1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3705 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 109.

Mr. McClelland — 3705

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3706

Mr. McClelland — 3708

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3708

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3710

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3714

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3719

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3719

Mr. Wallace — 3721

The House met at 10 a.m.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 109: Minister's office, $116,576 — continued.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Yesterday at noon when we

adjourned the committee, I had been speaking about the problem

with juvenile delinquency and some of the thoughts that I have.

I think I left on the note that it doesn't do us much good to

have task forces or anything else if we don't pay any attention

to them and if we just shove their reports under the table.

They are just so much wasted effort in that case. I'm afraid

that in too many instances that is exactly what we have been

doing, particularly with regard to this problem of juvenile

delinquency.

It is heartening to me to see that many people in the

community now at the elected level, municipal people, school

board officials and also those people who are in the community

to serve as helpmates, such as the police and others, are now

recognizing that there is a problem and that the problem won't

be solved unless they do something about it as well. They are

starting now, particularly in the lower mainland area, to get

together, talk the problem over and make recommendations and

suggestions. I hope that the Minister will listen to some of

those suggestions when they come forward.

The last time we talked about this during the estimates, the

Minister over-reacted a little, I thought, and accused the

people who were talking about the juvenile delinquency policy

of being strident and hysterical and spiteful and spouting

venom. I hope that he has changed his mind now about these

statements, because I don't think anybody really wants to be

venomous or spiteful or anything else in regard to this

question.

We just hope that somehow, by all of us working together, we

might come up with some real solutions. I won't belabour this

point much more, but I do want to bring to the attention of the

House the remarks that were made in the fourth report of the

Berger commission dealing with youth and the law. I can't think

of anyone who has put the question more succinctly than has Mr.

Justice Berger in the compilation of this report.

I'll read a few paragraphs from the report, Mr. Chairman,

starting with page 67 where it says:

"We fully understand that a whole range of external factors

may have contributed to a young person lashing out against his

parents, his school, his community or society generally. Yet it

must be borne in mind that if you say to anyone that he is not

responsible for what he does, you are in a sense diminishing

him; you are stripping him of his dignity as a human being.

Children and young people must realize that freedom is

meaningless without responsibility, and the assertion of rights

is an exercise in pure selfishness without the acknowledgment

of responsibility."

Speaking about arguments regarding the way to deal with

juvenile problems the report goes on:

"The second argument that we have heard, which seems to us

entirely spurious, relates to the question whether we should

establish secure accommodation for children in violation of the

law. There are, of course, people who say that children should

not be locked up, but when they say that they can mean any one

of a number of things. They may be saying that they do not want

children sent to adult prisons. They may be saying they do not

want institutions such as the juvenile detention home in

Vancouver to survive. They may simply be expressing their own

rejection of the notion that children should be put away in

cells and forgotten.

"On the other hand, those who urge that children should be

held in custody, where that is necessary to protect the public,

do not appear to be urging that children should be sent to

adult prisons, nor do they appear to be urging that we retain

the institutions of the past for custody of juveniles."

I think that is important for everyone to remember, because

those people who are saying it, and there are a growing number

of them who are saying that in some instances there is a need

for secure accommodation for children in trouble, don't want

them sent to Oakalla or the B.C. Penitentiary. We don't want to

see children locked behind bars. We just want a structured

environment in which they can be kept as long as is necessary

to solve certain problems.

The report goes on to say:

"Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that these are a

limited number of juveniles who must be confined, in some cases

over the short term and in other cases over the long term, to

protect themselves and the public. We know there are some

juveniles whose alienation is so deep-seated, whose tendency to

violence is so marked, that we cannot rely upon ordinary

measures. It is these juveniles who have alarmed many

communities."

[ Page 3706 ]

Finally, the report says:

"Secure accommodation for a limited number of juveniles must

be established so as to enable them to be properly dealt with

and so as not to undermine the policy of returning juveniles to

their homes and their communities, a policy that we believe is

sound for the vast majority of juveniles."

We believe that as well, that the policy of returning young

people to their own communities is most sound. It is the only

way that solutions can ever be found. But there is that small

percentage that I must emphasize.

"It goes virtually without saying that we reject the notion

that children should be sent to prison. We likewise reject the

motion that we should seek in some fashion to resurrect the

institutions of the past. At the same time it is clear that we

must have some means of ensuring that juveniles can be held for

a number of purposes — for instance, remand assessment to

enable their parents to catch up with them, to simply enable

them to cool out.

"We do not think it is useful to mince words about our

conclusions in this regard. We mean that in some cases

constraints will be imposed upon the freedom of young persons.

We think this can be done in any number of ways that will not

be as stark or as brutal as confinement to jail or prison."

Mr. Chairman, that

section in the Berger report really

outlines exactly what many people in the community have been

saying over the past several months because of their alarm,

particularly in communities like Surrey which is having

probably the most serious problem in the province at the

present time.

I have other things I wish to talk about during the

Minister's estimates, but I'd like some comments about the

juvenile problem — where we're going in relation to his

department as it cooperates with the Attorney-General's

Department. Secondly, last night on television, Mr. Edgar Epp,

the Deputy Minister for corrections in the A-G's department,

who has just been given a three-month leave of absence, hinted....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Given! He was ordered to

go.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. Well, he at least hinted at one of the

problems may have been his insistence within the department

that he begin to implement some of the recommendations made

within the Berger report.

