1970 — $43,700,000;

1971 — $46,700,000. In 1972 it was $53,100,000 and in 1973

it will be $58,500,000. Well, I am not happy with the amount of

financial help given the hard-pressed municipalities by the

provincial government. I do not buy the cries from some of the

mayors and aldermen in British Columbia that grants to them are

not keeping up with increased financial provincial

revenues.

Let us take a look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. The provincial government revenues

for the six year period from 1966 to 1972 increased 120 per cent, from $659

million odd in 1966 to $145 billion in 1972. In this same six year period the

per capita grant payments increased 302 per cent, Mr. Speaker. The amount of

the per capita grants paid in 1966 by the provincial government was $13 million.

In 1972 it was $53 million.

The NDP Party during the 1972 election campaign had, as one

of their many promises, a plank in their platform called "a new

deal for the cities." This is what it said, Mr. Speaker:

"Services to the people will be financed by sharing the

province's resource revenue and general revenues with

municipalities and regional districts."

In this first NDP budget, Mr. Speaker, let's see how they

honoured this sharing that they promised. Last year the per

capita grants paid by the provincial government to the

municipalities represented 3.6 per cent of the total provincial

revenues. This year, Mr. Speaker, it represents 3.3 per cent of

the provincial revenues. Some sharing, Mr. Speaker. Some

sharing.

The sharing promised in their party's platform is just a

myth. Not only has the percentage share been reduced to all the

municipalities, but this Government will be responsible for a

heavy increase in taxation for all our citizens because of the

inadequacy of this budget.

While on the subject of the financial plight of our

municipalities, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise this House

of the heavy burden placed on them in the sharing of the

welfare costs. The present formula is 50 per cent of the net

Province of British Columbia and 15 per cent by the local

municipalities. I was very surprised to find no relief in sight

for changing this formula in this present budget.

As a matter of fact, in this budget the municipalities had

better get the message that their costs are going to be

increased, because the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is budgeting for $20 million more,

gross, in welfare costs for this year. So the socialists over

there no doubt anticipate an increase in welfare payments,

which means a further increase in unemployment and so on and so

forth.

Because the NDP Government cannot reduce unemployment or

come up with any creative job plans, I cannot understand why

the municipalities have to be victims of your mismanagement of

the provincial economy. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the

position this Government is putting our municipalities in. If

you cannot or will not do anything about the highest

unemployment we have had in years, they are certainly innocent

victims of your lack of job creating programmes.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but I want to read into the

record here today that the Member for North

[ Page 566 ]

Peace River (Mr. Smith) was ruled out of order yesterday

about bringing up a subject of prime public importance to this

House. In today's Province there is an

article here

quoting the Mayor of Fort St. John saying that 250 men have

lost their jobs in that community. They were following the

petroleum industry there. I think that this is shocking. I

understand that some promise has been made, but in the meantime

these people are losing their jobs. Already the Peace River

area has been hard hit by a bad fall last year for the farming

community. Now probably their last employment has been killed

by suggestions made in this budget to increase revenue from the

petroleum industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disastrous.

MR. PHILLIPS: Stop the bill.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Tear it up.

MR. FRASER: As far as getting the net costs to

municipalities down from 15 to 10 per cent, Mr. Speaker, I

referred in this House last year to it, and made a plea to the

then Minister to have it reduced from 15 to 10 per cent. That

Minister paid no attention to it. He didn't go to the Minister

of Finance and ask for the funds to effect this reduction and I

am happy to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that Minister is not in

this House anymore and I don't regret that one little bit.

However, my impression about the new Minister of Rehabilitation

and Social Improvement (Mr. Levi) is that he is no more

competent than the last Minister.

The new Minister seems to be able to find a lot of ways to

spend the public's money, which is the taxpayers' money, but I

really do not feel he understands what a burden this 15 per

cent share of social assistance cost is to the municipalities.

I now request that he immediately make representation to the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) for the funds required

to reduce the municipalities' share of welfare costs from 15

to 10 per cent. If he does not see his way clear to make this

request, I'll guarantee him the same fate that the last

Minister experienced. All citizens of British Columbia were surprised when the

Hon. Premier made the decision to retain the portfolio of

Minister of Finance. He has always said in Opposition that if

the NDP ever became Government, this would not happen. However,

he has made this decision and I know it will give him much more

responsibility and hard work. I want to recommend to him how

the portfolio of finance can be reduced to reduce the

responsibility of the Minister of Finance and, most important,

to give better service to our citizens.

I never could and still can't understand why the Public

Utilities Commission comes under the portfolio of the Minister of Finance. I have always felt that

this administrative body did not properly belong with the

Minister of Finance. In my opinion, the Public Utilities

Commission properly belongs with the Commercial Transport

portfolio. The Commercial Transport department is basically the

police department for the Department of Highways. Their main

function is to enforce the highway regulations.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Commission, through

its motor carrier division, also enforces regulations on public

motor carriers. This causes much confusion for the public

carriers because they have to deal with so many government

departments for their licensing. I'm sure if the Public

Utilities Commission came under the jurisdiction of the

Commercial Transport portfolio, it would give better service to

the industry as well as reduce the heavy responsibilities of

the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Premier has announced that he will be

making changes in his cabinet shortly. I would request him,

through you, that he consider this transfer of responsibility.

The public carriers of this province would be delighted if this

were to happen. They have already submitted briefs to you, to

the Government, recommending this transfer of

responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, while dealing with the budget I want to appeal

to the Minister of Finance — I'm sorry he's not here, I

hope he's outside the House announcing that the Mincome has

gone to $217.

MR. CHABOT: And 22 cents. (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, while dealing with the budget, I

want to appeal to the Minister of Finance about the operation

of the many government agencies in this province. The

provincial government operates many government agencies in this

province to provide service to our citizens who do business

with the government. The hours of these offices are from 8:30

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but they are all closed from 12 noon to 1:10

p.m.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): You know who did

that.

MR. FRASER: Yes, and I've requested it before. I consider

this most inconvenient to our citizens who are steadily

employed. The only opportunity they have to transact their

business with the government is during the lunch hour, and the

government offices are closed.

Mr. Speaker, as an example, right at this present time all

citizens are buying their new licence plates. When you are

working steadily it is very difficult to be able to get to a

government office unless you take time off work to do this,

which is costly. Of course, if you don't get your licence

plates, Mr. Speaker, the

[ Page 567 ]

Attorney General will sure get you on the morning of March 1

in his department.

