[ Page 6211 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Question

Hiring of Frank Ogden. Mr. Hall –– 6212

Appointments to Council of the 80s. Ms. Brown –– 6212

Alleged loophole in Residential Tenancy Act. Mr. Lauk –– 6213

Meeting between Douglas Heal and Premier. Mrs. Dailly –– 6213

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

On vote 106: minister's office –– 6214

Mr. Hanson, Mr. Gabelmann, Mrs. Dailly, Mr. Passarell, Mr. Lorimer, Mr. Barber, Mr. Howard, Ms. Brown, Mr. King, Mr. Stupich, Mr. Levi, Mr. Lauk, Mr. Cocke

Division on an amendment

On vote 107: administration and support services –– 6226

Mr. Cocke

Division on any amendment

On vote 109: direct community care services –– 6227

Ms. Brown

On vote 115: building occupancy charges –– 6227

Mr. Cocke

Division on an amendment

On vote 116: computer and consulting charges –– 6227

Mr. Cocke

Division on an amendment

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Chabot)

On vote 149: minister's office –– 6228

Hon. Mr. Chabot, Mr. Gabelmann

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman's special report number 2.

Mr. Speaker –– 6231

British Columbia Buildings Corporation report for the year 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6231

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Today is a very special day for one of the members in this House, a member who is important to us all. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all the members of the Legislature, to wish you a happy birthday. I want to give you the pledge that from now until the end of the sitting we'll be on our best behaviour to make your job much easier.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In the members' gallery today are two very keen students of public affairs in our province. They are Sandra Chamberlain from Richmond and Mark Snider from Burnaby. Would members join me in welcoming them.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House Mr. David Barber, who is Washington correspondent with the New Zealand Press Association. I ask the House to extend a warm welcome to him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In the precinct today is a group of fine students from the Cloverdale Elementary School. On behalf of myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today, I think — he was here a moment ago — is my young son Ron. With him is his friend Guy Weeks. Although I can't see them, they're probably up there somewhere. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 8, I wish to draw to the Speaker's attention that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not yet in his place. We have questions for him in question period, and we're very concerned that that standing order is not being complied with. It might be appropriate for the House to refer this matter to the standing committee on rules, and perhaps have some form of ringing the division bells half a dozen times or so, so that these ministers can find their way into the chamber for question period. I feel that it's critical during question period that all members of cabinet should have taken their places. We know that they're available; they should be in the precincts. Under standing order 8, I would ask that you ring the division bells.

MR. SPEAKER: The procedures of the House have been rehearsed quite frequently under standing order 8. I think the member is well aware of the provisions.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, standing order 25, dealing with the routine business of the House, indicates what the ordinary daily routine of business shall be. On April 29, Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order about standing order 25. At that time I suggested that the standing order was not being adhered to in that the specific items thereunder — namely, presenting petitions, reading and receiving petitions, etc. — were not called by the Chair, thus not affording members of the House an opportunity to take part in those particular subheadings of routine business.

On April 29, which was some weeks ago — and I don't say this in a critical way — Your Honour undertook to reserve a decision on the point of order that I raised at that time. As of today Your Honour has not yet returned to the House with a decision. I think that that tardiness — if I can put it respectfully — in not returning to the House with a decision has placed members in the somewhat awkward position of not knowing just how they should proceed when routine business is dealt with in the House. Items under routine business, as I said, are presenting petitions, reading and receiving petitions, presenting reports, motions, adjourned debates, etc. This leaves the House in the position of not having an opportunity to wonder why the Minister of Labour, for argument's sake, is not in his seat today, and whether or not he is even in the cabinet after the fiasco we went through yesterday. But I do raise it as a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised it on April 29. It is now the middle of June, and no ruling has been forthcoming from the Chair about that matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the procedures on routine matters are those which we have followed as long as the memory of the Speaker will reveal. These are the practices we have followed. Any deviation or review of those practices can fall into question at any point in time. Questions which are being raised by the member and those which have flowed from other points of order are all matters which the Speaker is considering and has indeed invited the commissioner to review under the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act. That report is not prepared now; it may well not be prepared before the end of this session. Undoubtedly there will be several suggestions flowing from that review which I would trust would be committed to a committee of the House for its consideration. After all, it will be the House itself that will decide on matters of such import.

MR. HOWARD: What is your specific ruling about the point of order I just raised. though, Your Honour? The point of order I just raised, Your Honour, is the same one I raised on April 29.

MR. SPEAKER: And it is the same matter, hon. member, which has been referred for consideration and a full report to the Legislature when it is prepared.

MR. HOWARD: That is your ruling — that I have no point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: No, that's not a ruling at all.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I'm raising a point of order with you now, Mr. Speaker. That is, that standing order 25 is not being adhered to by the fact that "presenting petitions" was not called by the Clerk at the table.

MR. SPEAKER: Fine, The practice of the House, to the length of the memory of the Speaker, has been adhered to even today.

MR. HOWARD: And that is your ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: That's the ruling.

[ Page 6212 ]

MR. HOWARD: I must challenge that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, how many people are required for a recording? I saw two standing.

MR. SPEAKER: I think only one is required for that request.

Oral Questions

HIRING OF FRANK OGDEN

MR. HALL: I'd like to address a question to the Provincial Secretary regarding the use of Mr. Frank Ogden's media monitoring service by the government. I'd like the minister to confirm to the House, if he could, that he was approached by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to hire Mr. Frank Ogden, who is a personal friend of the Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In response to the member's question, no, I cannot confirm that.

MR. HALL: The minister did however hire Mr. Frank Ogden and his monitoring service. Did the minister or any of his colleagues consider any similar service before hiring Mr. Frank Ogden, who is a personal friend of the Minister of Human Resources?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm sure the government information program service considered many alternatives to try to provide better service in terms of news information that is difficult to monitor.

MR. HALL: In all those "many" that the minister mentions, could the minister perhaps tell us one?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The same rules of debate apply in question period as do in the normal debate, and that is that the member having the floor shall not be interrupted by other members across the floor.

MR. HALL: The minister always looks inquisitively over to me when I've asked a question. He's given a response saying that he is sure that his ministry looked at many offers of providing the service.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, I didn't say that.

MR. HALL: Yes, you did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HALL: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I should not enter into debate.

The minister said he was sure that many were considered. I asked the minister if he can name one service that was considered other than Mr. Frank Ogden's?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't wish to correct the member. What I believe I said was that they must have considered many alternatives.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The members don't like to listen to answers. They want to laugh and jostle around. I'm attempting to respond to the member's question. I'm sure that alternatives to the services offered by this gentleman were considered. Perhaps the member could tell me of other alternatives there are. I can tell the member that probably many firms in the advertising field would be prepared to take on a similar service of this kind, but it requires sophisticated equipment and is a very tedious operation. I offer to the member that I'm sure alternatives were considered.

MR. HALL: Then in view of his answer, I wonder if the minister would give an undertaking to the House to come back and give the House full answers to all the services that were considered by his department in terms of providing this possibly illegal monitoring service now being provided by Mr. Frank Ogden.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is yes. I'll be glad to provide that.

APPOINTMENTS TO COUNCIL OF THE 80s

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. I know that Frank Ogden was appointed by the Minister of Human Resources to serve on the Council of the 80s. I wonder if the minister can indicate what other members of the Council of the 80s have received government contracts so far.

[ Page 6213 ]

HON. MRS McCARTHY: I would not have knowledge of that. I think there are almost 100 members of the Council of the 80s. They have been chosen from all walks of life in all parts of the province. They are a volunteer group who do not receive funding in any way from the ministry. They serve on the Individual Opportunity Plan, which is a program designed to assist those on income assistance to become self sustaining and independent.

I thank the member for bringing the question forward, because I'd like to say that the Council of the 80s is doing a very remarkable job. In the past couple of days, Mr. Speaker, I have knowledge of one council member in the Surrey area who has spent countless hours and has been particularly successful with about eight individuals whom they have been able to help into total independence. I thank you for mentioning their names, because we are very proud of the council.

MS. BROWN: Certainly Mr. Frank Ogden is one person who has benefited from being a member of the Council of the 80s. I notice that another member of the council, Mr. Leonard Bawtree, has also been awarded a government contract. I would appreciate it if the minister would take my question as notice so that we can be up to date as to how many members of the council are feeding from the public trough.

The minister announced that the Council of the 80s was to be part of an effort to encourage social assistance recipients to become gainfully employed and therefore not be in receipt of government funding. In view of the fact that both Frank Ogden and Leonard Bawtree are in receipt of government funding, can we assume that the council has now changed its original mandate?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: For the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to assume anything of the kind is a sad reflection on the volunteers in this province — no matter what job they take on, no matter what effort they make — who give of their personal time to serve the people of this province, whether it be on the Council of the 80s or in the many volunteer groups throughout this province which are attached to my ministry, the Ministry of Health or any other ministry, or in any community effort at all. Let me say that I'm proud of all those people on the Council of the 80s, who are serving in a volunteer capacity to help. Any time I can encourage anyone to serve in a volunteer capacity, I shall continue to do so. I will give them credit, as will our government and this side of the House, for giving of their personal time. If it weren't for the many volunteers in this province, we wouldn't have the quality of life we have.

I'd like to thank Len Bawtree, who not only gives his time in voluntary service but who served in this House. He was an excellent member of this House for some time. I'd like to publicly thank Mr. Frank Ogden, who also gives of his time voluntarily to the Council of the 80s. I'd like to thank Mr. George Fierheller, the chairman of the Council of the 80s, who has a very large business but finds time to give of his time voluntarily. I will thank each and every one of the members, as I have before and will continue to do. I don't need to apologize to that member or any member of this House for the work they have done. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to thank them publicly.

ALLEGED LOOPHOLE IN
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week I asked the minister about a loophole in the Residential Tenancy Act with respect to owner-occupiers giving notice to several tenants at 1967 Barclay. The minister took the question as notice. Has the minister now completed his investigation?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: On Thursday of this week I would expect to be able to provide a complete answer to the member. Tomorrow afternoon I'm meeting with the rentalsman and several of my ministry staff. I want to take a personal look at the documentation involved.

I can tell the member that based on what I've seen so far, it appears that there is no loophole. However, I'd like to defer a final answer until, I expect, Thursday of this week. I want the member to know that the look I'm taking is a very intensive personal look. I have requisitioned all the documentation involved. As I said, it will be over here tomorrow with the rentalsman and staff. I'll be personally working with them.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister for his personal intervention. While doing it, I bring to the minister's attention by way of a question the fact that an advertisement has appeared in the Victoria Times-Colonist and, I think, in other publications from one Jim Ritchie of Century 21 Realty who is asking for owner-occupier investors just along these lines to take advantage of what I consider to be an apparent loophole. It may not eventually be one. Has the minister decided to take action with respect to any other persons by advertising his finding that there's no loophole and that such action will be discouraged?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: My answer, which I hope will be down Thursday, will, I hope, deal with that as well.

MEETING BETWEEN
DOUGLAS HEAL AND PREMIER

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Are you aware that your deputy, Mr. Heal, is setting up weekly meetings in the Premier's office dealing with what is called communication planning?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I am aware of that, and I'm very happy that this type of.... The members ask questions they don't appear to want answers for, Mr. Speaker. Once again, I'm very happy that such a planning meeting does take place.

MRS. DAILLY: Could you tell the House why, if it is your deputy, who works under your jurisdiction, setting up these meetings, you yourself are not directly involved in them?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Quite simply, Madam Member, because I meet with Mr. Heal on a daily basis and consult with him. I'm quite aware of the agenda for such meetings and the results of them. It's simply not possible for the minister to attend every particular meeting that goes on. I don't see any great significance in the fact that I'm not participating directly. I'm aware of the agenda and decisions that are made. It's an effort to coordinate information programs with other ministries.