The Minister has obviously had consultation with the Attorney-General on this

whole corrections and juvenile problem. I wonder if the Minister could inform

the House whether that is correct, whether that is one of the reasons Mr. Epp

was forced to take a three-month leave of absence, because he was very specific

last night when he said that was one of his main objectives at this time and

that he seemed to be being frustrated in that objective.

One other question, and I know it's not in the Minister's

department, but perhaps he knows about it, it's rather serious.

Since the Attorney-General is not here, does the Minister know

what the future is of the Hunter Creek correctional camp which

has been operated by the John Howard Society? I understand that

the John Howard Society agreed to a one-month extension before

closing that camp down, and I know that the department was

trying to find someone else to operate the camp. The people,

some 12 of them, I think, who are at that camp through the

corrections department, are most concerned about their future.

I've had several calls from parents of people who were in the

camp. I realize it's not your department but, Mr. Chairman,

through you, I wonder if the Minister would comment.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman,

one of the objectives we had when we set up the Berger

commission to examine the family and children's laws was to

look at all of the services as well. I think that the

commission has done one of the most thorough-going jobs in

terms of the support committees involved in that. They've

looked into every aspect of services to children, particularly

in the area of the needs of juveniles who get in trouble with

the law.

We started to set up that commission in October of 1973. We

were aware that there was a problem. The Members should bear in

mind that the existing system we took over in 1972 was a system

in which there was no locked situations for juveniles. Whatever

locked situation there was at the Island Youth Centre had been

abandoned long before we became the government. That was a

worthwhile approach to dealing with the problem.

I've always said, and I continue to say, that the

introduction of the laws that were brought in in 1969, the

amendment to the Provincial Court Act enabling judges to make

dispositions in respect to juveniles through the

Superintendent of Child Welfare, was a worthwhile approach to a

problem which previously had been dealt with in a way that had

no success at all — children, and they were children, found

their way into adult jails. What was missing was the whole

business of services to these children. There existed nothing

in terms of any kind of holding unit.

We examined the situation when we came in. The question of

closing down the Willingdon girls school was something that has

been debated in this House for some time. We did that and at

the same time, said

[ Page 3707 ]

that we would be available to the communities with staff and

with money to develop the alternative kinds of systems. We have

done that, to a large extent, in terms of most communities

approaching us about the kind of services they need. As a

result of this we developed a special programme — special

services to children. We have an alternate school programme in

cooperation with the Department of Education, which is looking

after some 1,100 children in this province, all of whom have

had something to do with coming before the courts, or are

classified as children likely to come before the courts —

children at risk. So we've set up a range of community

services.

The great debate on the issue of holding juveniles started

some time last fall, as we started to get well into the whole

business of the hearing of the Berger commission.

We do not deny, and I have never denied, that there are some

children that have to be held. What was important to us was to

continue to impress and urge the communities that the large

majority of work with children simply had to be done in the

communities, where possible.

I don't know whether we can say 90 per cent or 95 per cent

as the numbers talked about as to how many children would need

to be locked up. And that's what it is — you have to lock them

up. But we have to bear in mind something else: we don't want

to try things that other people have tried and which have not

been successful. I draw your attention to the very great debate

that is going on in the Province of Ontario today in respect to

their holding units, their whole juvenile correction system

where they have some 1,600 children locked up, and the very

severe criticism that goes on about that.

In these discussions that have been taking place in the

public as a result of the Berger commission and other

discussions that have been initiated with municipal leaders, we

are looking for the way to go that will be successful. We can

look to the United States, probably the one country in many

states where they have spent literally hundreds of millions of

dollars trying to combat this problem in a way of holding units

and that kind of thing, and which has not worked. So we have

been very careful in looking at how we deal with it, but at the

same time we have developed a range of other services. There is

no question that we have to look at holding some young people;

that is being looked into and that will be acted upon.

The debate has been a very healthy one, both in the community and also in the

cabinet. We don't just go along with one idea; there has been some very specific

debates about this. I have to use my own background; I bring some 17 years of

experience in the corrections field to this, mostly in the adult area but bearing

in mind that all the people I worked with had gone through a juvenile system.

But we are looking to find a kind of appropriate system.

I think there is now a tremendous awareness among the public

about the problem, where previously there was not. It was

something that the public did not really want to deal with. The

furor has died down to some really rational discussion as to

what is going on. I think this is a climate in which we can

move forward and make some real strides in terms of dealing

with the broad question of the needs of children, as well as

answering the needs of the community in respect to some of the

people — not just juveniles, but also adults. They have to be

dealt with in some way that the community has some

security.

I am aware of some of the situations, particularly in the

Surrey area. I would point out to the members that the Surrey,

Delta and Richmond area was where we initiated the unified

family court and gave them a great number of support staff, not

only in terms of the staff that we seconded from the then

Department of Mental Health, the Probation Service and from the

Department of Human Resources, but also in terms of the support

programmes. There are the residential treatment centres that

exist out there, the group homes, and what the Brown camps are

doing and what Central City commission is doing. So there was

an enormous amount of effort, and it is still going into that

area.

I don't pretend to understand why it is that it is so

difficult there more so than anywhere else, except that we have

an enormous amount of movement into that area. Part of the

movement, I suppose, can be explained by the fact that people,

particularly with low incomes, are moving out of the Vancouver

area, searching for areas where they can rent at a reasonable

rate and that is where this can happen.

We have a number of situations in respect to high-rise

apartments where there are large grouping of families, and

where there were never any services built in. Those services

are now built in, and there is still more to be done in respect

to that.