All businesses as well as municipal offices in this province

are open between 12 noon and 1:10 each day. Why not the

provincial government offices? By ordering these offices to

stay open during the noon hour, it would not cost the

provincial treasury one red cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the liquor stores? They're

open.

MR. FRASER: All that has to be done is to stagger the staff

for a two-hour period of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stagger the staff at the liquor store.

(Laughter).

MR. FRASER: And I didn't say "stagger the staff of the

liquor store," Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I have made this request before in this House.

I was told that it was too much of an inconvenience to the

staff to have their lunch hours spread over two hours instead

of one. I cannot buy this and I will not accept it. How about

the inconvenience to the general public, Mr. Speaker? I suggest

that this should be the determining factor. I appeal to the

Minister of Finance, whom these offices come under, to

immediately direct these offices to remain open during the noon

hour, so that the government can give better service to its

citizens.

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Cariboo has more miles of public

roads than any other riding in British Columbia. It has 3,800

miles of public roads of all classes and conditions. The second

largest road mileage in British Columbia has 1,900 miles. The

average mileage per riding is less than 1,000 miles.

Consequently, roads are of paramount importance to the Cariboo

citizens. Much good work has been done in the past in the

Cariboo but a lot remains to be done. I was very concerned when

the government changed…(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: So were all the rest of us.

MR. FRASER: Right…when the government changed, but I was

happy that the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), whom I am happy to see is in his seat, was appointed

Minister of Highways. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It won't do you any good. (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: You be quiet. I'm coming here now.

(Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister has a summer home at Ruth Lake in my riding

of Cariboo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. FRASER: Because of this, he is well aware of the

condition of the roads in my riding and has been for, I

believe, 10 or 12 years. I will say to the Hon. Minister of

Highways that I will not recommend paving of the road to Ruth

Lake but I will recommend that it be graded a little more

frequently than in the past so he can get there a little

faster.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. FRASER: I want to congratulate the Minister of Highways

on increasing the funds for the Department of Highways for the

purchase of new equipment. This should have been done years ago

but was not done. This allocation of funds has been increased

from $3.5 million to $4.5 million for this coming year.

I feel we have an excellent Department of Highways but they

have not been provided with adequate funds to carry out their

many maintenance jobs properly. They are using graders,

loaders, trucks, et cetera, Mr. Speaker, that are so old they

belong in the Provincial Government Museum and not doing

maintenance work on the provincial roads.

By increasing funds for new equipment, the Department of

Highways will become more efficient and hopefully less

costly.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on the subject of the purchase of new

equipment, I feel that the government has not always received

the best deals they should have in the purchase of new

equipment. All equipment is purchased by the tender system,

except for a few buses once in a while (laughter), and the low

bidder is usually the successful tenderer. But is the low

bidder always the most economic? I suggest not always.

I cannot understand why the forestry department of the

provincial government seemed to get better quality equipment

than the Department of Highways. This appears to me to be what

has taken place. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is

any wrongdoing going on in the purchase of new equipment. I am

saying that different policies seem to exist for different

departments. I would like the Minister of Highways to check and

find out why the forestry department appears to be able to buy

better quality equipment than his Department of Highways. I

feel that the Department of Highways needs quality equipment to

do their many maintenance jobs, even more so than the forestry

department.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of my riding of Cariboo for a

number of years have been very concerned about the lack of

enforcement of our fish and wildlife resources. There just has

not been enough enforce —

[ Page 568 ]

ment. Consequently, the frequency of killing our game

illegally has increased drastically, causing a decided drop in

their population. I might say that I agree with the remarks

made yesterday, I think, by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis) about tightening up on what species of animals should be

shot and when. I completely agree with that as well.

I notice in this budget that the Fish and Wildlife Branch of

the Department of Recreation and Conservation has been given

additional funds to provide additional enforcement personnel.

The budget provides this branch with 50 additional staff,

raising enforcement personnel from 156 to 206 for this coming

year. This is an increase of 30 per cent and I want to

acknowledge and thank this department for recognizing this long

standing need.

In the past, while the enforcement officers of the fish and

wildlife branch have done a good job — as good a job as

possible — there simply has not been enough of them to

cover this large and beautiful province. Our fish and wildlife

resources have suffered considerably for this.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to show the good

and bad of the budget. But it seems obvious to me that while

some small problems have been resolved in this budget, the

larger problems it creates to our citizens far outweigh the

good parts.

The most serious errors that are in this budget, in my

opinion, are the underestimating of revenues by at least $100

million; increasing taxation to all our citizens when the funds

are not required by the provincial treasury, and the inadequacy

of financial relief for our municipalities. For these reasons,

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to vote in favour of the budget.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Before I get into the main body of my speech, I want

to follow my tradition in all throne and budget debates in

recent years to spend just about a minute on the Skagit.

The thing that's clear, Mr. Speaker, so far, is that the

Minister responsible for this in the Government has not said a

single word in this House. I hope that before the budget debate

is finished…

MR. CHABOT: He won't.

MR. BROUSSON: …that he will have something to say. I tried to explain

two weeks ago the problems that a number of us in British Columbia are facing

— the volunteers that have been involved in this battle. We don't really

know if we have to prepare to spend the money to make the presentations before

the Federal Power Commission this fall, because the provincial government has

not really stood up within this chamber and said what they're going to do.

Last week, on Wednesday, February 14, Mr. John Fraser, MP in

Vancouver South, spoke in the House of Commons. He was

addressing a question to the Hon. Jack Davis. He said, "I asked

the Minister whether he or the government is prepared to say to

this House, positively and absolutely now, that there is no

possibility of this flooding taking place — not just now,

but at all."

Mr. Davis' answer was, "I may be sticking my chin out a bit,

but I would say there is no possibility of it taking

place."

I want to ask again, Mr. Speaker — we don't have the

daily oral question period — but I'm hoping that the

Minister will be speaking in the House before the budget debate

is finished and I hope he will clearly and unequivocally, on

the floor of this House, answer a similar question.

It's generally forgotten I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that two

years ago, when we were discussing the Social Credit budget of

that year, there was considerable criticism of it because taxes

were raised. In a year when there were major surpluses the

Social Credit Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of that

day raised taxes on cigarettes, on hotel rooms, on gasoline;

and it wasn't necessary then. The final result of that was that

the surplus of that year turned out to be considerably more

than the amount of tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to have the same situation this

year. As we've said so often in the last two weeks, it's the

same script; only the players are different.