MRS. DAILLY: We have sympathy for the Provincial Secretary, who seems to be so busy he can't meet with his deputy, and yet the Premier has so little to do that he is able to find time to meet with him. My question to the Provincial Secretary is: if all the activity of Mr. Heal is apparently being centralized under the Premier, or perhaps the Deputy Premier, why does he still remain as your deputy?

[ Page 6214 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: This line of questioning seems to suggest that a deputy of mine does not have access to discussion with the Premier of this province. I protest that type of suggestion. If you knew this Premier as I do, you would realize that he's very approachable and very accessible to deputies — or anyone else — to discuss matters which are of interest to the people of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm asking the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) to come to order.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would ask the member on what basis she takes exception to the fact that my deputy would meet in committee with the Premier.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance: namely, the failure of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) to fulfill his duties of management and supervision of all provincial schools established under the School Act, and in particular certain schools in School District 88 which are currently not in operation and thus are not providing some 4,000 students with the opportunity to complete their educational aspirations this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will take the matter under advisement. In looking at it briefly, I would suggest that the basic premise is argumentative and therefore perhaps would not qualify, but we will reserve decision and bring it back as soon as it is prepared.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)

On vote 106: minister's office, $205,728.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, before the break today I was discussing with the Minister of Health some of the shortcomings in funding for the people who are severely disabled in British Columbia, and their families. I was appreciative of the minister's remarks that he would look into the financial support that is presently granted under the Medical Services Plan in British Columbia covering therapy and other aspects of support for the severely disabled. I would like to extend the discussion to another aspect of the delivery of service to the severely disabled which I believe the provincial government here in British Columbia could take some positive steps to redress.

My information is that in 1964 the federal government, under the Department of Veterans Affairs, operated offices in various parts of British Columbia and in the rest of Canada that provided prosthetic and orthotic devices — in other words, artificial limbs and appliances, etc., for veterans who were eligible, having been in the Canadian armed services. In 1964 that service was expanded to allow for non-veterans to gain access to that particular highly specialized and rather rare service. What happened is that over a number of years since 1964, severely disabled people in growing numbers were turning to this agency for assistance. Approximately 50 percent of all the people getting appliances of this type were going to this particular agency. Up to 1977 the Ministry of Health and Welfare of the federal government put forward a proposal to the provincial governments, through bilateral discussions, that the provincial governments could assume authority over this service. I have a piece of correspondence from the federal Deputy Minister of Health and Welfare dated July 26, 1977, where this proposal was outlined. I think it's important to read briefly into the record a couple of the paragraphs of this letter. He states:

"In order to recognize and to take advantage of the growing trends to which I have referred" — that was the expansion and the growing need for prosthetic devices — "and wherever possible to place our staff and capabilities in the mainstream of this development" — i.e. the provision of these services through provincial hospital ministries — "the government has recently authorized a policy that will permit our department to approach the various provincial jurisdictions with a view to negotiating transfers of our fittings and repair staff and facilities to suitable institutions operating within the provincial public sectors."

This is only meaningful if you understand the difficulty people experience getting the proper fittings and appliances in instances of the severely disabled.

This particular deputy minister, Mr. Bruce Rawson, goes on to state:

"The approved policy also provides for the gradual phase-out of our central manufacturing, purchasing and storage warehousing services. It is the intention that the orthopedic footwear facility in Toronto as well as the production engineering and testing unit would remain as national facilities, though quite possibly under different administration than at present." The key of this letter is the following:

"We plan to undertake progressively and bilaterally with each province the transfer of the prosthetic services fitting and repair centres to rehabilitation institutes operated under provincial jurisdiction." Other provinces of Canada in good faith undertook to take up the federal government on this proposal. My information is that the hospital board of Ontario has taken over the centre in Ottawa and also in Toronto. Through the University Hospital, Edmonton has also assumed the service, as well as Regina and Halifax.

As the minister is aware, there are federal offices in Vancouver and in Victoria whose prime function is to serve veterans and also the severely disabled in need of appliances and other kinds of support devices. I understand that in Vancouver they have a staff of about six technicians, three major technicians and lead hands, stores, offices and management. In Victoria they have four employees. With this capability, which is presently in the hands of the federal government and has been transferred to other provinces.... They've assumed the responsibility, and it's now integrated into their health-care delivery system. We have that capability in Vancouver and in Victoria, and the offer is there to have it administered at the provincial level after bilateral negotiations with the Health and Welfare officials. My question to the minister is: what is happening in British Columbia's relationship vis-à-vis this question?

[ Page 6215 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The simple answer is that I just don't have the information as to where they might be in negotiating a bilateral agreement with respect to that service. I will have to ask staff to provide me with the information as to when the original recommendation was made; what followed that; whether the federal government is instituting this program coincidentally across the country or whether it's to be progressive; and if it has been offered to us, what we have done. Have we considered accepting it? Have we rejected it? Is there a specific timetable that may be involved in it? I just don't have that information with me today. I've asked staff if they could possibly provide it and information on what has occurred since 1977.

The concept as outlined by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) suggests a program that could be adopted by a province with probably minimum difficulty, but I just don't have the information with me on my desk. I've asked for a response from staff. They may be familiar with where that program is at. I'll also probably have the opportunity of speaking with the federal Minister of Health later this week, and that will be on the agenda.

MR. HANSON: I can understand the minister's reluctance to take all my figures, but I would like to get it on the record that when the minister responded to my remarks earlier in the day he indicated that he understood that the specialty technical aspects of providing this service were a problem. What I want to convey to the minister is that in the event that the information I'm providing you is entirely accurate, and that the federal government is offering the province of British Columbia this agency to transfer it over to provide that capability to be integrated in with our own health-care system here in British Columbia, would he look favourably on bringing that in at the earliest possible date?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I sorry I didn't quite respond to that nuance. I was concerned about the timetable. Yes, I think it would be an opportunity of acquiring skills that are otherwise lacking in that field. If these people and this service were available, it would be of great advantage to transfer it to ensure that those services remain in British Columbia. Otherwise I suppose there could be a danger they may be transferred elsewhere.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll be brief this afternoon. There are just a couple of things I want to bring to the minister's attention.

The first thing relates to an area of health care that I think we are a little bit behind the times in. We made a decision some years ago to extend to chiropractic care a certain level of involvement by the Medical Services Commission in terms of paying bills for up to about nine visits a year, if I'm not mistaken. I think it would be most useful if that were extended beyond the present levels, which are, in fact, less than existed several years ago because of the increasing cost of each visit. The amount of money was left the same, but the number of visits has been reduced. I think that's an area that should be tackled quickly by the ministry.

The second is a more recent departure in health care and relates to acupuncture. Earlier this year I personally underwent an acupuncture treatment program for an affliction that I had and have had for 15 or more years. It was not able to be treated by people in the traditional medical field. With a month or two of acupuncture I found relief for this particular affliction, and I know other people have had similar results with acupuncture. I paid for the acupuncture entirely out of my own pocket, which is quite fine for me because I can afford to do that, but there are a great many people, I think, who could benefit from proper acupuncture treatment who might not be able to afford paying for it, as I can. I think the ministry should look at including acupuncture in the fee schedule for medical doctors as well.

I think too that the stress-management programs that doctors are able to provide, whether it's through hypnosis or a variety of other stress — management programs, should also, to some extent at least, be included in the fee schedule.

All these things provide a medical service that is, I think, increasingly accepted. In recent times there has certainly been an awareness that there are nontraditional ways of treating people, and that they have some real legitimacy.

I would urge that chiropractic levels be increased and acupuncture and stress-management programs, within certain limits — they obviously have to be well defined — be included in the fee schedule as well.

I wanted to talk about what is probably, in terms of public comment and public concern, the second major health-care concern in my constituency. The first is the acute-care hospital bed shortage and the programs we talked about late last week relating to long-term care and home care. I won't go through that again. What is a very real concern is the public health care in that particular area. The hiring freeze last year had some very disastrous effects in the Campbell River-North Island general area. The Upper Island Health Unit's ability to provide services was curtailed, has been curtailed and is still curtailed, leading to headlines such as the one I have in my hand: "Area Water Tests Suspended." The first paragraph is: "The Upper Island Health Unit's public health inspectors are suspending their bacteriological tests of private water supplies because of an excessive workload, a spokesman said this week." This was in April of this year. They go on to say that people are going to have to find some other solution because the Health ministry has not provided sufficient staff for the Health ministry to do the inspections themselves.

The chairwoman of the health board in our area, who also happens to be the mayor of Gold River, has been in touch with me on several occasions to talk about the fact that inspections of swimming pools, restaurants, buildings, subdivisions — the whole range of inspections that are normally conducted by the Health ministry — are not being done. In some cases they are way behind: in other cases they are not being done at all. This is leading to a level of concern that is fairly rare, I think, in this kind of issue. In this case the Campbell River municipal council passed a motion urging that a second health inspector be hired in that area.

Mayor Fiddick, the chairwoman of the board, wrote to the minister three or four weeks ago asking for a meeting with the minister to discuss the crisis which exists up there, not just with inspectors but also with public health nurses. There are tragic stories about the ability of the public health system to provide adequate nursing. It just isn't possible. For example, I read stories about the public health nurse in the northern part of my constituency who works half-time. Considering what a job she does, how many hours a week she is working and the variety of things she has to do, it really is inadequate.

I'll conclude by saying that if we would spend the dollars that are required — not excessive dollars; I'm not talking about Cadillac services — if we would just provide the

[ Page 6216 ]

services that are required to meet the routine, normal inspection requirements, if we would spend some additional money on public health nurses, we would save an immense amount of money, not just 10 or 20 years down the road, but in the short term. I just don't understand why the cutbacks, freezes and failures to hire adequate staff always seem to hit those areas of public health that are right on the front line for the public, are urgent, and in fact would save taxpayers a lot of money if they were provided.

We all talk about the need to find a way to constrain the escalation of health-care costs. One of the obvious ways to help constrain those escalating costs is to spend more money in the cheap areas and less money in the expensive areas of the health-care delivery system. But in my constituency — if not in others — all the cutbacks and refusals to meet additional and proper staffing levels occur in those areas of service that are absolutely essential and would be cheaper. That's what I fail to understand about the policies of the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the insured benefits of the Medical Services Plan, chiropractic care and acupuncture — Mr. Member, I'm sorry, I don't have the precise history as to why systems were developed — some of these other benefits were based on a dollar value rather than on numbers of visits. I'm not quite sure what the rationale was at that time. Because of the erosion of the dollar, there have been fewer visits. I'm in a bit of a difficult position, because the chiropractors are negotiating with the Medical Services Commission now for a new contract. I think limiting medical services on a raw dollar basis has within it a deteriorating effect on service. I would think that it should be reconsidered.