We have been able to examine the thing, both through the

commission and through the public, and moves will be made to

meet the demands in terms of the very small number of children

that have to be looked after, but bearing in mind that that is

not the main point of concentration. The main point of

concentration still has to be those large number of children

who are at risk, and whom we are attempting to deal with.

I am afraid, Mr. Member, that I cannot comment on the

question of Mr. Epp. It is something that I think the

Attorney-General will have to comment on.

I think, in terms of trying to decide which way to go, there

have been discussions on such problems — those are problems,

which exist in all departments, as to who should do what to

whom, and with what. That has been an issue around children,

but we do

[ Page 3708 ]

have a human services committee of cabinet that meets very

regularly, and is made up of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Housing

(Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley), because all of these things have to be put together

to help us make some solutions.

I think, as I said it earlier, that the climate is now a lot

better for us to discuss and plan in a very rational way. I

think the work which has been done by the Berger commission is

the groundwork for this. I might add that in the terms of the

effective work of that commission in what they have done, not

only in respect to the juvenile question as we see it, those

youngsters in trouble with the law, but also the kinds of

things they have looked into in other areas with children, in

terms of the exceptional children, in terms of the needs of

families and in terms of the whole court process....

I do want to say this as well. This is something I think

people should remember when we are dealing with juveniles: we

do have to ask ourselves whether we are going to deal with

juveniles, young people, differently than we deal with adults.

There are the issues of whether the children have access to the

kinds of rights in courts that adults have. That is a big

question. Today in our society the whole question is certainly

being debated, for instance, about the bail laws in terms of

adult people. But we do have to bear in mind all the time that

what we must have at the heart of any decision we make are the

best interests of the children.

Frankly, it is a new and good phenomenon; it is in the best

interest of the community. It has always been one area that

they have generally not been able to deal with at the local

level. I accept fully that it is a monetary question. We have

said that the services to people, including children, will have

to come from general revenue rather than tax the local

taxpayer. We have now had the great debate; it is still going

on but I think we now have a rational debate. We will be moving

toward meeting the kinds of needs of all children as we have

been doing, particularly in terms of the small group that the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was talking about.

I want to say one other thing that is something we should not focus on too

much. I am personally not a great advocator of assessment. I know that children

have been assessed up, down and sideways. The thrust has to be what you are

going to do with them when you have assessed them. It is the prescription for

some kind of action that you have to look for. Assessments have been done on

hundreds and hundreds of children in my experience. When I was dealing with

adults and collecting information, the files were three or four inches thick

on the whole process of evaluation and assessment. The main thrust has to be

in terms of those resources that have to be developed, that are developed, and

are still going to have to be developed in terms of how we deal with children.

That's where we are going and that's what we've been doing.

The question that you raise, Mr. Member, is the important

one and the one that is on everyone's mind about the young

people in small groups that are going to have to be dealt with.

We intend to be making moves in that direction. That is

something that we have committed ourselves to do.

MR. McCLELLAND: Very briefly, comment on the Hunter Creek

thing, if you have any information on it.

I would just like to comment on one statement regarding

dealing with juveniles as adults. The Minister has been in his

post for some time and I would think that he must have come to

some conclusion in his own mind about that particular problem

and whether or not we shouldn't be treating juveniles in the

same manner as adults through the courts. I happen to believe

that we should. Maybe we would know how the department is going

to go if we knew how the Minister felt about that. There is

some serious concern in the community that the ultimate justice

is being denied because of the specific way we treat juveniles

in the court. There have been some statements made recently

about that. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how he

feels.

HON. MR. LEVI: I think, Mr. Member, that this was the great

discussion that went on in 1970 or 1971 when the Juvenile

Offenders Act came up in the House of Commons. You may recall

that that Act was not proceeded with. The impact of the

discussion was as to whether or not the previous

Solicitor-General said that all children must shoulder the same

kind of social responsibilities as adults. There was a great

discussion about that and I think that led to some extent to

the thing not proceeding. There were two very specific sides.

It was my opinion then, and I haven't changed it, that we are

dealing with children who are at risk, who are from families

where it has not been possible to build the kinds of social

responsibilities that the large majority of children have. If

you say that we should treat them exactly the same as adults I

think you have to look at who we are talking about.

If we are talking about children from split homes or the

kind of situation that Mr. Sawatsky, the man from Surrey,

talked about yesterday on TV when he sees the drinking

situation. He is in the field and he knows; he has been in the

field three years longer than I have. He talked about how

children model themselves after their parents and their peer

groups. That is very true. I think that one of the things that

has been missing from our debate over the whole

[ Page 3709 ]

question of dealing with children is where the

responsibility of the parents of these children is. I think

this is a very fundamental question that we have to tackle in

this.

I think that as long as we continue the kind of debate where

we don't have two sides — one saying that children must

shoulder that kind of responsibility....

MR. McCLELLAND: It doesn't have to be that black and

white.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it can't be black and white, particularly

in dealing with children at risk. In September or October — we

haven't set the date yet — we are going to have a discussion on

the family. This is something that we have been discussing with

church leaders and other people in terms of a broad discussion

in this province about the family and, particularly from my

point of view, on the survival of the family unit as the basic

unit in our society regardless of whatever is going on. Out of

this I hope will come a discussion of a lot of the questions

that Mr. Sawatsky raised last night about the whole drinking

question, the whole peer group thing and the responsibility not

only of the children but of the parents — very much of the

parents.

I have said many times that we do not want to be responsible

for other people's children. As a government we do not want to

get involved in that. We have some 9,000 children in care.