In the case of the budget, I wonder if maybe the author is

the same. Surely it is not right to be raising taxes as we are

doing this year, with a large surplus and right in the face of

major unemployment in British Columbia.

I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, some ways we could cut

taxes — ways to help the private citizen fight the cost

of living; ways to stimulate employment in British Columbia

without in any way hurting the treasury at this time.

One of the major platforms of the Government during the

election — and of my own party — was to remove the

school taxes from the land. Now we understand that the

Government can't figure out how to do this. The cabinet is

divided on how to do it. So they're going to put it off.

Well, I think the Conservative House Leader said he was

prepared to wait a little longer. But at least, Mr. Speaker, we

could help some and we could do it now, in one particular area.

There is one group of citizens that is particularly hard hit by

school taxes, and that's the senior citizens, the old-age

pensioners — when, for a very small amount of money,

their school taxes could be removed this year.

Let me read you just a few comments from a

[ Page 569 ]

member of my own constituency in North

Vancouver–Capilano.

"I'm in the group referred to as 'senior citizens.' Worked

hard all my life at modest wages. Never drew unemployment insurance; never on

welfare, and saved a little. I made a contribution to Canada and, quite frankly,

Mr. Brousson, unlike many drawing supplementary pensions who choose neither

to work nor to save. My savings are in my modest bungalow in North Van. It's

not news to you that we face a 10 to 15 per cent increase in property taxes.

Now, at 65, I'm still fit enough to live in my home for a few years until such

time as physical deterioration forces me to get out, because my mortgage will

never be paid in my lifetime. As a member of Pensioners for Action Now I know

many senior people in the same boat as myself. Thank you for the homeowners'

grant. But sir, the health of any civilized society is measured by its concern

for its aged who built the country."

He finishes up:

"Relief from school taxes is a must. Or does the government

want to force us out of our homes?"

Now there's a plea, Mr. Speaker, from the senior citizens who are trying to

maintain their own homes as long as they can. I think it's a legitimate, honest

and sincere plea. This is one small way we could reduce taxes for that group

this year.

Let's look at the 5 per cent taxes for a moment, Mr.

Speaker. That's called the S.S.M.A. tax, eh — the Social

Security and Municipal Aid tax. It's become quite a dog's

breakfast today, if you study the regulations and the Act. It

hasn't really been thoroughly reviewed for years. I think the

former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) had a couple of

ad hoc changes last year on the spur of the moment on the basis

of some ladies he met on the ferry one afternoon. But that's

the only kind of review it's had in recent years. It needs a

very thorough study.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I support the 5 per cent

tax. I think it's a good kind of a tax. It's visible; it's a

progressive tax; it's well-administered. I know something

of the way the department does administer it and I am

encouraged by the way it's operated.

But it's a very fair tax only under one condition, and

that's that it has the right exemptions to it. I want to

suggest six ways these exemptions could be brought up to date;

could be changed to help the ordinary citizens of British

Columbia and several special groups that we are trying to help

in other ways. But we are still hurting them with an outdated 5

per cent tax system.

Now, we already exempt foods. But there's nothing in the Act

which says all the materials required for food production and,

of course, for bona fide farmers, are to be exempt. There is a list of things in

the

section that talks about the various things on the farm

that are exempt — farm implements and farm machinery. It

expands them for a page. But this list hasn't been changed for

years, Mr. Speaker.

For instance, it still says that, "wagon boxes or tanks and

vehicles, if horse-drawn, are exempt." Now supposing it's

a wagon box or a tank or a vehicle pulled by a tractor?

Apparently you pay 5 per cent tax on that one, as this Act

reads. There's no provision for that. That's how out of date it

is.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we shouldn't have those

long and detailed lists because technology changes from year to

year — obviously it changes. New things are thought of

that haven't got into the Act yet. There should be a method of

making declarations, certificates such as are used in the

administration of the federal sales tax, to exempt whole

classes — such as classes of products that are purchased

for the production of food and for the use of the bona fide

farmer.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that not only clothing for

children should be exempt from the 5 per cent tax. A lot of

poor people have to buy clothing who are more than 15 years

old. I think all clothing should be exempt from the 5 per cent

tax.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we do try to exempt a great many

health products — drugs and miscellaneous items. They're

all detailed at great length. But there are some specifics, Mr.

Speaker — because we go through this listing of item by

item by item — there are some specifics, such as supplies

used by certain diabetics and a variety of things of that kind,

that still pay 5 per cent tax. I suggest that all products

required in the care of health should be exempt.

Now we talk about educational supplies being exempt. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, anything used in education should be

exempt. For instance, if a mother goes to the store to buy home

economics supplies for her daughter for home economics class,

she pays 5 per cent tax on it.

On a text book there's no tax. But for the materials and the

supplies that she has to use for this training course, that the

teachers say that she has to have, she must pay 5 per cent tax.

I suggest that all educational supplies that are going to be

used in the schools should be exempt. Let's go one step

further; we have an exemption for magazines, newspapers,

periodicals. So you buy a girlie magazine — I'm sure some

of the Members on the other side buy girlie magazines.

(Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: No? Not any more? Oh. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Do

you buy girlie magazines Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 570 ]

Anyway, all magazines are exempt, regardless of what's in

them. But hard covered books, or soft covered books, culture,

good books, bad books, — you must pay the 5 per cent

tax.

My point here, Mr. Speaker, is that we shouldn't

differentiate between a magazine or a periodical, and a book

that's only printed once. Everything in this area of

literature, culture, should be exempt from the 5 per cent

tax.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Playboy?

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. You always

have a good line.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we're trying to encourage housing, the

building of houses. We're trying to reduce the cost of housing

by all kinds of complicated plans. We discuss this at great

length. It's a very difficult thing to do. But a very large

cost in every new home built today is the 5 per cent tax that's

collected by the provincial government on all the materials

that go into that house.

Now if the provincial Government is sincere about trying to

help the homeowner, trying to help the man build his home or

his apartment block, why should that not be exempt the 5 per

cent tax — providing it's residential.

I'm not suggesting any exemption in construction materials

for commercial or industrial building. But for the residential

construction, it should be exempt the 5 per cent tax. There is

a saving there in the price of the home of great significance

— perhaps $500, perhaps more in many cases. That's a

substantial decrease in the cost of a home for many people.