Regarding acupuncture, we fund two clinics at the present time at Victoria General Hospital and Vancouver General Hospital. They call them pain clinics. I think they really are sincere in referring to them as pain clinics. As you know, acupuncture has been a very controversial treatment for some time. At the moment it is considered investigative. The treatment itself is — I don't know who makes this decision — not considered to be an acceptable medical procedure at this time, under certain rules. Acupuncture, as you know, is not illegal. I believe it was at one time. It is still in the investigative process. I have to watch how my personal prejudices enter into it; I happen to think that it has served a pretty useful purpose. One of the areas, though, where we do have concern and have had concern for some time is: let's make sure that the person who may be performing it is qualified, so we don't have any amateur practitioners. Another aspect to that, Mr. Member, is the historical conservatism of the medical fraternity, not just in British Columbia but elsewhere. I think acupuncture has come a long way over the past decade. Perhaps it's time to give serious thought to further legitimizing the process. I suppose it would ultimately be an insured benefit, which would bring it up in status, as has happened with chiropractic and other treatments.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Your problem with North Island and public health — health inspectors, nurses and so on — is very much recognized, as it is elsewhere in the province, particularly in area where there is substantial growth. In the last couple of week we have allocated 15 more positions in that area: public health inspectors, nurses, long-term care assessors and long term headquarters staff. We are much aware of it. We are attempting to make some changes within the system to provide more people in the areas which have been identified as critically short of people. Mr. Member, you may not have been in the House yesterday when I responded to another member — I think it was the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — with respect to the same problem. One of the problems — believe me, I'm not trying to pass the buck — is that the time of many of these people who are engaged in that service is being consumed by very routine, mundane chores which might be best left to clerical staff or eliminated entirely. We are looking at that most seriously.

I agree with you that the emphasis must be on this lower level of services — not lower in care, but in cost. If we are, in any way, to prevent our society from really being consumed by escalating costs in these areas, we must emphasize the lower end rather than, as has been the habit for many years, the acute-care end of the scale. We are doing that. It's simply not going to change immediately and overnight. We have given our people who are responsible for that program very clear instructions to beef up the program as much as possible, to reassess their priorities and to try to overcome some of the shortages. Mr. Member, I'm sure you would probably remind me, if I didn't remind you, that the cost, relatively speaking, is pretty minimal. We are trying to free up some money for those specific purposes. Many areas of the province have the same problem.

MRS. DAILLY: I have two brief questions for the minister. The first one has to do with the availability of mumps vaccine. I brought this up with the former Minister of Health last year. I asked him if it could be arranged so that mumps vaccine could be available at the free clinics, instead of parents having to go and buy this vaccine. So my first question to the minister is: have any changes been made in that area? You'll answer that in a moment.

The second question has to do with the marriage commissioners and ministers. I'm not being facetious. I think this is something that has maybe come to the attention of other members of the House. It certainly has come to me through correspondence with some ministers. Their concern is that they are now being asked to perform marriage ceremonies under the sea, on top of mountains — in various places. Some people have made decisions that they want to be married in these different places. It doesn't appear too seemly to some ministers to have to go to these different areas to perform marriages, yet they feel that it's their obligation to do so.

Could you perhaps bring about a change whereby the marriage commissioner would be allowed to marry outside of the courthouse for some of these rather special kinds of marriage ceremonies?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have recommended to staff that the act be changed with respect to civil marriages to eliminate the restriction of the hours and location. I recognize that some clergymen do not wish to be part of that other type of ceremony. I think it will be resolved by permitting marriage commissioners.... I don't think it would be mandatory on their part to perform those marriages personally, but I think it would be permitted. I think it is very restrictive at the moment; it says that they shall be married at the commissioner's office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. I've asked that that be changed so it's more flexible.

[ Page 6217 ]

Madam Member, we have ordered a — I'm sorry, I don't have the technical term — triple-dose vaccine for mumps, measles and rubella. We have a new supply in the province of maybe 50,000 doses — I'm not sure how much — and it is free. It is the tri-something vaccine; one injection for all three diseases. We ordered it some months back, and I believe it is available now. I would think that clinics and others would probably be able to get the information. They have been advised through our public health officials, but I'll make sure they are advised again if they are not aware of it. It is the latest medical concept and it is available.

MR. PASSARELL: I have three short questions for the minister. This is a follow-up from our discussions last week. First, the public health nurses. A petition was sent to the minister's office approximately six weeks ago by the residents of Cassiar concerning the public health nurse in the area. There has been a problem in staffing, in trying to find a full-time public health nurse out of Fort St. John, where it's administered, I think. Presently the public health nurse works approximately four days a month in the community of Cassiar. In those four days she must also go to Good Hope Lake and Dease Lake, which are considerable distances from Cassiar. I would certainly hope that the minister could arrange to have a full-time public health nurse in the community of Cassiar, which services many surrounding communities. The ironic aspect of this is that last year there was a full-time public nurse who operated out of an old trailer; this year there's a new government building and her time has been cut back to four days a month. Public health nurses provide excellent medical service in the rural and northern parts of the province. I would certainly hope — and I say in the strongest terms — that the minister would see if something can be done this summer to have a full-time public health nurse in the community of Cassiar.

My second question to the minister: has the ministry set up any type of monitoring program in the Nass Valley concerning Amax? The federal government started a program last week, if I'm not mistaken, but it was a very poorly operated program. Does it fall under your jurisdiction to set up any type of program monitoring heavy metals in residents? We're not just dealing with native people on reserves, we're dealing with all the residents of the Nass Valley. There's been an outcry about the definite need to set up some type of monitoring of the residents' heavy metal accumulation from eating the fish from Kitsault and Alice Arm.

The third question I'd like to direct to the minister concerns chiropractic services. We started to make some positive steps with the previous Health minister on this. Under the regulations — the minister can correct me if I'm mistaken on this — to receive funding you have to go to a chiropractor in British Columbia. The concern that I raised to the previous Health minister was that there are many residents who live on the 60th parallel between B.C. and the Yukon who need chiropractic services. They must go to Whitehorse to receive these services. The closest chiropractor is in Terrace or Prince George, which are about 600, 700 or 800 miles away. We're dealing with a small number of people. I doubt if maybe 10 or 20 people a year would receive chiropractic services in Whitehorse. I was wondering if the ministry could make some type of an exception for northern residents to receive funding to go into Whitehorse, which is in the Yukon. We're talking about maybe 10 or 20 people a year. People aren't going to abuse the privilege of receiving this type of service outside the province.

Those are the three short questions I had for the minister. I hope he can answer them. Before closing I'd like to state that the major problem is getting the public health nurse on a full time basis. The residents in Cassiar have sent a petition. I would certainly hope that the minister could find some type of funding to provide this service.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Atlin, we had the same problem that I mentioned to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). We are attempting to assess those areas to see if we can spring more money either to provide a full-time nurse or to improve the situation. I'll certainly look at Cassiar specifically.

I don't know if we do have a monitoring program with respect to effluent discharge in the Nass Valley. I'm sure our public health people would be available for testing of materials that may be brought to their attention, but whether there is a specific monitoring program, I don't know at the moment.

Your chiropractors in the Yukon present an interesting problem. I believe under the regulations a benefiting physician — or whatever the term might be — must have a billing office in the province to receive the benefit payments. Perhaps something could be done just to have a registered office, Maybe that's all that's required, and it might not be that difficult. I don't know how many chiropractors there would be in Whitehorse — not too many. It could be something like that just to be consistent with the regulations. It may be that a registered office in British Columbia would resolve the problem. But I'll ask the B.C. Medical people to look at that, because I'm pretty sympathetic to chiropractors. I know if we were up in Atlin or somewhere, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) and I would probably be trekking to Whitehorse to get treatment fairly regularly. I'll look into that. It seems wrong to deny citizens of British Columbia a service which is readily available in a different part of the country. I'll certainly look into that. It may be just a technicality that's never been ironed out.

MR. LORIMER: I was interested in the exchange between the minister and my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) regarding the use of the formaldehyde foam for house insulation. I was interested to note that the minister is looking at it seriously and hopes to have his health units checking through the area to determine whether or not there is in fact a health hazard in some of these areas.

I've received a letter from one of my constituents. It's a short letter. I'll read it.

"I'm writing to you in the hope that you may be able to help me and others. I am one of those unfortunate people who took the government's advice and insulated my house with urea formaldehyde foam. I did not take the grant offer for this. Worst of all, my health is not good. I seem to have symptoms the doctors can't diagnose. It's only recently that we have come to the conclusion that it may be the foam that is causing it.

"I have been told my house is worthless. I am a widow, so you can imagine my feelings. I desperately want to get out of my home and can't afford the terrible cost. Any help you can give me and many others in the same position would be gratefully appreciated."

[ Page 6218 ]

That's just one case. I'll send the minister a letter advising him of the addresses of this particular home and another home in Burnaby which I've received complaints about. I would like the minister to advise me that I can go down to my office in a few minutes and advise these people that help is on its way. I think it's a very serious and worrisome problem — probably more worrisome than serious, but it's certainly worrisome to the people living in those homes, not feeling well and convinced that the problem is in the insulation. I hope the minister will give me something to pass on to these people.

I want to talk about home care for a few minutes. Another constituent, Richard Mielke, was a drowning victim who was revived after a considerable amount of damage had been done to him. He is now a paraplegic and unable to look after himself in even a rudimentary manner. At the present time he is being cared for by his parents — this fellow is an adult; his parents are getting elderly — and a brother is helping out. They are receiving services of six hours per day five days a week, and they can cope at this level. They have been advised that the amount is being cut down to four hours five days a week. Here's a case in which I'm told the change in homecare service will undoubtedly, in a short while, require that this person be put into some kind of permanent-care facility, because they will be unable to cope with him any longer. I suggest it would be much cheaper to give the necessary care, extend it or leave it where it is at the present time, in order that this person can remain at home and be looked after by people who are concerned about his well-being. That, I suggest, is much better for him, and a much better financial situation as far as the government is concerned. I hope the minister will take a look at this particular case of Richard Mielke. I'm sure there are a number of similar cases in which adjustments of the general overall plan of cutbacks may well be looked at.

I want to speak about a matter involving brain damage to an adult by the name of Gordon Tibbles. I wrote to the former Minister of Health with reference to this case, and before he could get on with it the ministry changed. I subsequently wrote to the minister when he was new on the job, and I received a letter in which it was indicated that this person didn't really qualify because it was questionable whether there was really brain damage or whether he was just an individual with a very hot temper. The story of this person is that he was involved in an automobile accident and was in hospital for a great number of months. He ended up in a wheelchair and went to the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre. He is now able to walk about and has improved physically to a great extent. As a high-school student he was an obstreperous individual and a difficult person to bring up. He went to the school for school assessment, and at that stage the assessor made some report. I don't know what it says and neither do the Tibbleses, but it is now apparent that this report is being considered as gospel by the Ministry of Health.

This person was never expelled or suspended from school. He was never in trouble with the police in any way. There are probably many people sitting in this chamber who didn't have quite as clean a record as that during their high school days. The parents of Gordon Tibbles went to the Ministry of Health, to ICBC, to The Maples, to the Burnaby mental health office and to their doctors, trying to get assistance and rehabilitation for this person.

Finally, after some months of effort and coming to a blank door, they were advised that due to the fact that he was causing damage at the house — breaking down doors, windows and so on — their laying charges against him would be the only way that help could come to this individual. This was done for the purpose of obtaining some help from the Ministry of Health. It was recommended by the judge at the hearing that this person be put in the care of the Ministry of Health. It so happened that there was apparently no place for this person to be placed. He ended up in the west wing of Oakalla, which is not the best wing of Oakalla to be in if you want to protect your health. It took some days to get this person out. He has now been referred to the care of his grandmother, who is in her seventies.

To me, this is really an unbelievable situation. Apparently there are no facilities for an adult who has suffered brain damage. I suggest that, with the number of motor-vehicle accidents every day, there must be hundreds of people in this province who are having the same problem as young Tibbles.

I would like the minister to review this case again. No help has been given up to now. There have been efforts to try to get help for the past year. I'm sure that in the extensive system of mental-health care in this province there must be some place that can not only care for him, but also attend and assist in his rehabilitation. This person has come a long way rehabilitation-wise since the accident. Unless help is given, that person is going to be a charge on the community forever. I'd like the minister to consider that matter.