Fortunately we are moving in the area with the programmes so

that we have a significant reduction in the number of children

who are coming into our care. That to me augurs well for the

future. The significant number of children under the age of 8

coming into care is quite startling. It indicates to us some

success with the kind of programmes we are building. We know

that a lot of the children we get, we get a little too late,

but we have started the intervention on this.

So the debate on the responsibility of children is going to

go on. The bill will be coming before the House of Commons and

I think that that issue will come up again.

I think there is a difference between the kinds of

responsibility we can expect from our children who are in a

home situation where the standards of society and the mores are

interpreted to them through their everyday living, and those

children who do not have that opportunity because they do not

have the kind of parents who can instil that. The only kinds

of things to go on with those kinds of children are the

negative kind of things — the negative kind of things which

lead to the drinking, to the business of no responsibility.

What really concerns me, as I'm sure it concerns everybody else, is the kind

of vandalism that goes on. Now vandalism is not an isolated kind of problem

in this province. It's going on all over this continent. I don't know whether

it's as broad in Europe, but it's certainly going on all over this continent.

I constantly ask myself where the parents are in all this. After all, the parents

are the taxpayers; they're paying the bills for the windows and this kind of

thing.

Recently I was in Comox. I went there at the invitation of

the mayor, and met with the mayor, some of his colleagues, the

police and a group of children. Most of them I think were 15 or

16, and some were younger. The issue came up in the town of

Comox, where they've had vandalism. We examined what there is

in Comox in that particular situation for those children who

need that kind of special kind of attention. There wasn't

anything, in terms of what the children were talking about. It

was an interesting situation to sit at that meeting where the

mayor was talking about the cost of vandalism, and sitting at

the same meeting were some of the children who admitted that

they were part of that vandalism. There was a coming together

of: "What can we do about it?" Those people are coming down

next week to see me. The children have a proposal; the town

council has a proposal. I think we can put those two together.

That was one of the really healthy signs.

I want to say some other things. I don't really want to get

into a great debate about the City of Duncan, but two years ago

we went into the City of Duncan at the request of the people.

We put in a great number of programmes, but they were not

readily accepted. In fact there was a situation where I had to

attend a council meeting in which I'd been asked to withdraw

some of the programmes. I had to say to them: "You make the

decision; I'm not going to make the decision. You invited us

in; you invite us out. But don't ask me independently or

unilaterally to make the decision to pull out programmes which

were dealing with children." We had a drop-in centre, we had

the in-home programme for juveniles who couldn't make it in

their own homes but were going into other people's homes in the

community. There was a great debate up there about it. They

asked us and we went in and we produced some of the programmes,

and then I was asked to take them out. I said: "No, that's a

decision you must make." The decision was not made, so the

programmes did continue.

But I think that there has been now a great awareness. This

whole debate over the past year has been really worth it

because the public is alive not only just to the small groups

but to the total needs of children. And that's, I think, been

extremely worthwhile.

MR. McCLELLAND: Hunter Creek?

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Hunter Creek, as I

understand it, is something that is under

[ Page 3710 ]

consideration now by the Attorney-General's department. We

were involved in some original funding up to 1974. Some of the

people who were there initially were people who were being

released from prisons and were on the Solicitor-General's

payment I think at the time of $12 a day. There was, as I

understand it, some further funding. But as I am aware of it

today, that matter is under consideration by the

Attorney-General's department because it is clearly a

post-correctional kind of operation. I will undertake to get

myself more up to date and report back.

MR. McCLELLAND: Time's running out now.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I understand that.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Attorney-General's away.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll talk about it this afternoon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get the

Minister off his enthusiastic discussion of great issues down

to the nitty-gritty of dollars, but that's what we're meant to

be doing here. I think it's perhaps the Minister's great

enthusiasm for issues rather than dollars which led to things

like $102 million in oversight, over the estimates last year. I

think that if he could just today perhaps concentrate on

dollars we would be a little better off in terms of getting the

debate dealt with.

Last year the Minister, in his explanation given to the

Victoria Daily Colonist on Tuesday, September 24, 1974, explained that "the preparation of departmental estimates

still involves manual information processing, but he said a new

computer system that should provide more accuracy in budgetary

predictions will be ready, possibly by next April." Well, is

this magic computer that's going to save him from $100 million

of overrun working? We now are finding with other programmes

that computers are being blamed for the errors. The Minister

claimed last year that the computer would prevent errors. I'd

like to know whether or not that computer system that he talked

about to prevent $102 million of overrun is in fact

operational.

A second point which is very closely related to that is in

the Ubyssey of February 25, the headline being "NDP Says Talk,

Don't Spend Dollars." The first paragraph says:

"The New Democratic Party government will cut down on its

social service spending next year to promote better public relations, Human

Resources Minister Norm Levi said recently. In a speech here Friday Levi tacitly

admitted past hastiness in his department which led to mistakes and public alienation

from departmental policies. 'So,' Levi said, 'the government will not be expanding

our social service programmes next year but instead we'll be moving slower.'"

The

article goes on to say this move is part of a

"province-wide relations campaign to explain government

policies to the people."

Perhaps the Minister could give us some cost figures on that

programme of explaining government policy to the people and

indicate where the cutbacks that he talked about occurred.

While he's on the question of estimates and costs, I wonder

whether he would also look into and give me a reply to a

question I have already asked him about a letter sent out

April, 1975 — I received this on May 5, 1975 — to all people

who might receive Pharmacare. The letter goes out with a

picture of the Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of Human Resources,

looking very serious, and a picture of the Hon. David Barrett,

Premier of the province, looking very cheerful. It is addressed

to: "Dear Friends." The text goes: "In recent months, many of

you have expressed your concern to us over the future of

Pharmacare. These concerns are related to press reports of

increasing expenditures for the Department of Human

Resources."