Finally, let's look at the municipal area. Remember that

this is the S.S. and M.A. Tax, Municipal Aid Tax. The

municipalities, when they buy all of their needs in British

Columbia, must pay a tax on everything they buy. As an example,

the City and District of North Vancouver combined, in 1971,

paid approximately $138,000 in 5 per cent provincial taxes.

They received from the provincial government in the same year

about $2.25 million as a grant.

In other words, in 1971, they gave back to the provincial

government in 5 per cent taxes over 6 per cent, almost 6 1/4 per

cent, of the grant they received. That seems to me to be giving

with one hand and taking away with the other. It's over 6 per

cent, and I'm told that this is fairly typical across the

province.

Of course that's directly reflected in the taxes on the

homeowner, the property taxes within each municipality. It's a

general rule, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government does

not pay federal government taxes. The federal government

doesn't pay provincial taxes. One level of government doesn't

normally pay another level of government's taxes. So, why not

exempt the municipalities from giving this money back to the

province after they've got it.

We're giving them an increase this year in the budget of $2

per capita. What I'm talking about is approximately $1.25 per

capita. It would eliminate a great deal of money being handed

back and forth.

None of these items are large in themselves, Mr. Speaker.

But taking these six suggestions that I've mentioned, taking

these taxes off, would help the home buyer, it would help the

sick and it would help the local taxpayer. It fights inflation

and it fights the cost of living. It wouldn't cost more than

something of the order of $15 million to $20 million for that

complete package that I just outlined — far, far less

than is being collected by the tax increases going into effect

in this budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to another topic. I was

very grateful last week that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) reacted to comments I had made previously on the

subject of mortgages, and financing. I was disappointed to an

extent in his reaction. When the Hon. Attorney General was on

this side of the House, he used to come on like a tiger. But

the other day, Mr. Speaker, I thought he was like a pussy

cat.

He could have served notice on the crooks in this kind of

industry to reform or to get out. But he didn't do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give them their walking papers.

MR. BROUSSON: Instead, he talked about the ones he

cancelled. It turned out afterwards, Mr. Speaker, after we

found out who the mortgage broker licenses were that he'd

cancelled, Mediscrip and Westex — that one of them had

been bankrupt for six months, and the other one had been

suspended because it wasn't operating any more. Big deal.

Then he promised to investigate, but he said he was

investigating — he was doing a lot of investigating. He

just blithely then left the whole subject and he got on to talk

about real estate salesmen and all of their problems. He spent

equal time on the real estate salesmen as he did on the

mortgage brokers. I wonder whom he frightened, Mr. Speaker.

You may remember that two weeks ago I showed you some of the

things that happened in the advertising under "Money for

Mortgages," and "Mortgages for Sale" and this sort of

thing. I read some of the columns from the Vancouver Sun

as they were two weeks ago. But I am talking now about

Saturday, this past weekend. There were 75 column inches in the

Vancouver Sun , just five inches less than two weeks

before — before either he or I spoke on the subject.

Most of the same people are still in here. For instance, the

one that I read at some length to the House was called

Provident Mortgage Corporation Limited. That's the one that is

owned by that fellow

[ Page 571 ]

Mike Poppel. I read some of the examples. It's still in here

with exactly the same wording, the same misleading kind of

advertising to suck people in. It's still in the paper after

that fiery speech from the Attorney General.

Mr. Poppel has removed one ad. Maybe that's the five inches

less this time. He took out his other company, Trinity

Mortgage. It's no longer in here. That's really the only

difference. That Provident Mortgage is still 15 1/2 inches.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you investigate the

dates of renewal of registration by the registrar of mortgage

brokers in the Securities Commission office, some of the people

that are clearly the bad boys…and I named some of their

names the other day and I'm going to name some more in a couple

of minutes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On what grounds?

MR. BROUSSON: You can do it in your Act right now. You can

suspend them right now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On what grounds?

MR. BROUSSON: I'll get to the details, Mr. Speaker. Some of

those bad boys had their licences renewed in January and

February of this year. They're not frightened yet. They're not

stopping. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to be

constructive, sincerely…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to know on what grounds you'd

prevent them from doing business.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm going to be constructive, Mr. Speaker.

Nothing that I have done politically in the four years that I

have been in politics has produced such a direct personal

response as that one speech I made on this subject. I must say,

Mr. Speaker, I never dreamed that the problem was as

widespread, with as many different facets to it, as it turned

out.

I'm not normally involved in this sort of area. I say very

frankly, since I spoke out I've had a flood of phone calls and

letters, and they've come, strangely enough, from as far away

as Ontario — people speaking of specific B.C. problems,

but writing from Ontario to talk about them.

I want to use a few more examples to try to demonstrate what

the problem is and the areas these come in, because I think we

need that kind of thing to prove the seriousness of the

situation.

Some of these I'm going to run through very quickly because they're just repetition

of old things. Some of them illustrate specific new problems that I certainly

hadn't been aware of before. But as an example of how bad they can get, there

is currently an action in the Supreme Court for Galaxy Investment — that's

another Mr. Poppel's companies. He is being sued for fraud. Galaxy Investment

advanced $20,000 on a third mortgage…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm just quoting the precise facts that you'll

find as a matter of public record.

MR. SPEAKER: I still point out to you, Hon. Member, that in

cases of that kind, even quoting and reciting the fact that

there was fraud would be…

MR. BROUSSON: The example I was going to give was a $ 10,000

bonus on a $20,000 mortgage, just to illustrate the point, and

a 24 per cent rate at the same time.

Now I want to go to a totally different kind of problem.

This one is a very difficult one to handle. The company

concerned here is a national mortgage company. The gentleman

concerned is a senior citizen. He's a retired squadron leader

here in Victoria. Because his wife had an accident, the doctor

told him to move to a different kind of house without an

upstairs — a smaller house, all on one floor. So, in

effect, he traded one $35,000 house for another $35,000 house,

in the same block even.

In doing so, he found that he was assuming a $20,000 first

mortgage which was only about a year old at this point. This

mortgage was written by National Trust, a

well-recognized, ethical company. The gentleman found

that he was paying 9 per cent interest on the $20,000

mortgage.

He's got very, very limited funds; he's carefully husbanding

these to take care of his old age. The best he can do is to

invest these funds with National Trust and they'll give him 7

per cent. Then he has to pay federal income tax on that 7 per

cent interest that he gets. He has to pay National Trust 9 per

cent. So you can see he's going to fall a little further behind

each month.