Another matter I want to raise is the question of hospital care and the need for more staffing at the nursing level. One of the key areas, of course, in health care is the care delivered in the hospitals by nurses. I was just reading the annual report of the Registered Nurses Association for 1980. I note that British Columbia produced 511 nurses through its colleges, universities and BCIT. In one year it imported 497 from Ontario, 96 from Quebec, 136 from Manitoba, 100 from Saskatchewan, 209 from.... It goes on and on. In addition, 133 were imported from England and Wales, 24 from Hong Kong, 13 from New Zealand, 233 from the Philippines, 15 from Scotland and 76 from the United States.

In my opinion, what is happening is that we're not producing nurses for the care we have to have. As a result of this, wards are being closed for weekends in almost every hospital; they can't be serviced because the staff are working a five-day week, which is acceptable. But we need more. I suggest that 511 is not nearly enough. I'm told that the province of Ontario, because it's tired of educating nurses and staffing British Columbia hospitals due to our climate, is going to cut down in the number of nursing people it's putting through its facilities.

I don't know about the colleges, but I know that BCIT produces about 20 percent of the nurses in the province. They take in 136 students per year, and for 1982 this has been cut back from 136 to 68. So we are having a drop in the nursing production, unless there is a corresponding rise in entrance in other areas. I am told that there are some 400 to 500 applicants making application for nursing training, but because of the numbers which are allowed they are not getting their training. That's a government decision, as to what goes through.

The other matter I want to speak about is before the minister at the present time, I understand. BCIT has applied to open a downtown centre where they can give part-time nursing training in order that a number of people can get that training who can get to the downtown area because it is on transit services and therefore handy to get to. The part-time training plan takes three or four years to finish, but the

[ Page 6219 ]

advantage is that you can pick your hours. A number of people who could not go steadily to university or college to obtain this training can set their hours to fit in if they must be at home with infant children or whatever for part of the day. I would guess that a number of people could get away from the welfare aspects of life and become self-supporting. It would seem to me that if you are just looking at the dollars and cents this would be an attractive solution to an otherwise difficult problem.

I know that the minister is not responsible for the universities, but he is responsible for providing nursing staff for the hospitals. I would suggest that he take a look at the cuts which are taking place and decide how he can obtain proper quantities of nursing care for the needs. As I understand it, there are some more hospitals or beds coming on stream in a year or two, and if we're cutting back on nurses now, the problem ;s going to be magnified in that period. I am told that this suggestion of a downtown centre is presently being looked at by the Ministries of Health and Education and that no decision has been made at the present time. I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.],

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Health has encouraged the Ministry of Education with respect to the number of students in the nursing programs. We have offered the opinion that we would not wish to see any reduction in these programs. In fact, the opposite would be true. The nursing problem in the province is under review with the Ministry of Health, the Registered Nurses Association and other organizations who all recognize that there are problems — not just at the training level, but in retaining nurses in service once they have qualified. There is a turnover of nurses that is far greater than we deem acceptable. In some instances nurses have spent three years training, and have only practised for a year or so thereafter. Apparently there are a number who are diverting their studies after completing the nursing course to enter other aspects of education. What's happening, from what I've been told, is that we are not getting the product of the training process which in turn takes on that job for a reasonable period of time. We are providing numbers, but we are not necessarily getting the length of service one would expect from that training. In addition to that you mentioned the particular problems of married women who are nurses, and the problems of family, which restricts their hours.

We have asked some of our hospital administrators to advise us how they could make life easier for nurses with greater experience who now have a family. They could work short shifts, week-end shifts or other shifts which may be attractive to them. We should try to use that reservoir of manpower which is still available but the situation may have certain unattractive features, and they just choose not to continue on with their profession. That is being actively reviewed. It is a perplexing situation that the Registered Nurses Association and others have discussed in my office. We are offering refresher courses to nurses to try to encourage those who have retired to get back into the profession. I had a meeting in my office with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and representatives from the Registered Nurses Association of B.C., and suggestions were made as to how the nurses could be platooned to receive these refresher courses, specialty courses and others. That is being very actively pursued. The Ministry of Health has asked the Ministry of Education not to consider cuts in the nurses' area. I suppose we are going to see a migration of nurses from other parts of the world, as has been a tradition for many years, but we'd like to produce more and keep more on the job. That's a very important problem.

I seem to be somewhat familiar with certain aspects of the case you related about young Tibbles, but I have no hesitation in reviewing that and looking into it in much greater detail. I probably responded with information that had been provided to me, but I'll look into it in great detail, As you outlined it to me it sounds as though it's a situation that particular attention should be paid to rather than what has happened.

I'll look up in Hansard the other case you mentioned and look into it specifically as well. That's a case that should be reviewed individually rather than broad-brush. As the instructions are worded you look at each case individually. That sounds as though that's one which should receive maximum consideration. I'll certainly look into that too, Mr. Member.

MR. LORIMER: I'm interested in a point that you make that there will be no cutbacks in admissions for nurses' training, because I'm advised that BCIT has received information that their class for next year will be cut in half.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have recommended that it not be, but it's not our program.

MR. BARBER: Could the minister tell the committee when chiropractic services last received an increase in the schedule of fees as approved by the Medical Services Plan?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm advised it was two years ago. The chiropractors and the Medical Services Commission are at this moment negotiating a new contract. It very likely was a two-year agreement. If it was two years ago. At the moment they are negotiating a new contract.

MR. BARBER: If it doesn't compromise the governments position in those negotiations, could the minister inform the committee what the government's offer is?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) earlier asked if we would consider the advisability of offering benefits such as chiropractic benefits on a fixed-dollar basis rather than on the number of visits. As I mentioned to the member for North Island, I don't want to say anything compromising with respect to negotiations, but I would think a fixed amount of money has within itself a deterioration of services offered to people. Because of the inflationary factor you simply have to cut down the number of visits to accommodate the dollars available. I would prefer the other way; I would prefer to see the numbers of visits fixed rather than the numbers of dollars fixed, but maybe not as much as they want. They may be negotiating for more than the Medical Services Plan deems advisable. One of the problems, Mr. Member, is that chiropractic services and some other services are not part of the federal-provincial cost-sharing, I formula. and it causes its own problems. The issue you brought forward is part of what is going on right now by way of negotiation, and it has been very clearly identified.

[ Page 6220 ]

MR. BARBER: I've had an opportunity to read some of the reports prepared by people in the profession of optometry who argue sensibly, I think, and certainly forcefully, that we require a school of optometry in this province, that the University of Victoria might be an appropriate location for it, and that the particular services and facilities both needed by and offered to persons who would ordinarily take advantage of these services are, because of the lack of optometrists and facilities to train them in British Columbia, therefore all the more arguably needed. I wonder if the minister could tell us what review, if any, is going on right now in his ministry to examine the establishment of a school of optometry in British Columbia, preferably — but I'm biased — at the University of Victoria; and could the minister indicate what the timetable might be for the execution of such a policy commitment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm just advised by staff that a very major review has been underway with respect to this. The information received is contrary to the suggestion you made that one is needed. The early information obtained was that the need was not there. I'm not telling you that it's correct or it isn't, but that was the early indication after a major review. They may be wrong, but apparently the first indication was that the demand and the facts did not suggest that there was that great need. The study has not been completed; but apparently it is a major review, and those are the early indications. Obviously there's more to come on that.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to make available, either in this committee or — should the report not be finished until after the Legislature adjourns — publicly, the advice and recommendations of his committee reviewing the policy and the problems of optometry services in British Columbia. Will you make that public, one way or the other?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes. I don't think that's a problem, once the information is available.

MR. HOWARD: As the minister is well aware, there is a facility in Terrace for those persons who require long-term and extended care. It's called Skeenaview Lodge and has been in existence for some period of time. Over the winter of 1978-79 one of the minister's predecessors came to Terrace and announced that Skeenaview Lodge was to be phased out over an 18-month period. That 18 months has come and gone and has been somewhat extended. The rationale for phasing out Skeenaview was that it was far better for persons who needed such care and attention to be cared for in their own homes through the homemaker service. That would be fine for those individuals who have homes and whose needs could be met by the homemaker service. We are now faced with situation where the homemaker service is being curtailed or likely to be curtailed and the availability of care and attention required by those individuals has been placed somewhat in jeopardy. In the face of that, there still appears to be the continuation of the decision of government to phase out and close down Skeenaview Lodge as a facility which would provide extended care and to replace it with a facility that I smaller in bed capacity and with a lower level of service namely intermediate care.

The other part of the program appears to be that those why require the extended care that is available now in Skeenaview Lodge will be cared for, once it closes down, in Terrace in a closed-off portion of the Mills Memorial Hospital, which is an acute-care hospital. In Kitimat they will be cared for in an unused portion of the Kitimat General, which is also an acute-care hospital. While there may be beds available in both of those acute-care hospitals at this moment, the growth and expansion of industry and of the population there will place at some point in the near future a demand on those acute-care beds and we will be faced with somewhat the same situation that prevails here in Victoria. There is great concern, not only on the part of those individuals who are currently in Skeenaview, but on the part of their relatives and a great many people in Terrace and that surrounding area, that the care and attention these older folks need and must have on an extended-care basis is not going to be available to them.

There is great suspicion that the primary reason for phasing out Skeenaview Lodge is to make available for development purposes a great proportion of the 20 acres of land upon which the lodge sits. That feeling and that suspicion exist pretty thoroughly throughout Terrace. Nothing has been done to dispel that feeling. In fact, B.C. Buildings Corporation entered the picture recently and said to the Terrace View Society, which is a society established to handle and manage the proposed 50- or 60-bed facility for intermediate care, that they could have two acres of the 20. There was no indication what was going to happen to the other 18 acres.

It would be most helpful if the minister could make some clear statement about the intentions and hopes of his department, firstly, with respect to a type of facility in that area now encompassed within the concept of Skeenaview Lodge and, secondly, with respect to the use of that land for a purpose continuing to serve the needs of older people in that area — a statement that it is not going to be turned over to some land or apartment developer, and that the intention is not to shunt off into a smaller acreage of that area a very limited facility, both in size and in terms of the level of care provided for residents in that whole northwest comer of the province. If the minister would make some sort of comment in regard to those concerns, I'm sure he would go a great way toward allaying the fears of the residents, the patients, their families and the people in the area generally.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the land question, but I could very quickly look into that, if it's a land grab that's underway. I am advised by staff that the reason for what is referred to as a phase-down of the facility is that the Skeenaview Lodge is slated for closure in 1983.

That's the information I have. The reason for the phase-down is the age of the building, and there has been a philosophy offered about provincial referral centres — the thought that clients should be placed within their own local area rather than in a provincial referral centre. Terrace will have a replacement facility to house the existing clients. I think it has been acknowledged that there is to be a replacement facility. I don't know whether that is to be on 2 acres of the 20, or what that land relativity is, but I will look at that and provide the member with the information later. I don't think the land question has been raised since I have been familiar with this. Perhaps it's very common in Terrace, but it hasn't been brought forward to me other than by you just now. So I'll look into that aspect of it.

I am advised that there will be replacement facilities to house the existing clients. I am also told that the Skeenaview is slated for closure early in 1983 and I would expect that the replacement facility would have to be constructed prior to

[ Page 6221 ]

that. I'm just wondering where it may be located. Those are details I don't have at the moment; I would have to look into them. But you intrigue me with that land question. I can certainly find out.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not asking the minister for a reply now. He can do that privately by letter if he'd like to deal with the land question and the replacement facility that is proposed on the basis of (1) its size, and (2) the fact that it will not be an extended-care facility, as I am advised. It will just be intermediate care, and will basically leave in a vacuum those people who require extended care in a facility rather than in a home.