Well, there have been press reports about the increasing

expenditures of the Department of Human Resources, but I'd like

to know how much this letter cost — this great letter telling

them that Uncle Dave and Uncle Norman are there with their best

interests at heart, they haven't forgotten the senior citizen,

they haven't forgotten Pharmacare. It appears to me straight

flackery which you're being conned into sending out, Mr.

Minister. I would like to know how much that sort of nonsense

costs. When you put money into programmes of that nature,

sending your picture to every senior citizen of the province

and the Premier's picture to every senior citizen in the

province, you're taking money away from your other programmes.

I don't think that it's the way you should be operating.

Perhaps that's part of that publicity campaign you talked about

at UBC. You might want to say a word or two about that and the

cost, because I have asked you about that before.

I don't think the people in this Legislature in the

opposition or government object to passing money for legitimate

needs of senior citizens or other people requiring aid under

the Department of Human Resources. But I feel that we should

take a very critical attitude to the straight puffery and

flackery from your department designed to promote the NDP.

While I'm on that subject — promoting the NDP with public

money — perhaps you would like to indicate, Mr. Minister,

whether a speech sent out by you.... It's headed up:

"Department of Human Resources Report on Services to Children:

A Statement by the Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of

[ Page 3711 ]

Human Resources, April, 1975" — which no doubt the Minister

remembers. It's a very political document, talking about the

succession of NDP Members, listing them all, arguing the case

for children and families. It goes on to say: "There has to be

a commitment from the government. During the 20 years of the

Social Credit government there was no commitment to such a

philosophy and no commitment to the needs of people in

distress." It ends up again on another political note, if I can

find it here at the end of the speech somewhere. The last line:

"The NDP is committing itself to changing this, and we have

done so."

How much of this was paid for by party funds and how much by

government funds?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am referring to the "Department of

Human Resources Report on Services to Children: A Statement by

the Hon. Norman Levi, Minister, April, 1975." This speech

contains some information about children, no doubt. I'll refer

to it again in the future.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it does. But I wonder whether you

managed to share the cost, part of the political flackery and

puffery being paid for from something other than departmental

funds. You might comment on that. I don't think you should be

sending out information of this nature like that picture

letter, which really does take money from programmes

advertising the party. It's shameful.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Fifty-fifty with the

feds.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Fifty-fifty? You mean they pay for your

sending this out? Listen to that!

While we're on that subject...that's an interesting one.

The Minister boasts that the feds are paying 50 per cent of the

cost of NDP propaganda — the federal government — which is

interesting. I'd like to know something about the annual report

of the Department of Human Resources — "Services for People" —

which similarly gives curious impressions about expenditures of

the department.

For example, on page 9, "Highlights for '74," it says that Mincome benefits

for the elderly and handicapped persons increased quarterly in 1974 from $213.85

a month at the beginning of year to $234.13 at the end. Are those all Mincome

benefits? How much of that total happens to be the old age pension. How much

happens to be guaranteed income supplement? It's a very misleading figure to

put that down as though it all comes from our generous Minister of Human Resources.

Again, similarly, on page R-12, the Minister's department

talks about Mincome and says: "The federal government shares

only up to $200 per person, per month on Mincome." Not on your

sweet life! You know full well, Mr. Minister, that that is a

totally false statement because it really refers to the chunk

that's OAP and the chunk that's GIS. The idea that they only

share in that $200 for Mincome just isn't right.

I'd also like to know — and you're bragging about increasing

Mincome, which you do throughout this document, now that you've

raised the question of the fed's expenditure — whether or not

you're simply increasing the upper level of Mincome to take

care of the fact that the federal GIS and OAP contributions are

going up, or whether you are actually increasing the Mincome

benefits, and by how much, because that again isn't indicated

in this particular area.

One quick further question. I wish you hadn't raised this,

as it's going to take a little longer than I otherwise would

have spent on your estimate. On page R-62 you talk about

"federal-provincial relations" and you say: "Our major

difficulty with the federal government has been a slow response

to meeting people's needs through unemployment insurance

benefits." Well, surely UIC is an insurance scheme. I think

that to suggest it's the same as a welfare scheme is wrong.

A final point I'd like to ask you about on this particular

report, just at the moment, is page R-102, where you state:

"Persons aged 65 and over in receipt of the old-age security

and the guaranteed income supplement will receive Mincome

automatically, if eligible." Now that gives an impression that

Mincome comes out automatically, if they don't have other

sources of income. But, Mr. Minister, I have here a letter

that's come out — another of these "Dear friend" letters that

you signed — this time without your picture. Your "Dear friend"

letter came out and it says:

"It is our understanding you are now in an extended-care

facility. As you know, the cost of providing this care is borne

by the provincial government, with a charge of only $1 per day

to you. In the interest of being fair to all senior citizens in

British Columbia I must inform you that the government cannot

continue your Mincome benefits since the government is already

paying your care through direct payment of your hospital

costs.

"The Mincome programme was introduced to ensure that all

senior citizens would be provided with an adequate income to

meet their daily living needs. Since the government pays for

your basic needs in the extended-care programme, it is felt

that your need for Mincome benefits is not as critical as for

those

[ Page 3712 ]

senior citizens who must meet monthly costs of food and

rent."