He went to National Trust and said to them, "I have enough

cash. Can I pay back my $20,000 mortgage to you so I have my

house clear title and then my pension would take care of

me?"

National Trust said: "We're very sorry, sir, but yours is a

new mortgage. It's only a year old. There's no provision of any

kind at all in it for it to be paid back in less than five

years. You can wait five years and pay it back."

Now this man is a senior citizen. Can he wait five years,

losing several percentage points each year on his interest?

So he pleaded with the manager of the National Trust, who

said: "Well, all right. I'll agree to your paying it back but

it will cost you six times the monthly payment. The monthly

payment is $178. It

[ Page 572 ]

will cost you $1,068 as a bonus, as a penalty, for paying

that mortgage off."

That is completely legal and I can understand the reasons

why that mortgage is locked in in that way, because it's got an

attractive rate today. But it seems to me this is not the kind

of milk of human kindness that we want to encourage within the

financial community in this kind of situation. That's why I

tell that story, Mr. Speaker.

Another company that's a public company is involved in this

one. It illustrates a very particular kind of problem. The

story comes from Valemount, in north central British Columbia,

a couple of hundred miles or so north of Kamloops —

really in the country.

Reading his letter, you can read between the lines the

problem this gentleman and his wife have had building their own

home in their spare time. He's got it virtually finished, just

a tiny bit of plumbing and a tiny bit of wiring left. He has no

financing at all. He's been able to get a little advance from

his bank. He's run some credit accounts around the

community.

Then he's offered a tractor to purchase on a repossession

basis which is perhaps a third of the value of the tractor. So

he is very anxious to get the tractor. He put a $500 deposit

down and then discovered that the bank in Valemount wouldn't

advance him any more money.

So somehow the representative in Kamloops of Burrard

Mortgage Investments Ltd. heard that he was looking for money

and came up to see him. He said, "Sure, we'll give you a first

mortgage. It'll cost you about 13 or 14 per cent." He said,

"Well, that's not too bad." So he said, "Get the papers fixed

up."

About 10 days later the representative came back. Then my

friend, the builder in Valemount, discovered at this point,

having got his $500 deposit down, having himself committed to

go through on the purchase or lose his deposit, having told his

neighbours in the village that he can now pay them off and pay

his little bank loan and so on, that Burrard Mortgage

Investments Ltd. is socking it to him with a heavy bonus. Now

he discovers it. He hadn't signed the papers yet but now he's

stuck. He's got to have it or lose his $500 and the chance to

pay his bills back.

So he agrees, on proceeds of $5,905 — just under

$6,000 — to a $1,300 bonus, about a quarter. Up until now

he hasn't even been able to get the provincial government

second mortgage because to get that he has to have a first

mortgage. So he hasn't even used that.

The clear problem here, Mr. Speaker, is this: there is no

provision for the man in the country, in the rural area, who is

building a new home and needs this kind of financing. There's

no provision for it and this is something we have to

develop.

Here's another one. It's from North Vancouver. The mortgagee

is a firm called Sheraton Homeowners Finance Ltd. The major shareholders are Rusin brothers: John

Rusin, George Rusin; Andrew Rusin is a director.

This man had a very small home in North Vancouver. He didn't

have any credit problems but he wanted to finance a truck and a

car. His house was only 750 square feet and he wanted to add on

to that a little bit and make it bigger. Because of its size,

he went to Canada Trust and they said, "It's too small. We

can't finance you at all."

So he shopped around and he talked to one or two people who

demanded high bonuses and various things. He got away from

them. He didn't get sucked into them.

Then John Rusin came along and somehow he sweet talked him a

little better. He borrowed $8,900 but listen to what else it

cost him: a $3,000 bonus and a $1,200 inspection and appraisal

fee going to Rusin Brothers Realty. So the total thing was a

$4,200 bonus on $8,893 principal proceeds.

He says that he clearly realizes just how stupid he was. But

he said, "I just hope you'll talk about this. Maybe somebody

else will learn to look first." That was because the house was

a little too small to meet conventional financing. As he went

wandering around looking for it, he got sucked in with one of

the fast talkers.

This next one I mention particularly because the mortgagee

was Midtown Securities Ltd. in Surrey. There was a bonus of

$500 on $1,500 — a one-third bonus.

But the mortgage was sold to a firm called Western Organ

Sales. Western Organ Sales' address is 430 Columbia Street. I

mention this particularly because that address keeps recurring

and recurring and recurring as you go through exploring the

people who are in trouble in this field.

That was a 24 per cent one; it was only a second mortgage.

He borrowed $2,500, paid out $500 in legal and taxes and the

bonus of $500, and got $1,500. They had to have a second car

because both worked and they had children to get to school and

so on. It was sold to Western Organ Sales. I'll come back to

Western Organ Sales.

There was a gentleman who phoned me last night from 100 Mile

House. He used to have a mortgage with a firm called Tower

Finance. Tower Finance used to be one of the bad ones but

they're out of business now. In this particular case, the Tower

Finance mortgage was O.K. He had no complaints about that.

But in 1969 he was badly hurt in a logging accident. Because

of that, he couldn't work and his debts piled up. As a matter

of fact, he's now on full disability pension.

Tower Finance was foreclosing in November, 1970, so he went to what turns out

to be one of the most infamous of all the people in this industry,

[ Page 573 ]

Modern Finance.

Modern Finance, if anybody's forgotten from two weeks ago,

has a new name now. It's now Modern Mortgage and Loan. It had

its registration renewed January 12. It has offices in Kamloops

and Vancouver and I think the Victoria office is closed. The

principal is Mr. Herbert Lawrence McCallum of West

Vancouver.

Modern Finance loaned him $3,500 for his mortgage and to

consolidate his debts, and a $2,000 bonus on top of that. So he

borrowed $5,500 at 20 per cent — and that's a first

mortgage. He made payments on that for about a year. He still

couldn't work and his debts were piling up. He hadn't resolved

his problems. He borrowed a further $1,500 plus a $500 bonus

— so that was $2,000. Now it was up to $7,500.

This guy was lucky because one year ago, on January 28,

1972, the house burned down. The insurance company paid off

$15,000. I explained that he borrowed $3,500 plus $1,500

— that's $5,000 cash that he'd got; $2,000 and $500

bonuses, that got it up to $7,500. They made him pay $8,400 out

of the insurance to pay it off because of the cancellation

clauses that were in there on so many months of interest for

paying up. Well, at least he got completely clear.