MS, BROWN: In January of this year there was an editorial in the Sun dealing with confidentiality of medical records. I really just want to discuss some of the information contained in that editorial with the minister and ask him whether the same applies here, or whether since January of this year any attempts have been made to tighten up the situation.

What the editorial says is that "privacy of health records is being invaded daily on a huge scale." I'm sorry, this is a report of the Ontario royal commission. I'll explain why I'm quoting afterwards.

"This commission spent the last three years researching this subject, and indicates that privacy of health records is being invaded daily on a huge scale. Their confidentiality is being violated as a normal course of conduct.

"What Mr. Justice Horace Krever discovered is commonplace. For example, there was evidence that private investigators under contract to insurance adjusters, using a variety of pretexts, regularly obtain medical information from doctors or hospital staff for the purpose of setting aside accident claims. Police investigating possible fraud against the Ontario Health Insurance Plan were given carte blanche to examine the medicare records of everybody in Ontario. Lawyers for the RCMP admitted that, on at least one occasion, confidential medical information was leaked in an attempt to discredit a member of a radical organization."

What also came out in that report is this:

"It would be naive to think that the situation described here was unique to Ontario. Indeed, a number of the witnesses told the commission that the practices which they described were common throughout North America."

What I'm really trying to find out from the minister is whether British Columbia is unique in that these kinds of violations of the privacy of health records could not happen here.

It goes on to say: "Judge Krever made a number of recommendations for correcting this state of affairs, including stricter controls, a guarantee of the right of individuals to examine and correct their own personal health records and the right to sue for a minimum of $10,000 for an unauthorized disclosure." The editorial ended up by saying: "The provincial government in Victoria might well make use of this report on behalf of British Columbians."

Has the minister received a copy of this report of the Ontario royal commission? Has his ministry had a chance to read it, to look over the recommendations and even begin to implement some of the recommendations? What the report really says is that an individual has no access to his own medical records. It's not possible to see your own medical records. This is top secret. But other people can see your medical records — investigators and that kind of thing. That was one issue of privacy I wanted to raise very quickly with the minister.

Is the minister still responsible for vital statistics? I've gone through the estimates a number of times and I can't find what vote it's under. Maybe the minister could tell me what vote vital statistics comes under. I've combed the estimates with my fine-tooth comb.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I should have used a larger comb.

A number of Ministers of Health down through the ages have promised to do something about this very archaic piece of legislation. We can quote from comments made by the previous Minister of Health, the Minister of Health before that and the Minister of Health before that, ad infinitum, about the Vital Statistics Act. Is this minister also going to make a commitment to amend some of the more archaic sections of this particular act? If so, I would like to specifically draw his attention to the section dealing with the registration of the birth of a child. You may not know this, Mr. Chairman, but as the act presently stands, a child that is born to a couple who are married.... The only surname that that child can have is the father's surname. There is no choice involved. As a matter of fact, the act does not even permit the double-barrelling of the name. For example, if you and I were married, the child would be Davidson. It couldn't be Brown-Davidson. If we had a daughter I would have to call her Brown in order to get my name into it, and she would be Brown-Davidson. But she couldn't be Something Brown-Davidson.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: She'd be brown. There's no question about that. [Laughter.]

As the act presently stands, the child's surname is registered as the surname of the father. Even when the couple come to an agreement and decide that they would prefer that the child take the mother's name, this is apparently not acceptable. The previous Minister of Health received a letter in December 1980 bringing this to his attention. At that time a commitment was made to do something about this particular section of the Vital Statistics Act, because it needs to be amended. I'm just wondering whether the present minister would be interested in making a commitment and following through with it in terms of amending that. It was very difficult to get the Name Act accepted. Now a woman can change her name if she wants to. What a number of women are beginning to say is that there should be an option. They may never exercise that option, but it should be on the books anyway that the surname of the child when being registered at birth could be either the surname of the mother, the father or both. I just wanted to ask the minister those two very brief questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Ontario report the member spoke of was provided to the ministry. My staff have advised me that the ministry has taken precautions with respect to aspects of the invasion of privacy which were identified in the

[ Page 6222 ]

report, to attempt to prevent similar occurrences in British Columbia. Mr. Member, I could not say that there are no intrusions of any kind, but the report did provide an opportunity for the ministry to be made aware of specifics. Precautions have been made to avoid that. I agree with the member that the medical record should have that confidentiality. If it can be pointed out that it is being abused in an organized way, then steps should be taken to expressly prohibit that.

I do have a very strong interest in the Vital Statistics Act. I am concerned about both the aspect the member spoke of and others. I have made some mention of some of the changes I would like to see. I've had an opportunity of speaking with the director, Mr. Burrows, about some of these long-standing issues. I would like to see some modifications made in the Vital Statistics Act. I think that a large part of the act was written at a time when there was quite a different attitude, and it stuck with us for some time. I couldn't offer any specifics today but, yes, I do have strong opinions with respect to that Vital Statistics Act. I hope that we have the opportunity to make some amendments which would make the Vital Statistics Act relatively modern. I don't know what the specifics may be. I've heard the report the member spoke of, and I've seen a copy of that request outlining the problem. We will be responding to that. I sincerely hope that we'll have the opportunity to make some major changes to the Vital Statistics Act in a number of areas to bring it into line with contemporary concepts, or at least modern concepts.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KING: I have a few questions for the minister that I'd like to gain some information on. The Shuswap nuclear study action group has been active in monitoring uranium exploration in the Shuswap area around Salmon Arm and in the North Okanagan generally prior to the moratorium taking effect. As the minister probably knows, there was a good deal of activity in that area. The study action group has been advised that the Ministry of Health has discontinued testing water in that area for radiation levels, and there's a good degree of concern. There has been the suggestion, and it's nothing more than a suggestion at this point, that we do have an abnormally high incidence of leukemia in that area. They're basically asking for two things: that the water monitoring continue and that the Ministry of Health consider at least doing a survey with respect to the incidence of leukemia in Salmon Arm and surrounding area. I want to reemphasize that there's no empirical data to back up that concern; nevertheless, it is a concern out of community experience and knowledge. I draw that to the minister's attention to see whether or not his ministry is considering any activity along those lines requested.

There are a couple of other questions I want to ask the minister. The diagnostic centre for Chase was promised under the auspices of the Royal Inland Hospital at Kamloops. I think the minister is familiar with that, and I would appreciate receiving from him some kind of status report on just where that particular project is. Is it anticipated that it will be starting this year? It was promised by the minister's predecessor in 1979, I believe, and again in 1980. I would very much like to have some indication of where it's at now. I believe the board of the Royal Inland Hospital is carrying the ball for it mainly.

The other question is with respect to the acute-care centre in Armstrong, and what the status of that construction program is.

If the minister could answer those questions for me I'd be very grateful.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I hope a member of staff who is familiar with the scheduling for Chase and Armstrong is listening and might be able to get that information to us.

I met with the board in Kamloops, and at that time we discussed Chase-Armstrong and Logan Lake, I believe. There were arrangements made, but I just can't recall the dates and details on that. I believe it was Chase municipality that offered to run the centre if we were to provide certain facilities. I believe that was agreed to. I'd have to get the specifics on Armstrong.

The member is probably aware that there is a fair number of natural occurrences of radiation in waters in the general area of the North Okanagan and other parts of the basin area. The public health division of the ministry is constantly checking the levels in these waters, usually in relatively small ponds or sediment areas. There is an ongoing monitoring program. I don't believe they have identified any areas of water where there is considered to be the health hazard where such a warning would not be in evidence or the owner of the property would be advised not to use it for any purposes.

On the leukemia aspect I couldn't say if the ministry has attempted to correlate information with respect to the two: the natural occurrences of radioactive materials in the waters and perhaps the incidence of leukemia. It wouldn't surprise me if that has been done, because I'm sure the medical people within the ministry would have taken that into consideration. I'm sure one of the reasons they would be monitoring these levels would be to determine if there's any relationship. But I would have to ask specifically whether studies have been made and whether any conclusive information has been brought forward. The people responsible for monitoring this advised me previously that should the levels be determined to have reached a certain aspect with respect to health, they would be taking steps to either acquire the water-holes or to see that these areas are not used where the public would come in contact with them for the feeding or watering of cattle or other animals. A fair amount of study and monitoring does take place in that area of the province. Perhaps I could get some specific information on the areas mentioned by the member and perhaps respond to him later. It is not information which I think would alarm the citizens; I think they would realize it's a pretty routine monitoring program that is undertaken.

MR. KING: I want to thank the minister for his response. I would suggest to him that, rather than delay the estimates, the minister could get that information on the two hospital facilities, and on the correlation of any data on radiation with the incidence of leukemia, to me before the session ends.

Just for the minister's information, I was surprised to find that there is a device used by prospectors up in that area now by which they monitor streams and creeks for the radiation level as a method of trying to locate the ore body. It certainly seems to me that if they have that kind of sophisticated and intricate equipment there must be a pretty high level of radiation from natural sources, as the minister indicated. It may be possible to liaise with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to identify those areas that are that much exposed to radiation that it can be determined through an instrumentation of the creek, and to have a look at whether or not that watershed is feeding any wells, domestic water

[ Page 6223 ]

supply or any water supply for livestock. That was something I was surprised to learn just a short time ago.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I just have a quick comment on that. I'm sure the ministry would take advantage of some of the instruments available. I think they're generally aware and have a pretty good understanding of where those waters are located.

MR. STUPICH: About two months ago there was a meeting in the Chase River Moose Hall, where the concerned citizens committee for better uses for Brannan Lake sponsored a meeting. Many presentations were made.

During the course of that meeting, representatives from the Ministry of the Attorney-General said that various members of cabinet, including the human services committee, had been invited to put forward proposals for the use of the Brannan Lake facility. I know that one of the proposals advanced in the community is that it be used for some sort of long-term care program to relieve the crowding in the hospitals.

I'm wondering whether the minister has supported any such presentation in the human services committee of cabinet. Is this minister putting forward any proposals in the cabinet with respect to use of Brannan Lake for long-term care or some such program?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The recommendation from the long-term care program people was that the Brannan Lake facility would not be suitable for intermediate care. It was for a number of reasons: the distances and others. But generally, no.

MR. STUPICH: Just to complete that then, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health is not making any recommendations to the human services committee of cabinet with respect to any use of Brannan Lake within his jurisdiction as Minister of Health?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's basically correct. We had been asked to review Brannan Lake for purposes of long-term care and extended care. The report from the directors responsible for that said that would not be its best use, from their point of view. So they have not recommended that it be converted for that purpose.

MR. LEVI: I want to deal with a couple of aspects of long-term care. I refer the minister to a brief to promote public discussion for the purpose of arriving at recommendations for long-term care legislation, SPARC. On page 3 there is a section on rights. They say that because of their failing physical and mental abilities long-term care program users are particularly vulnerable to abuses of their basic human rights. It's therefore imperative that these be stated clearly and guarded carefully. Upon admission to a program or facility, printed material from the long-term care program must be given to the program users, their families and the representatives who would inform them of their rights, responsibilities and the complaint-review procedure. I want to say to the minister that there is an assessment process that takes place, where a number of people go in to inspect the facility.

I refer to the Langley facility for now, because it's the example that I have. It's called the Langley Lodge. There was a very long, detailed inspection done of this particular facility. There were some eight different public servants involved and they came out with a series of recommendations. This was done in December 1980 and January 1981. One of the problems that exists is that there was no follow-up, That is, they were told to do a number of things; I was out there recently and none of these things had really been done. That's the one question I want to address to the minister.