Well, that's fine, Mr. Minister, if you assume that all

people who go into these units never come out again. Do you

assume that as soon as they go into one of these extended-care

hospitals, that's it? They give up their apartment, they give

up their house, but many of the people like to think that

they'll be going back to their home. They want to keep up the

rental payments or the mortgage payments, and your denying them

Mincome, despite the flat, bald statements in your annual

report, is causing a great deal of concern to individuals.

HON. MR. LEVI: What is the last paragraph of the letter I

wrote?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The last paragraph?

"If you have any questions about the policy please write to

Mincome. Box 2500, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3A1.

"Yours sincerely, Norman Levi, Minister."

HON. MR. LEVI: Okay.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay? Second last paragraph — do you want

that?

"The enclosed cheque for May, 1975, is therefore the final

Mincome payment you will receive as long as you are in an

extended-care programme.

"Be assured, should you no longer require extended care your

Mincome benefits will be reinstituted."

HON. MR. LEVI: That's right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON ; Well, Mr. Minister, that's contradictory to what

you're doing up above. If they're on Mincome they're short on money. Okay? You

and I agree there. Now if they're on Mincome and they're trying to keep up their

apartment and meet the rental payment, they're obviously going to be in difficulty

if you cut it off — quite apart from the fact it's contradictory to your bland

annual report statement regarding Mincome.

I trust you'll answer that and indicate to me that a major oversight has been

made and these "Dear friend" letters will be terminated and that people who

will be in extended care, if they have rental payments to meet, will be permitted

to continue to get Mincome to cover that type of thing, because they may well

have expenditures which do not go down if they go into extended care. The Minister

should understand that. The only area where their expenditure will go down will

be food. Other things may remain the same. Some, indeed, may increase. Some

question of maintenance such as, for example, mowing the lawn, things of that

nature — who knows — may increase. Therefore I trust you will be telling me

that this contradictory policy is being terminated.

Mr. Minister, the next point I'd like to make refers to the

Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act. It's an

order-in-council approved May 8, 1975, and it states:

"Upon the recommendation of the undersigned the Lieutenant-Governor,

by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, ordering that British

Columbia Regulation 259-75 approved March 25, 1975, being the social assistance

regulations, be the regulations for the Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance

Act effective June 1" — beginning of this month — "1975."

Naturally, once I received that, I checked the regulations.

The regulations give a means test, and I wonder whether this

means test which exists for social assistance is being applied

to Mincome recipients.

Let me read "Eligibility assets" from page 354 of The

British Columbia Gazette ,

Part 2, April 15, 1975, 5(l)(f):

"A person, 60 years of age or older without dependents has assets exceeding $1,500 in value, or a person

60 years of age or older with dependents, has assets valued in

excess of $2,500 where there is one dependent, and in excess an

additional $300 for each additional dependent."

There is no eligibility for social assistance under those

situations, according to 5(1). Now is this being applied to

Mincome? I'd like to know if these regulations are, in fact,

being applied and people with assets more than $2,500 could be

struck off.

I would refer you to 5(2)(b), which appears to be

contradictory, and I would just ask you whether this applies to

Mincome people, because on page 356 of The British Columbia

Gazette ,

Part 2, April 15, 1975, you find the following

sentence:

"Continuing eligibility. Social assistance benefits

shall not be paid for a person admitted to an acute-care hospital, to a

hospital for the mentally ill, to a prison and, unless authorized by

the director, for a person admitted to an extended-care hospital or

similar institution."

Now is that the regulation that now cuts into Mincome?

Indeed, will all Mincome be cut off as a result of this

regulation 6(3) on page 356? There is a responsibility for

employable recipients to gain employment, and I wonder whether

that could be applied to Mincome? I presume not.

On that point, could I ask the Minister what is the result

or what has been the result of his efforts to get employable

unemployed working? How successful has he been in getting the

people who are on social assistance, who could work, into the

work force? He's

[ Page 3713 ]

issued instructions to municipalities — three of them is the

last count I have and I am sure there are more of them now —

indicating that the unemployed employable should be cut off if

he refuses to go out and get work. I would like to know whether

the Minister is promoting this programme, whether it is being

successful, whether there have been large numbers of people cut

off. That's regulation 9(

l) and (2), and I trust that the

Minister will indicate what there is on there.

Mr. Chairman, just to add a few other questions which I've

had over the last months for the Minister and not received

answers to, I wonder whether he would inform me about the

situation of the disability rights association. The Minister

told me in the House that indeed they were considering funding

it, and they were continuing to fund it until such time as they

made up their minds, but the people who run the disability

rights association have received a letter from a member of the

Minister's department indicating that there is a terminal date

at which point there will be no further funds coming.

Naturally they are in a quandary, because when I phoned them

with the good news that old uncle Norman was friendly and was

helpful and was going to look at this thing again, they came

back rather gloomily and said: "Well, that's fine, but what

about the people within his department who don't seem to know

what his attitude is and are writing us letters saying, tough

lines, after such-and-such a date not a dollar more?" I believe

the date was July 25, after which they don't get any more, but

that's a guess on my part. I don't have the exact figure in

front of me.

I'd like to know from the Minister another question with

reference to the overrun. The mayor of a number of communities — Coquitlam, Burnaby, and Victoria — stated that they were

somewhat unhappy about the assessment of the extra money due to

the overrun, and I wonder whether there has been any difficulty

in collecting the municipal portion of the Minister's overrun,

because a number of mayors said flatly they weren't going to

pay — not Mayor Pollen.