That was January 28, 1972 — a year ago. I said, "Why

did you call me? You're in the clear now."

He said, "I just wanted you to know the kind of things that

go on. We live in the country. When we're hurt or in trouble

there's no one to help us. There's no money available."

I said, "What are you doing now?"

He said, "I'm on disability pension. With my son's help and

some other help I can still get around a bit. I've built a new

home." This guy's got guts. He built a new home.

I want to give credit. I've given some bad names to some

mortgage companies. I don't know who these people are, but I

want to give them credit — Alpha Mortgage of Kamloops has

given this man a new first mortgage of $10,000, no bonus and 12

per cent. So there are some good people in the business, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about credit unions?

MR. BROUSSON: I'm glad you mentioned that. I want to talk

about credit unions.

This gentleman said he knew clearly what was happening to

him but he was desperate and he didn't know where to turn. He

didn't know where to get advice. So he accepted the usury.

The next gentleman, Mr. Speaker, lives in Vancouver now. The property on which

this was written is in Calgary. It was written in Calgary by a firm called Midtown

Mortgage and Loan Ltd. of Calgary. I mention this one particularly because it's

another firm owned by the same principal as Modern Finance — McCallum.

He also is the principal of this firm in Calgary.

It's a second mortgage of $5,000, of which there was an

$1,140 bonus, there was a first mortgage on there of $11,700.

The house sold recently for $25,000, so there was lots of

equity. But there was a second mortgage at 21 per cent, $1,140

bonus, and he got proceeds of only $4,200.

He had made five payments and then wanted to sell the

house. In the meantime Modern Finance had sold the mortgage to

Safeco Mortgage and Loan Company — which has that same

address again, 430 Columbia Street in New Westminster. So,

having sold the house, this gentleman, after five payments, he

said, "I've got to get paid off out of the proceeds." The new

owner didn't want this kind of thing hanging over his head. He

wanted a clear title.

Well, listen. He borrowed $5,500, including the bonus. He

made five payments, which is $485. He paid to Safeco, to get

off the hook, again in bonus clauses on interest, $6,600, or a

total of almost $7,200. So for 240 days this works out to 106

per cent interest. That's what Safeco Mortgage and Loan made

him do. The next one, Mr. Speaker, is in Victoria. Strangely

enough it's from a lady who lives alone in Victoria on a little

farm. It's a lady that I went to school with a long time

ago.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You say this is a little

old lady? (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: I never quote ladies' ages.

This was a first mortgage on a property worth about $14,000.

Twenty-one per cent, a bonus of $1,500 on $4,300 proceeds

— over one-third bonus. This was another Modern

Finance deal. Three weeks after Modern Finance issued this in

1971, they sold it to Jackstan Securities, of 430 Columbia

Street in New Westminster.

This one had a lock-in clause for one year and then a

penalty clause of three month's interest. I've listened to the

lady's story. I've listened to the stories of some of her

friends who talked about it. It's very clear she didn't have

any idea what she was getting into.

Strangely enough — and I'm glad the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) mentioned this — one of the

Victoria credit unions has agreed to refinance this today at a

reasonable rate of interest, at reasonable payments, and it's

being done that way.

And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that right now I want to pay

tribute to the credit unions of this province. Because they're

providing a tremendous service in this field.

The story that I mentioned two weeks ago — they're

being rescued by a credit union in Vancouver. I want to pay

tribute to them. They're doing a fine job, and I've talked to a

number of their people.

The interesting thing about this one is that she hasn't yet

signed the papers with the credit union and

[ Page 574 ]

some of the other mortgage companies have heard that she's

trying to refinance. Boy, are they after her. They're phoning

her and they're writing to her because they know she's a prime

target.

A gentleman who used to be manager of Modern Finance in

Victoria now has his own company. He found that this was pretty

good. He quit working for anybody else and he formed United

Mortgage Ltd. of Victoria. He sent a letter to this lady;

"Dear Miss So-and-so: as you are probably aware,

due to the inflationary trend, borrowing money has become

increasingly difficult. United Mortgage Ltd. is engaged in

placing mortgages regardless of credit rating or personal

circumstance. If you are a homeowner with a mortgageable

equity, we can be of assistance to you in making funds

available to consolidate your outstanding bills and/or for

needed home improvements. Phone today for a confidential

interview.

Yours truly, V.R. Kruschel, General Manager."

And he distributes a nice little pamphlet. Look at these

examples. "Savings when you borrow the United way."

That lady is going to be looked after by the credit

union.

Here's another one. This one came all the way from Pembroke,

Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

"My sister and her husband borrowed $2,700 from Modern

Finance on May 10, 1971. They needed $2,200 so borrowed $2,700

and Modern Finance got that first $500 as a bonus. Payment was

to $57 per month at 24 per cent."

And they go on over the details:

"Assignment of the mortgage was made to Penney Holdings

Ltd."

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's strange. I can't even find Penney

Holdings listed by the companies office. They have no listing

for Penney Holdings. So I don't know who they are. I am told

their address is 430 Columbia Street in New Westminster.

Anyway, "At the end of one year my brother-in-law tried

vigorously to pay off this loan because it was obvious that it

was a bad one." Since last May of 1972, when the loan was one

year old, these people and their lawyer have been trying to get

it paid off.

This had a lock-in clause; beyond that three months'

interest as a penalty for paying it off.

So at the end of one year they had paid 12 times $57.44 a

month — that's $689. The lawyer had a local computer firm,

DataTech Systems, run one of those computer tapes on this to

calculate what the balance was. Out of $2,700, with the

additions for the premium of interest, at the end of the year;

it came to $ 2,794.10.

So he gave them a cheque last May for that amount and he

has been unable, as of this date — eight months later

— to get any satisfactory statement out of Penney

Holdings, explaining how they arrive at the amount due, nor any release on the third mortgage. But,

including the monthly payments and the amount of the

clean-up cheque, they paid a total interest of 62 per

cent on the actual amount that they borrowed. And still not

released — Penneys won't release it.