I opened my remarks with the business about the rights of patients. The minister knows. and we all do, that older people in these facilities tend to be, frankly, afraid. They're afraid in one respect that they may. If they make complaints, get moved out. I was at a dinner for seniors the other night in Coquitlam. A man I know, who is actually a seniors counsellor with Human Resources, has been a very active member of and lives in a long-term care facility. To my surprise, he says that there are some things wrong, but he just doesn't feel he wants to say anything. The basic fear he has is that he may get moved out. There is that kind of problem. There does not appear to be anyone the seniors can turn to, really, to voice these complaints, without having this great anxiety about being moved. It's there and it's real. It's not apparent, it's very real to them.

If the department is going to the trouble to inspect a place, and particularly this one.... I can make it available to the minister. I don't want to go into all the details, but it's an example. It would seem to me that there has to be a very basic follow-up on the things that have to be done which are found to be wrong. I'll give you an example. One of the identified dangers in this particular place was that when you go from the main part of the building into the activity room there is a ramp. Of course there are a lot of people in wheelchairs. The ramp isn't very wide. I looked at it and it's about a foot wide. In January the report said it was dangerous and should be replaced. You go out there in May and you find it's still there.

There's another complaint. For some reason the facility has been charging for incontinence pads. They were told by the people who did the inspection that that was not to happen, that it was part of what people pay for, or what the government pays for in the $8.50 a day. Now there is a whole series of these things. The question I'm raising with the minister is that the inspection process may be adequate, but the enforcement process is completely inadequate. What happens in this sort of situation? There is a range of things. They talk about fire drill, food, cleanliness. It's a very adequate report, but there's practically no response to it, according to people I've talked to and my own observation. I appreciate that in this particular facility there's a change in the administration: they are getting a new administrator. But the same problem exists in the basic inspection process. It's all very well doing inspections, but you simply have to have an enforcement process as well.

I want to make one other remark, which goes back to the one I talked about originally. People in long-term care facilities do need advocates. It's not really the role of the staff to be their advocates. If we have senior counsellors, as in Human Resources, then it would pay to consider the possibility of having some kind of senior counsellor or advocate in the facility. Somehow there has to be a bridge between the patients and the administration, particularly in the question of human rights. There has to be a mechanism whereby people can feel free, but not in an irresponsible way, to really talk about the problems that concern them.

[ Page 6224 ]

The inspection process. This one was adequately done. I don't comment on all the others. But the problem is that there was no enforcement of the changes that had to be made. Even at this late date many of those changes have not been made. They are health changes. They relate in all manners to health and safety.

The other question is about the advocacy part in respect to the rights of patients. That's a crucial one. As the system gets larger — and it is increasing all the time — there has to be that kind of advocacy role.

I'd like the minister to respond to those two questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I hope there's a very good reason why they didn't get back to see whether what had been recommended or ordered was or was not carried out. I'll ask a couple of questions with respect to that. I would say that there's really not much point in inspecting unless you're going to follow through to make sure that what you've discovered is taken care of, or you're wasting the time of both the inspector and the people responsible for the home. I'll find out about that specific one and see if it's an isolated incident or whether it's something that has to be resolved. Maybe there's a reason, but I can't see why it wouldn't have been followed through; it's just common sense.

I suppose the problem of the rights of citizens in such establishments has been of concern for a long period of time. Mr. Member, I don't know how that should be addressed. Perhaps some position could be established or made available, as you suggested, in the home itself or perhaps in the ministry. In many instances we are dealing with patients who may find it very difficult to overcome their latent fears to the point of speaking out about real or imagined problems, because of what they consider to be their vulnerability. I don't know whether the Ministry of Human Resources, as an example, provides that type of service to these people. I agree, though, that the rights of these patients should be protected. There should be an opportunity for any of those patients to be able to contact an individual to determine if their rights are being violated or if what they consider to be a violation is indeed that. I would have to ask a lot more questions with respect to that before I would be able to provide answers to the member's questions. I agree with him in principle that the rights of these individuals cannot be ignored simply because they are in a facility, and that they should be protected.

MR. LEVI: I just have one other item I want to raise, to get the minister's feelings. There has been a great deal of discussion in the field of long-term care, particularly about the effectiveness of the staff in their work. There appears to be a lack of adequate training of aides even at the first level of care given. We've had a number of programs which the Health and Human Resources ministries have gotten into, particularly in the fields of day-care and financial — assistance workers. Here we have people who are dealing with a very special kind of service, yet there is no training at all. There's an incredible turnover — not always — but I think it's partly because of their lack of training that people who work in it don't perceive it as being a worthwhile stage of a career. That happens when you have an incredible turnover. If you've got some training, it's going to relate to the quality of care that you get. I think it can possibly lead, because of the kind of training that has existed in some places.... I have in mind the well-known Priory method, which was used over here in a number of homes. They were trained in service.

There needs to be training for this particular area. This is one of the great weaknesses in this field — the incredible turnover of people because there is no established career potential at the ward-aid level. I'm not talking now about registered nurses or even the LPNs, who also have training. There is a much larger body of people below that group. They are in day-to-day contact with these people and have absolutely no training whatsoever. That's one of the areas that has to be addressed: the training of the first-line workers. They are the people who mostly deal with the patients. What plans does the ministry have? Have they looked at that? It's something that's been talked about. What's going to happen with that kind of area? We're into a field here that's going to be with us forever on. With better standards that we get for the training of the people who are on the line, obviously we're going to get a much better quality of service. Has the minister got a comment on that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I do not know what training programs may have been prepared or are in the planning state. I would have to get specific information on that. As the member pointed out, the long-term care facilities will become a major part of our hospital care — for want of a better term — more and more. I agree that we must have consistency, reliability and training in staff. I don't know whether a formal program has been developed. I appreciate the comment and agree that it's an area that does affect far more people than some of the other workers who are involved in it. There should be consideration given to training of some type at least that perhaps would result in more of them staying in that position longer, minimizing the turnover problem. Mr. Member, I would have to find out specifically if any training program has been developed and whether any program is about to be implemented or is even available anywhere within the system now. I'm sorry, I just don't know at the moment.

MR. LAUK: As will be noted, I'm sure, by a few members of the House, I seldom speak in estimates. It'll be noted with great appreciation by most members of the House. However I had prepared a major statement attacking the Minister of Health. I was developing a case against this minister from which he could not possibly have extricated himself. This case goes back many, many years — one at least. It was brought to my attention approximately 18 months ago that Sunset Towers has about 800 elderly people residing there. One of them is an aunt of the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). These elderly people had a variety of health problems. Most, if not all, of those health problems did not require hospitalization. They required some kind of attention at home. I'm not going to get into the debate on the homemaker service. The minister knows our views full well on that. It was the kind of cutback that is most regrettable and makes the least sense if one is going to become efficient in the Ministry of Health.

However, I did write a letter to several persons on behalf of the residents of Sunset Towers to obtain nursing care at this large residence. It seemed appropriate to me that the request of those residents for a nurse residing there with them made a lot of sense. Now I don't know who to thank or who to blame, because it ruins my whole speech. I had at least 45 minutes prepared, and I had written several letters. Just before his estimates the minister tells me he's going to supply them with a nurse. What do I say now?

[ Page 6225 ]

I'm of mixed feelings. I had this case prepared, and I was going to attack the minister and force him into ignominious resignation, and he goes and appoints a nurse. I've spoken to some of the people at Sunset Towers since we got the good news, and they're very, very grateful that the minister has acted, where his predecessors did not.

I want to point out to the minister another problem in my constituency, insofar as there is a stroke victim club. There are stroke clubs around the province, and I think everyone can remember a little while ago the Vancouver Sun article about stroke victims entitled: "A Hardening of Society's Arteries." It was a sensitive description featuring Jack Richards. Some of you may remember Jack Richards as a journalist with the Vancouver Sun who at a relatively early age suffered a massive stroke when he was in hospital for the removal of a kidney stone — a fairly minor operation — and as things turned out he suffered a massive stroke. The description in the article is particularly poignant.

"Jack was 57 when he suffered a massive stroke. It happened at the height of his career as a journalist. He was then editor of the Vancouver Sun leisure section. In 30 years of writing he had been a sports reporter, editor, drama critic and finally the author of a widely read book, Johann's Gift to Christmas. Now he can barely write his name. His eyesight has been so badly impaired he can no longer read."

One of the things Jack Richards does, and one of the only things he does, is go to these clubs. Every Tuesday at the Vancouver stroke club he meets with friends who have had strokes. There they take physiotherapy, speech therapy and other forms of activity with fellow stroke victims. It is one of the few things, if not the only thing, that brings these stroke victims out of their seclusion and shut-in status into a society and a community activity. It is a great benefit. I'm sure all hon. members will agree that such a stroke club is worthy of support.

On April 14.... Leading up to this, it's indicated that the government is not going to give any money, or little money, to help the province's stroke clubs. Evidently the government does not consider it to be a priority, when, in fact, as the article states, these stroke clubs are the whole world to many of these members. I'll just read into the record a letter that was sent to the Minister of Health on April 14.

"For us, the stroke people, the stroke club is not a frill; it is a necessity. It is sometimes the only thing that keeps us going. There is no other chance for us to mingle with people. At other places people stare at us or else try to help too much. At the club we are accepted for what we are. There is no other possibility for speech or physiotherapy once you are out of the hospital. These classes add a quality to our living. Please help us.

"This letter was hand-written for the people of a speech class at the stroke club. The words are all theirs, but no one in the class has the ability to write legibly."

It is signed by 31 members of the stroke club. It was sent to me, asking me to encourage the minister to answer their appeal for funding to at least save this worthwhile organization.

I appeal to the minister to take a close look at this situation. I have met with some of these people at the stroke club. It is truly as it is set out, and there is no exaggeration. It is worthwhile, and it would be a responsible and sensitive thing if the ministry could find the very little money that is required to keep these stroke clubs active in providing a community and needed therapy for these victims. I wonder if the minister would not make a policy decision with respect to it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Stroke Association of B.C. representatives met with me and some of my staff a month or month and a half back, and we had a very good discussion with respect to funding. The clubs have not received funding from the Ministry of Health previously; they've been supported by the B.C. Heart Foundation and a number of community resources. I believe the history was that the Heart Foundation had offered to support them for a period of time, and that funding has simply ended. That's why they find themselves in deficit problems, along with a couple of other foundations which had provided some money. I forget the two people who were in the office speaking about this. I told them that the ministry would consider a grant with respect to the clubs throughout B.C., possibly to the provincial organization, which then might be able to develop their own priorities. I said we would attempt to see if we could encourage some of the established foundations to continue on with their grants. I told the two principals who were in the office that day that it would be difficult for the ministry simply to assume their entire budget as they had requested. What they basically wanted was some assistance for their provincial organization and funding for each club for some administrative costs. We suggested to them that we could be in a position to offer them a substantial grant, but that it could fall short of their total budget. At this juncture we suggested to them that we felt we should not discourage them from continuing to get support from such agencies as the B.C. Heart Foundation or others who may wish to be involved or could be involved.

I can advise the member that I told the staff to go through the grants which were being made this year and to find some money for the Stroke Association of B.C. I don't know the precise figure, but it will be substantial. It will not meet their total request. I think they agreed with me when we discussed it. While they may be disappointed, they will not be completely disappointed. They recognize that they would not be able to have their entire budget covered in a single effort, but I did tell the staff to find some money in that vote for those grants, I also told my staff that perhaps we'll get heat from someone who won't get a grant this year — not the stroke people, but maybe someone else. But I felt that this was a priority.