"'It seems inconceivable that municipalities should have

to pay the province's maladministration,' Victoria Mayor Peter Pollen said in

a telephone interview from Vernon. Pollen said: 'If Victoria is forced to pay

its share, which could amount to half a million dollars, it will put the local

taxpayers in an untenable position.'"

I wonder whether the Minister had any difficulty with

municipalities, or whether he did work out some repayment

schedule which was acceptable to the mayors.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another question of the Minister which I

have asked before regarding handicapped transit. The groups which run the handicapped

transit in the Province of British Columbia — in particular, of course, the

Easter Seals Association — do an absolutely first-class job with, I believe,

only 14 to 17 per cent, somewhere in there, provincial money. They get contributions

from the public — and let's congratulate the public for its generosity in helping

and I think they should continue to do so — but the bulk of the cost is borne

by the user of the services.

I've argued with the Minister on this point before, and I

know the Minister is sympathetic, but bureaucracy seems to

defeat this Minister and he hasn't got it through the

bureaucracy to help out a little more in this area of the

transport of the handicapped. If we are ever to set up a decent

system of transportation in British Columbia, which the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and I were

discussing yesterday, why don't we start with the handicapped?

If they can have a dial-a-bus system, if they can have

radio-dispatched vehicles which can pick them up, if they can

get a reasonable transportation system worked out, I bet you we

could apply a lot of lessons learned there to the transport of

people who are more able to get around themselves.

So I trust the Minister can, at this stage, give us a

favourable reply to my request of weeks ago concerning the need

of the Easter Seal organization for more provincial money. They

are trying to pay their bus drivers reasonable rates. They have

so many people involved who have to be picked up that they have

to have full-time professionals driving buses. I think they

should, too. Why should they not get the same quality of

service as the rest of us? This, of course, costs money. You

can't expect bus drivers or any other full-time working person

in this area to consistently, year after year, accept

substantially lower income as a result of the fact that they

service people who are in the position of being handicapped.

Surely at this stage the Minister can give us good news about

what is going to happen there.

The question of Indian lands is on my list of notes. British

Columbia is meeting with the Indian groups on the 24th of this

month. That is not far off and all I can say is, thank God it

is happening. For three years now with this government we have

waited for negotiations on Indian land claims and on the

separate question of the cut-off lands, and lands taken from

the reserves, by the McKenna-McBride commission away back in

the early years prior to the First World War. There are 36,000

acres involved there and it is time that a settlement was

reached on that specific area as a pledge of good faith.

I know that the overall land-claim issue is going to take

many years of negotiations, commissions, exhaustive economic

studies and that sort of thing, but the cut-off land question

is simply by comparison. It is well within the province's

jurisdiction to get that thing going.

Perhaps some money might come from the federal

[ Page 3714 ]

government later on — fine. The original commission was set

up by both governments. But the original commission was set up

with a former Premier of the province involved, and the primary

responsibility, as the Minister knows, is provincial because

that land went to the provincial authorities. Part of the land

taken, of course, is the land over there near Victoria on the

harbour from the Songhees, who were moved out past

Esquimalt.

The Minister knows this goes back many years — 50 years — but

that is really not very long. He knows there is an area of

injustice here and he knows there is an area of very acute

concern. I can think of few things that would better

demonstrate this Minister's desire to be a progressive,

forward-looking, energetic Minister dealing with some real

problems than to get him and his cabinet colleagues going on

the issue of the cut-off lands. There is an injustice that is

constantly allowed to remain and fester until some extremists

take over the issue and make it a major issue. It is an

injustice that I think the provincial government is handling

very badly.

Three years have gone by and nothing has happened. It is

time that that matter was settled or at least put into a

negotiating system and process which will lead to settlement.

That is quite possible. I trust the Minister will get up,

assure me that he has been negligent and slack in the past, as

he has been, and then get going and make sure that this is

properly taken care of.

Another question, of course, is the Ed Epp three-month

period of enforced idleness. It is funny with this government —

they used to give people enormous settlements when they were

fired. But now they simply keep them on staff and have them do

nothing. He indicated in this morning's paper that one of the

major areas of concern to him, although he couldn't understand

how it could possibly be a reason for him having three months

off, is the forest camp and the alternate programmes to

straight prison that he is trying to work up and improve but

which take money.

The Minister can pass the buck to the absent

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). Where is the

Attorney-General? In Sweden? Britain?

AN HON. MEMBER: London.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He is in London. The Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) is in Sweden. The Premier is in New York. Heavens, what a government!

They have so many Ministers that they find things probably work better if they

send them all out of the country. Anyway, he is not here to answer any questions.

It is fine for the Minister to try and sidestep, but the fact is that his department

is involved. If we don't have facilities and if, indeed, there are constraints

in Treasury Board, we would like to know about them here during estimates. That

is affecting the handling of children, which this Minister spoke so glowingly

about in such grandiose terms only a short time ago. Let me not fault him for

speaking in that way.

Let me say that I appreciate the fact that this Minister

does have human concerns very much at heart. I believe him to

be a humane Minister who is trying to work out a humane system.

But in terms of ideas and eloquence and in terms of what

happens at the receiving end, which in the case of correctional

institutes means the alternatives to the foster homes, group

homes, reception centres, receiving homes, therapeutic foster

homes, and the alternate school programmes or the residential

treatment centres, there still is an area of gap which the

Minister admits and which Mr. Epp talked about this morning

-namely, a lack of money to make sure we fill that gap with

some sort of detention institution needed for juveniles. I

trust the Minister will not sidestep this question once

again.