The last example I want to give you brings out another very

special problem. This one, Mr. Speaker, comes from a gentleman

— I'm not going to name him. He's known to many people in

this room. He's a strong and active member of the NDP —

that's one of the reasons he has problems, as a matter of

fact.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I'll tell you why. In May, 1972 he wanted

$1,000 to finance a car. He went to the AVCO office in New

Westminster. Now AVCO is a well respected name — a

national finance company. But when he went to borrow $1,000

— this gentleman is not very smart about finances I'll

tell you.

They persuaded him that he ought to have a little extra cash

— like maybe $361.13 to put in his pocket. Then they

thought he ought to have a little life insurance, that cost

$73; and a little accident and health insurance, that was

another $73; a little fire insurance at $46; and then there

were filing costs $10. So that was $203 all told.

He wanted $1,000 — he got $1,361 then they added $200

extra, the insurance and filing costs and so on. Now we are at

$1,564.41. We are over that limit that the Attorney General was

talking about last week. Now it is 24 per cent and that is the

problem, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General said we need

action on this at the federal level and he is right. We must

press for this, to get the control above that arbitrary, far

too low $1,500. Below $1,500 they couldn't do that, above

$1,500 they can. So that is how they ballooned $1,000 to $1,564

and I think people had better learn this.

This guy didn't know that till I explained it to him the

other night. He didn't know this had happened — "Gee, I didn't know that."

September 1972; this fellow is a logger and he has had some

problems all summer with the IWA — they were on strike I

think. Unfortunately because he is a member of the NDP, he has

been working very hard in the election of August 1972 and he is

having financial troubles, Mr. Speaker. You know, I'm being a

little facetious, but this is God's truth, this was one of the

problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: He shouldn't deal with Liberals.

MR. BROUSSON: I will tell you why he came to a Liberal. He

said, "Sir, I want you to know that I am an NDP but I came to a

Liberal Member because I

[ Page 575 ]

heard him speaking out — and I don't know who else to

go to to explain this problem to on the NDP side."

MR. BROUSSON: Anyway in September, Mr. Speaker, he wanted

another $700 because of the election work and because of the

IWA he's out of work — all of these problems. So he wrote

a letter and AVCO agreed to give him another $723.72 or

something. And they upped the insurance a little bit more

— they increased the insurance by $52. That's life

insurance, $52 more; accident insurance $52 more; property

insurance — that's fire and property — up another

$15; another filing fee, $3 this time — it's a cheaper

one; and he got his little bit of cash. Now it is up to $2,085.

All he wanted originally was $ 1,000 and he got $700 more

— so he wanted $1,700. But he is up to $2,400 now and

still… Did I tell you the rate of interest?

Twenty-four per cent. Still 24 per cent.

Well, the car that he had, he got into an accident with it

and it was a total write-off. The insurance paid off the

original loan with another finance company. But he is left now

still owing AVCO $2,400. Now he has to buy a new car, so he

went to Johnson Motors and picked out the car he needed,

November 22 last.

Then he borrowed another $4,644, for the car this time. Then

they added life insurance, $229 more; filing fee $3.50; so the

total now has gone up to $4,877. That's not counting the other

$2,400 — he still has that account over here. And this is

at 24 per cent still.

Well, he doesn't know how this happened. He literally

doesn't understand what happened. But AVCO now decided they had

better put a second mortgage on his house because this is

getting pretty big. They haven't much security, just this guy

on his personal note now. They've got him for $2,100 plus

$4,900 and all they have is the car and his personal note.

So they wanted a second mortgage. But he already had a

provincial government second mortgage of about $1,900 I think

it was — yes, $1,800 — and that's at a pretty low rate of

interest. So they said, "Look we will write a new second

mortgage and we will pay off that provincial government second

mortgage," — at what is it — 5, 6 something

like 7 per cent I just forget — "and we will write you a

new one at 18 per cent." So how did AVCO do this one?

We had an appraisal fee of $110. There was an investigation

fee of $50. There were legal fees of $118. There was life

insurance of $523.90. There were some taxes had to be paid,

they were a bit behind. They paid off the provincial government

mortgage of $1,847 and the proceeds of $4,100. Now he's got a

second mortgage of $7,000.

And they paid off out of the second mortgage that old $2,400 of that money

that he first owed. So that leaves him now — I know you can't follow the

arithmetic — but that leaves him now with a second mortgage of $7,000

at 18 per cent and a loan of $3,000 at 24 per cent.

So to summarize this one, because it is a beauty, he paid

toward the two cars $5,600. He repaid the government mortgage,

which he didn't want to repay, they made him, $1,847. There

were taxes of $190. He received cash of $1,137 only $700 of

which he asked for; and there were filing fees, legal fees,

appraisal fees, and insurance of $ 1,248.

But here is the kicker — this mortgage is a 10 year

mortgage. He pays it at $123 a month. He has no rights of

repayment for the first two years unless he pays full interest

for that 24 months. He must pay the full interest, plus an

additional bonus of six months interest. So he can't get by on

less than 2 1/2 years interest at 18 per cent. After 2 years he

can get rid of it for a bonus of 6 months interest; after 5

years only 3 months interest.

Now that AVCO Financial Services or whatever their proper

title is, has got to be a rip-off. I don't like the name

rip-off, but there is a beautiful example.

This gentleman is so determined — on the face of all

this he said, "Everything I have done, signed, I know it is

legal." But he said, "My house is for sale — I make good

money — I am going to sell that house, pay that off

regardless of all those bonuses and start again."

I said, "Hold up. Maybe there are some other ways to do

this. Maybe AVCO would consider some different arrangements if

you were to have found some additional means of financing, but

I don't know."

And I think that story is worthwhile understanding because

it is the only one of that particular kind I have, but I

suspect there are others like it.

Mr. Speaker, I have had letters from a number of people,

beside those in trouble with mortgages, on this subject. I have

had letters from the Real Estate Board in greater Vancouver

giving me copies of letters sent to the Hon. Leslie Peterson

March 10, 1972. I have had copies from other mortgage people

who could be called legitimate, I think, in the mortgage and

real estate field, giving me copies of letters to the Attorney

General's department — going back in early 1971,

outlining the problems, suggesting what should be done —

and I know there were a great many meetings.

Anybody who wants to study this subject, the current issue

of Harper's magazine has an

article called "The Great

California Mortgage Scandal." It is worthwhile reading. It

talks about some of the same principles — that one of the

most profitable parts of this field is to sell insurance on the

side — like the last one I read to you.