The grant will be substantial. It will assist them greatly, although it may not meet what they anticipated as their entire budget for the province. I think the Ministry of Health can act as an agent on their behalf to discuss with some of the foundations who had indicated to some of our people that perhaps they would be prepared to advance moneys for this as well. I think we have responded in a substantial way. They will be advised of that in the very near future, once these dollars are worked out. I think their deadline is fast approaching. I'll remind the staff to make sure they have that information.

We also suggested to them that perhaps, because of the timing of the request — the budgets and the rest — we may have to review the situation part way down through the year. For the time being we will be providing them with assistance. It will he substantial. although it will fall short of their entire

[ Page 6226 ]

provincial budget. We are certainly not turning a deaf ear to their plight. We do recognize it as a valuable service. We will be offering them a substantial grant this year. Perhaps there can be more formal arrangements made for subsequent years.

MR. COCKE: We've been having a marvellous discussion with the Minister of Health over the past few days. We've discovered some very grave shortcomings in the ministry. We've found that the ministry is wasting money by hurting the most inexpensive end of health care, which is the home care program. Since the last time anybody in this House spoke on the home care program, I'm sure every member has had another group of letters this afternoon, as I did. I saw another five or six just on that one topic this afternoon. This is a very important situation. I think the ministry, while not agreeing that there have been cutbacks, agree that there have been net cutbacks. There have been significant cutbacks to the extent that people who should be kept in the least alienating environment, their home, will be going back to acute-care and long-term care hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, we've reviewed the public health system. We've found that there was a hiring freeze that crippled the public health system, which is the preventive area of health care in our province. We have found shortages of inspectors, public health nurses, nutritionists and speech and hearing people right across the province and right across the board. It was impaired and continues to be impaired. We haven't discussed the whole question of ambulance and emergency services in our province at great length this year because we have in other years. Suffice it to say that things are not as they should be. Last year the ambulance union called for $50 million to hire 300 more drivers and staff. They also called for an upgrading of their facilities. The Minister of Health at the time gave them $500,000 before the end of the fiscal year. Where are the drivers?

For instance, in Vancouver on June 11 a decision was made to pull the paramedic car in Vancouver South. The excuse given was a shortage of staff. There was no such shortage, and if there was a shortage of staff, they could have brought in staff on an overtime basis. On June 13, on the downtown east side, they did the same thing. So things are not great in the emergency-care service either. The life of one of the ministers in this House was saved by our paramedics.

MR. LAUK: Apart from that it's a good system.

MR. COCKE: Apart from that it's a good system, as the member for Vancouver Centre says.

This pinching of pennies could cost lives and is not a particularly good idea. As a matter of fact, it's an awfully bad idea. Right now the Vancouver fire department is still an absolute prerequisite in saving lives in Vancouver. I suggest that this is an area that is also at fault.

As I suggested, there is no point in going on with the minister's vote and the other votes that we're looking at. I will just say now that we're prepared to take a look at vote 106. In taking a look, what do we find? We find an increase of over 50 percent in travel expense. We find an increase of over 60 percent in office expense. At the same time, that minister is cutting back on his home-care service. I therefore move that vote 106 be reduced by $17,058.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 106 approved.

On vote 107: administration and support services, $21,954,338.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, among other things in vote 107 we find buried poor old vital statistics. It used to be a vote of its own. Now it has been relegated to fine print down at the bottom of the page under planning and development. I'm just wondering what's happening to vital statistics.

I also find a couple of other problems in this vote. I find travel expense has gone up from $756,000 to $978,000 — this is an administration vote. We also find office expense — the fancy offices with lovely rugs and so on — has gone up from $337,600 to $749,800, an increase of $412,000, way over double. This is when we can't afford to look after the elderly and people on home care. I therefore move that vote 107 be reduced by $634,534.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

[ Page 6227 ]

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

Vote 107 approved.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, did the Clerk mention Hon. Mr. Heinrich's name?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member.

Vote 108: preventive services, $50,339,865 — approved.

On vote 109: direct community care services, $336,349,487.

MS. BROWN: I have three questions dealing with grants. The Planned Parenthood Association of B.C. applied for $141,000 from the ministry some time in March of this year. They still have not received a response. The ministry also made a commitment to Rape Relief in Vancouver to pay some interim funding of $20,000. They have not yet heard from the ministry. The Coast Foundation — which, as you know, is a halfway house for community-based housing for psychiatric patients — applied for $268,654 for the 1981-82 year. They have not heard anything. They've received some interim funding, but they still have not received that grant. They also applied to mental health services for a $50,000 operating expense grant, and they have not received a word from the ministry on that either. Would the minister explain or make some commitment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The grant allocations have not been completed as yet. There have been additional requests for funding under our grant system, including the Stroke Association, as we mentioned earlier. The allocation of the funds under the grants has not been finalized, but I would think that staff who are engaged in this activity have been in touch with the people and hopefully have advised them of any interim financing arrangements or of when the final decision may or will be made. Not all of the grants which have been requested can be met completely, but I believe most of them will have received information as to the likelihood of their total budget this year and the timetable associated with that. Total grants have not yet been allocated for this fiscal year.

Vote 109 approved.

Vote 110: hospital programs, $1,043,175,935 — approved.

Vote 111: Medical Services Commission, $451,814,000 — approved.

Vote 112: Emergency Health Services Commission, $40,644,450 — approved.

Vote 113: Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, $6,235,795 — approved.

Vote 114: Alcohol and Drug Commission, $10 — approved.

On vote 115: building occupancy charges, $31,613,182.

MR. COCKE: Here we are again — building occupancy; good old B.C. Buildings Corporation and their rentals and maintenance and so on and so forth. What do we see here in the face of the fact that we're denying health care to certain people in our society. particularly the aged? Here we see an increase from $30,919,000 to $31,613,182. I would therefore move that vote 115 be reduced by $694,182.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 26

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

Vote 115 approved.

On vote 116: computer and consulting charges, $2,944,110.

MR. COCKE: Here again, there is a significant increase. The job that the B.C. Systems Corporation is doing for the Ministry of Health shouldn't even be discussed in a nice place like this. If you want to find out how the doctors feel about it, in terms of their response I'm sure you'd have to have some cotton wool in your ears. They're very slow in responding to billings. There's mistake after mistake. The Systems Corporation is a mistake. In any event, we see an additional $627,110 here. I'll be moving an amendment on this vote in a second, That amendment will bring our graph up this high. The graph says that you have overspent so far this year, as far as we can determine, $69,805,687 — $1.9 million in Health alone. The grand total is $71,778,571, when there are people out there suffering. I therefore have to move the motion that vote 116 be reduced by $627,110.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

[ Page 6228 ]

NAYS — 26

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

Vote 116 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 149: minister's office, $156,974.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's always a pleasure for me to present to the House my estimates as Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. It's a quiet and calm type of ministry, and one with which there aren't too many problems. I'm sure the members will agree with me that there's a need for voting these funds at the earliest opportunity so we can get on with the job of meeting the needs of the people in this province.

In the last year the public need for Crown land in this province has escalated, and this ministry has responded to the wishes and desires of the people of this province. We also provided assistance, and are continuing to provide it, to over 35 municipalities in the form of land or financing to help them develop land and prepare it for public use. For instance, we provided the community of Elkford with $7 million to develop land which will provide lots for 578 single-family homes and one multi-home. We provided Sparwood with $1,117 million to develop 187 single-family lots and 66 multi-home sites. We provided financing to Logan Lake in the amount of $5.2 million, and to other communities such as Golden, Warfield and Kimberley. We made 27 grants of Crown land to B.C. communities in 1980 for various community uses. This ministry has a strong commitment to meet community needs for land for fire halls, parks and other community uses. We release Crown land to meet the growing demand for rural, residential and recreational lots, and because the demand for land is high and the proper use of land is important we undertook many land-use planning studies in 1980, including the preparation of a strategy plan for that most heavily populated area of our province, the lower mainland.

My ministry responded to needs for housing in 1980 as well. First-home grants totalling $20,377,000 helped 14,014 people to acquire their own homes. Second mortgages amounting to $14,550,000 assisted 2,910 more people. We spent $5,627,000 on housing for senior citizens; nine projects were completed and opened. Construction began on eight more, and another 21 projects are in the design stage. We provided a variety of subsidies to assist senior citizens with the cost of their accommodation. In addition — and this is an important responsibility of my ministry — we provided rent subsidies and conversion loans to help make available more and better housing for handicapped people. In addition the housing initiative program provided 2,217 mortgages to build homes, and mortgages were made available for the construction of 2,851 rental units.

For a moment let us forget the terms, units and mortgages. What it boils down to is that in 1980 this ministry has helped literally thousands of people to acquire better housing.

In 1980 my ministry also answered the need of people in British Columbia to relax and enjoy our province through our park system. Our 355 parks rival any in the world. Operating, maintaining and improving them is a costly but beneficial enterprise: $1.2 million was allocated to 11 regional districts to help them acquire land and develop regional parks; 18 local community park boards received grants totalling $14,000 for park development; 12 grants of Crown land valued at $1.7 million were provided for community parks; five new provincial parks and one recreation site were created last year. The day-to-day work of maintaining parks, keeping the parking lots in order, repairing and replacing picnic tables and providing other basic facilities continued. Park attendance figures, which don't include every person who visits our parks, showed that nearly 15 million visitors came to our park system in 1980; the new provincial park map which we have produced — the first ever — is now available and it will doubtless increase that number in the year ahead.

The year ahead will bring pressures and needs to which my ministry must respond. We have never before seen pressures such as are now developing in regard to Crown land. Never before has there been such public interest in and focus upon the designation of use of our land resource. Should a certain piece of Crown land be designated for agriculture or forestry, for homes or for industry? We would need the wisdom of Solomon to solve some of these conflicts. To make the best and wisest decisions we'll be engaging in an intensive land-planning process over the next two years. We will initiate and prepare a discussion paper on land use for this province. We must continue to aid municipalities in the development of lands. For example, Fort Nelson, McConachie Creek and the East Kootenays, along with other communities, will receive interim financing to assist in putting together land for housing.

The increasing interest in day-use of facilities in our parks must be addressed, and also the need for more camping facilities for British Columbians and for our tourist visitors.

In speaking briefly about housing — and I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to answer a few questions as my estimates unfold — predictions are that the influx of people to British Columbia plus natural growth within the province will result in the need for homes for 200,000 people in the next five years. The major housing problem is centred in the lower mainland. The rest of the province has fared better. But the need must be met not only on the lower mainland but also in the other areas that are feeling the pressure as well. In 1980 we had 37,600 housing starts, which is a record exceeded only in 1973. It is a credit to the productivity of our provincial housing industry. If we are going to meet the ever-increasing demand, we are going to have to plan for it and make some changes. The federal government has been urged to retain and in fact expand the capital cost allowance in the MURB program.

There are certain pressures on the housing industry at this time, created essentially by high interest rates which have caused some contractors to fall out of the marketplace, at least on a temporary basis. We understand that CMHC has

[ Page 6229 ]

rejected 8,000 rental units. They are urgently needed, because the interest rates have placed the required equity figure out of sight for the builder. That appears to be where we are having our greatest problem — developing sufficient rental accommodation to meet the needs of British Columbians and of those who want to be British Columbians.

Municipalities must look at their zoning to see if it really fits the issues of the eighties, and at the increasing population and the energy crisis as well. We're looking at revisions of the Building Code to allow the conversion of some commercial and industrial buildings to housing units. I want to propose the extension of the conversion loan program to allow second mortgages to aid in the conversion of commercial buildings to create homes. In addition, senior citizens, handicapped citizens and other special-need groups must continue to be ensured adequate and proper housing.