I would like to read to you a few words from a mortgage

broker in Calgary who phoned me and then

[ Page 576 ]

wrote me a letter. He said:

"The reason again for our call was our great concern over

the newspaper releases regarding unethical practices by certain

people in the mortgage field. This has concerned us for some

time inasmuch as it has been our desire for over two years to

open offices in Victoria and Vancouver. Because of lack of an

adequate Act initially, and later because it was obvious the

Act was not working, we delayed this expansion. There is

certainly no desire on our part to be painted by the same brush

and we are sure there must occur some guilt by association for

the ethical people in the field."

I want to emphasize again there are many many ethical people

in these fields.

"Ourselves and four other brokers plus seven national

lenders, along with Mr. Ron Ghitter who is an MLA from Calgary,

have held several meetings to have the Alberta Act amended to

cover the same problems you have disclosed. The basic changes

will cover bonuses and a maximum limit on fees. These have been

proposed and agreed to by all in attendance at our

meetings."

The necessity for this has arisen because of the actions of

one company, which he tells me is the only company in Alberta

causing problems, which is owned by the principals of Modern

Finance, namely Midtown Mortgage and Loan, and I have mentioned

these names before.

Mr. Speaker, surely, all of this has got to be an indictment

of the former Attorney General and the former Social Credit

Government. This information has been in the hands of the

Attorney General's department for so long a period of time, it

leads me to real concern as to what is going on in the Attorney

General's department. They have known of these things but

clearly they have not pushed.

It clearly must be an indictment of the financial community

of British Columbia. I think also, and I say this very

carefully with a good deal of thought and consideration, it

must be something of an indictment, unfortunately, of many

people in the legal profession. Many seem to have adopted the

policy of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil because they

are following the instructions of their clients. They are very

reluctant to proceed further in this field and to talk about

it.

People such as David Youngson can in no way be regarded as

upstanding members of the B.C. Bar. I suggest, and I want to do

this very carefully and in public, Mr. Speaker, and I don't

want to tar in any way with a broad brush the legal profession

but I have already had …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I said as a whole. I have already had an offer from some

of the people in the profession to go into this and I suggest, and I want to

suggest this publicly, that the Bar Association of British Columbia should set

up a special committee to study this particular problem and resolve how their

members should properly deal with it.

I want to make suggestions, and I promised the Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) that I would be very specific

about things that I think should be done. I am going to propose

a four point plan to the government.

First, and most important, must be legislation and

enforcement. These include some problems at the federal level

and there clearly must be some changes at the federal level.

The Attorney General mentioned one the other day and I have

described the effect of it, in more detail just now.

I will do anything I can to support the Attorney General in

putting this forward. I don't know of any proposals made by the

provincial government to Ottawa yet on this subject. I hope

they will be made.

Second, I would suggest that the conventional mortgage

— I am talking now about the conventional mortgage such

as I described with Canada Trust — should be locked in for

only one year. Not these long periods of lock-in —

five years and so on. It should be locked in for only one year

and after that the penalty for paying it off should be no more

than three months interest.

Other mortgages besides the conventional mortgage —

let us say the so-called unconventional mortgage, these

are mostly what we have been talking about — should have

no lock-in whatsoever by law. The penalty for short term

pay off should be no more than three months interest.

I have discussed this with a number of people in the

industry. Some would change it slightly but I think that would

meet at least reasonable approval.

I suggest that the Mortgage Brokers Act , Mr.

Speaker, should be amended to insist that everyone who is a

mortgage broker, when he advertises, must so state — so

that he cannot get away with these private phone numbers. You

can't tell from reading the ad whether he is a private

individual or a mortgage broker. He must so state that he is a

registered mortgage broker.

Also on advertising, I suggest that a very strong clause

needs to be inserted on false and misleading advertising. There

are certainly plenty of people in the Attorney General's office

who can write that sort of clause.

There should be a clause as there is in Alberta that the

registrar may require bonding of mortgage brokers. It doesn't

say he shall require bonding; it says he may require them to be

bonded. I would suggest that the same thing should be in our

Act.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that could be done right

now because the Act reads that he may do

[ Page 577 ]

almost anything he wants as registrar of a mortgage broker,

so he could still do it right now in a specific case if he

wished.

I suggest that there should be a 72 hour cooling off period

after the client, or the mortgagor, receives his copy of the

mortgage. We have a 72 hour cooling-off period after a

person receives an agreement for sale on an appliance or

something of that sort. I suggest there should be a 72 hour

cooling-off period after the mortgagor receives his

copy. There could be some costs in that case; he might have to pay

them. That's fair enough, but he would be entitled within that

72 hour cooling-off period to cancel the whole deal

subject to whatever costs and fees had been incurred.

Next,

Part II of the Act must be proclaimed the disclosure

section and I suggest we need a disclosure document. This, I am

told, is where the hang-up has been for almost two years,

because they couldn't figure out a disclosure document. It's

easy — Alberta's got one. It could be one very similar to

Alberta and other parts of Canada.

It must clearly state whatever bonus or fee or similar

things that are included. It must clearly state the date the

mortgage is due and how much will be due if he has made all the

payments on time for that five years.

Remember the number of cases we have looked at where they

were only paying back $5 a month, or $2 a month — that

kind of thing. I think there was one case where they were

paying only interest, at the end of five years he still owes

the whole amount. That's because they don't understand and that

must be spelled out: on the due date this is the principal

still due if everything has been paid on time.

It must be clearly spelled out precisely what the

requirements are to pay it off ahead of time. The disclosure

document in my view, Mr. Speaker, must be attached to the

mortgage document and not buried away. It must be attached to

the mortgage document so that if someone comes along later to

buy that mortgage, they clearly understand what the bonus was

and what the fee was.

Finally, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a copy of this

disclosure should go to the consumer protection branch of the

Attorney General's office for him to examine and keep on

file.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we must enforce it. The fact is, the

present Act is not being enforced the way it is written. It has

never been enforced yet and it can be enforced. It's very weak;

there are many more things that have to be added to it as I

have outlined. But the present Mortgage Brokers Act can

be enforced.

The registrar has the right to suspend their licences and

ask them to show cause as to why they should not be cancelled.

He has not been making any effort to do that as far as I can

discover.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On what grounds can you suspend?

MR. BROUSSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the Mortgage Brokers

Act , it spells out a great deal of information that a

mortgage broker has to fill in on the application form in terms

of his background and all the things he is doing, how ethical

he is and how he operates. It must also always be carefully

detailed when fill