With these few opening remarks, it's my pleasure to bring forward some of the initiatives that we have taken and some of our plans for the ensuing fiscal year. I look forward to some questions from the members of the opposition, which I will respond to.

MR. GABELMANN: For some time now, members of the opposition and the public have been awaiting the release of the program long promised by the government to assist in dealing with what is in fact a housing crisis in British Columbia. I had hoped that the minister would begin his remarks on these estimates by outlining in some detail what that program is. I suppose we still have two more weeks to wait.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wish I could have.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister says he wishes he could have. If it contained something useful, I wish he could have too.

There are thousands of British Columbians out there for whom housing and shelter are the greatest crisis in their existence. I think we need to deal with the housing crisis in this province in some of the same ways we dealt with it in 1945. I was only a year old then, and I wasn't around to witness it, but there was an obvious need to accommodate returning veterans, and at that time governments had the will and the ability, even though they had just gone through five or six years of very expensive war, to find a way to provide housing for returning soldiers and veterans.

The crisis is no less real today. It affects a different group in our society, one that in many ways is less visible and one that has less ability to defend itself or be an advocate for itself. There are tens of thousands of British Columbians, many of them on fixed incomes and social assistance, and even many earning two incomes in a family, who are not able to provide adequate shelter for themselves.

It's not just because I've been charged by the opposition as spokesperson on housing issues that I say this. I would say it in any event. I think the greatest crisis facing this province, its people, and particularly its government is the housing crisis that is upon us today. It's not just in the lower mainland; it's all over the province. There are some minor exceptions from community to community. In the 1975 general election we were faced with campaign promises by Social Credit, such as: "We need the positive policies of Social Credit to fight such serious problems as unemployment and lack of housing." That was six years ago. What did the Leader of the Opposition of that day, the present Premier, promise the people of British Columbia in 1975 when the housing crisis was not nearly so bad? "A Social Credit government will encourage and assist in the construction of more low-cost rental housing so that more people can live comfortably and decently within their means." That's a noble promise, but unfulfilled and ignored.

We have a situation in the city of Vancouver and in the lower mainland in general where people are having to move further and further out into the valley to find housing within their ability to pay. We have the crazy situation where we are creating jobs in the city of Vancouver, such as at the university hospital, and we are asking people who work in those facilities — some in very low-paid jobs — to travel from Haney, Aldergrove, Surrey — if they're lucky — out to UBC to work. We're saying by the housing policies of this government that, in effect, people will not be allowed to come to British Columbia to work in Vancouver. Today's headline in the final edition of the Times-Colonist says "Vancouver Home Costs Scare Off Executives." If you're not concerned about the plight of people on fixed incomes and the poor people who can't find affordable housing, you might be able to find some sympathy for those who are in your economic class — the executives who can't take $60,000 — and $70,000-a-year jobs in Vancouver because they can't find a house they can afford. I can understand if Social Credit doesn't understand the crisis when it affects poor people, but when it begins to affect middle-income and high-income people, as it is now doing, maybe you will begin to understand that there's a crisis. Just to keep on that point for a moment, the University of British Columbia has senior faculty jobs going begging. One in particular has gone begging for three years. The people who are qualified and desirous of taking those jobs can't take them because they can't afford to sell their houses in Toronto, Montreal or wherever and come out to Vancouver, buy a home anywhere near the level they might have had in the other city and take the job at UBC. So they don't take the job. Trade unionists tell me we have problems with young people who take apprenticeship programs in the trades who have to move to Prince George, northern Vancouver Island, the Kootenays or other parts of British Columbia and can't take the jobs that are available in the lower mainland. Employers are now beginning to realize that they've got a problem on their hands, because those young apprenticeship trained people are not staying around the lower mainland where there are some jobs for them. The reason they aren't staving around isn't because there aren't jobs; it's because they can't buy a home.

In his remarks the minister quoted a number of figures. I don't want to do too much of that today. The problem is a social problem and a political problem. I don't think we'd get very far by just quoting figures, but I want to present a couple. CMHC statistics indicate that we have not done particularly well in comparison with other provinces. For example, a comparison of March 1980 figures to March 1981 figures shows an increase in housing starts of 16.6 percent. That sounds good. Ontario is 32.5 percent, Quebec 24.5 percent, and Saskatchewan 190 percent. We're the province with the big growth and the 50,000 people a week or whatever it is the minister says are coming into the province. We are not housing those people. We are not meeting anywhere near the level of growth required in housing.

In his comments the minister also talked about the MURB program the federal multiple-unit residential building program and the ability of people who have

[ Page 6230 ]

disposable capital income to invest it in apartment construction. One of the reasons that program failed before and will fail now is that people who are investing in that kind of housing will not be investing in housing that is affordable to young families and to single parents with children. They will be building housing in the rental range of $600, $700 or $800 a month and up. That's the kind of housing that will be constructed by an extension of the federal MURB program. If the government has any thought that it intends or wants simply to add to the limited federal program that exists, without creating other restrictions and other guidelines on that policy, I think you will be throwing good money after bad. It will be a disastrous policy.

Earlier this session — I think it was in the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry estimates — I said something that was perhaps a little bit out of line for our party, because over the years we have consistently argued against capital cost allowances. But I said in those estimates, and I say again in these estimates, that there might well be a way in which capital cost allowances can work to provide affordable housing. It might be that that's the only way to divert that disposable capital from other ventures that are more profitable. It might be that we do have to have some kind of program like that. But if we do, it has to have some constraints on it. Those constraints include that families be able to live in that housing. The rules in so many apartment buildings — that no children are welcome — cannot exist.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Twenty-five percent of it is allocated to affordability.

MR. GABELMANN: That's not good enough. If I heard the minister — and my hearing is still not back to normal — he said that 25 percent of the accommodation under that program would be for low-income housing. That's not what we need. At this time we need 100 percent of that program for affordable housing. It's got to be provided for a limited income level, for people who can only afford to pay $250, $300, $350, $400 a month. It's got to make sure that kids are eligible to live in the accommodation. And rent controls have to apply. Without rent controls, you've got nothing. If, in developing these programs, the minister is also thinking about tying onto this idea that Paul Cosgrove is spouting, of providing subsidies to tenants to help them meet the shortfall between what they can afford to pay and what they have to pay, let's not do that without tying in rent controls. If you do that, it will be a direct subsidy to the landlord. The rent will go up by the amount of that subsidy. You may as well send the money directly to the landlord and forget the middleman. That will be the effect of that kind of program.

I was hoping we would be able to debate the program that the minister is going to introduce. We obviously have to debate shadows a little bit at this stage, because I really don't know what he intends to do.

I don't need to repeat the fact that the vacancy rate in this province is 0. 1 percent. That, obviously, means there is, in effect, less than any available housing. You need at least I percent, maybe even 2 percent, just to have a continuing changeover. We have situations where people are actually bidding up the rents in this province. I'm not suggesting that the government should go out and build all the apartment buildings. Obviously that's not something that's appropriate in our society, and I wouldn't recommend it. But the government has to be involved in a very vigorous way in making sure that affordable housing is created.

One of the worst mistakes you made was — it was another one of those political mistakes, like the scrapping of the Marguerite, which you had to change again — scrapping the Housing Corporation. The minister likes me to say that, because he doesn't agree with me. By scrapping that Housing Corporation, you scrapped the only vehicle that existed in this province to provide the kind of housing we're talking about. It wouldn't have prevented the disaster of today. I wouldn't argue that. I don't think any member of this House would say that if we'd had the Housing Corporation, or even if we'd had a government through all these years that was totally committed to trying to solve the problem, there would be no problem. Of course there would be a problem, because we are affected by events outside our control, not the least of which are interest charges and the rapid increase in migration to this province.

At least if we'd had that Housing Corporation, it could have continued to help assist in building the kind of housing it was building in 1973, 1974 and 1975, until it was scrapped by Social Credit. It was a disastrous decision, one in which I can only find one blessing. There is one good thing about your decision to scrap the Housing Corporation. Do you know what it is, Mr. Minister? It's that we'll win the next election because of it.

The government underestimates the impact this housing crisis is having in our society. You may say people who have their house aren't worried, because they've done well lately; their equity has increased — doubled and tripled in some cases. You may say that that's the middle class who get out and vote in elections more than other classes do; those are the people who support the government, because they're not concerned. But they are concerned, because their kids can't get into a house. A social crisis is going to develop in the next few years when people who have gone to university and are out there working recognize that with both of a couple working they won't be able to work for four or five years and build up a bit of capital before they can move into their house and start their family, which is the traditional kind of role. They won't be able to move into a house, because they won't be able to afford it even with a massive down payment of, say, $40,000 or $50,000, which is very unusual. Even with that kind of down payment, then to assume a mortgage of $100,000 a year to buy a $150,000 house — which is pretty cheap in Vancouver; you're talking about more than that — we're talking right there about $20,000 of interest a year without even touching the principal. Those people are going to realize in the next few years that they're not going to be able to have the family they planned to have if they want a house. They're going to have to choose to have both of them working and possibly bit by bit grasp their way into a home by moving into the interior or somewhere else, getting established and picking up a bit of equity. The cost of that will be that families will be delayed, if they're able to be started at all. That is a social crisis that has yet to hit us, but it's close. The government will have to bear a major share of the responsibility for that situation as it develops.

It's difficult in the housing estimates to know what material to use and what to leave out. I could go on for 20 hours and just begin to touch the surface of all the things I want to talk about. I'm going to skim through a variety of things, because the time just flies by.

I want to put into the record some of the personal situations that exist. These are people who are so affected by the housing crisis that they have agreed, should it be appropriate,

[ Page 6231 ]

that their names can be read into Hansard. I won't do it unless there's some desire to do it, but I've got them and I'm prepared to do it.

This is a 386 number, so it's Victoria. This young woman has one child, no job prospects and has been looking for an apartment for four months. She and her child are presently sharing facilities with another family. She's looked at well over 20 suites. Most landlords and building managers tell her: "No children."

Here's another woman in Victoria as well. She has three children and is divorced. Her husband is in Ontario. Let me just stop and parenthetically talk about this kind of situation. We have a program for first-home buyers. It's a good program. The dollars are inadequate today. It's one we agree with, but it needs to be expanded. Here is an increasing situation. A young couple buys a home and divorces. Each of the spouses sell the original home to divide up evenly the family equity. Neither of them has very much money out of it, and neither of them is eligible for the first-home grant. In this case of a young woman with her three children — not that she's in the market to purchase a home — it is in effect a first family home for her and her children. She's not eligible because she and her ex-husband had a home before.

In any event, I want to tell the story about this woman. She has three children, is divorced and her husband is in Ontario. She's on social assistance and budgeted for $400 a month rent. That's what Human Resources provides at the present time, which includes not just rent but heat, light and what not. She moved into her present location upon arrival in Victoria three and a half years ago. The rent at that time was $405. It increased to $420 and then to $455. She figured that was all right. She only had to use $55 out of her food money to pay for rent, and she was prepared to do that. Then she got a rent increase notice of $155. The figures aren't going to add up, because I've jumped around a little too much. But at this stage it brought her rent up to $575. With utilities and heat, etc., this woman with three kids now has a monthly housing cost of $650. Human Resources pays her $400 for her $650 charge. Two hundred and fifty dollars of the money that she should be feeding her kids with goes into housing.

I think it would be appropriate at this stage to move that the committee, rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. before we proceed any further. It is my duty to file with the House special report number 2 of the ombudsman of British Columbia, received at 1:30 p.m. today.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the year 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.