The Minister talked of these institutions for children I

just listed in that speech that I referred to. He mentioned

that the number of children are fewer in those institutions. I

congratulate him for this. But he did not indicate the problem

areas. I would like to know precisely whether he is in charge

of the problem areas or whether the Attorney-General is in

charge. The public impression has been that this Minister

wishes to continue without remanding correctional centres and

to continue with the system of foster homes and whatever, while

the Attorney-General would like to see some sort of specialized

institution to take care of children he feels need to be locked

up.

It's a philosophical difference between the two Ministers,

but it appears up to now that the Attorney-General is getting

the better of the argument — probably rightly, as the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) applauds when I

say that the Attorney-General is getting the better of the

argument. The trouble with the Attorney-General is that it

takes a long time for anything to happen in his department;

this Minister happens to be a little quicker off the mark. I'd

like to know whether, indeed, it's back in his court at this

stage and whether we're going to get anything done. That surely

is the test of the fine words and the great speeches, whether

anything results in terms of concrete action.

Mr. Chairman, those are one or two questions I have on my

list. There are one or two more which I may have later in the

debate, but perhaps the Minister could answer those.

HON. MR. LEVI: I guess I'd better answer some of the

questions. The first thing you...I'm trying to find out where

to start. I think it was Pharmacare.

[ Page 3715 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The first thing was PR and the computer

services.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the Pharmacare thing, the total cost of

the Pharmacare letter was $15,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh!

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh! In a programme of $20 million to spend

$15,000 doing that.... I have been answering about 50 letters

a week — I think last week I certainly signed more than 50

letters — to people who have been writing in about the

Pharmacare programme. Even before we sent the letter out we

were getting letters from people saying: "Are the Mincome and

Pharmacare going to be reduced?" You'll recall that a former

Member of your group stood up in this House and said that what

we should do with the budget of Human Resources is cut off $93

million, but he didn't tell us what $93 million he was going to

cut off.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I agree. I'm not loading you with the

responsibility of that remark.

But the thing is that people were legitimately anxious about

it because of the overrun situation. We get a large amount of

correspondence. It was my intention to bring down a couple of

the files to give you an indication of what kind of letters we

are getting from people. I think that in terms of a programme

like that where we did the initial PR well over a year ago when

we introduced the programme, and we have done no other PR, and

when we get.... I got a lot of letters and the Premier got

even more letters about the anxiety of this. We spent $15,000,

put it in with the cheques and informed people about it, I

think that's a perfectly legitimate way of keeping some 231,000

people informed of what's going on with the programme.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What is common in

the misunderstandings?

HON. MR. LEVI: The misunderstandings emanated from the discussions around

the overrun and around the increasing costs around the Pharmacare programme.

Was it, in fact, going to continue? We had the same reaction from people in

terms of the Mincome programme. Senior citizens do write. We get almost 3,000

letters a month in my office, a significant number from senior citizens about

the different programmes they're involved with. We get a large number of letters

from people always after April 1 because of the adjustments in the GIS. That

adjusts their Mincome cheque and a great deal of explanations have to be made.

We are making approximately 8,000 changes a month to the Mincome situation because

of people's circumstances changing: they are moving.... There is a great amount

of work going on in the total Mincome programme at the moment.

So we felt, and I stand on it, that it was a perfectly

legitimate expenditure of money to keep people informed. In a

programme of $20 million, to have that kind of an expenditure

is certainly not out of line.

The question of the accounting in the department as of April

1, we are on a financial programme which gives me in a matter

of between 30 and 35 days the previous month's expenditures and

action that is going on. On September 1 we will have for the

first time a quick response to what we are doing in terms of

social assistance. We will have gone from the manual to having

something within 30 days.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How soon would you have picked up the

$100 million overrun if you had had that system a year ago?

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, we would not have been into

that kind of situation had we had the information, as I

explained last year. We were dealing with information that was

almost four months old. That has always been one of the

problems. We have out there 102 offices that we are delivering

services from and we have been using forms where you have 102

different people filling them out, and we have never been able

to get that degree of accuracy.

By September 1 we will have an opportunity to see exactly

what is happening in the SA system. But on the other financial

systems I am satisfied. It was delivered to my office the other

day and brought me up to date on what the situation is in terms

of April and May. That was not possible last year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you on target?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, we're on the target. I hope to be able

to give a more specific figure on the overrun. The overrun

amounts at the moment — and there are indications that it could

be less — to about $95 million, not $103 million. We had to go

to that system because we also have — and I think I said that

in the previous estimates — our own departmental comptroller

situation, which was needed. It is a large department which is

making a great number of payments, so that was important as

well.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When was he hired?

HON. MR. LEVI: May 28, he started.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, he's hardly been there any time at

all.

[ Page 3716 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, no. He was there before. He's been part

of the department. The thing had to go to competition, but we

brought him in way back to do this year's estimates. He was in

the department and we assigned him to just devote himself to

the estimates for where we are now. He started in September and

he was completely responsible for the putting together of the

estimates for this fiscal year, and then the thing was put to

competition.

So I personally feel a lot more comfortable in terms of

where we are in terms of expenditures. It simply was not

possible before.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair]

You should also know, and certainly the Members who were in the House before

this parliament do, that there have always been overruns in the department.

I have never accepted that they should always be there, other than if you have

statutory programmes, certainly given the economic conditions, you can have

a difference in your estimates. But it is possible, based on the kind of history

that we have in terms of the department, to make reasonable assessments. We've

taken the trouble to do this. We can understand the behaviour in terms of the

economic situation, the unemployment situation, the movement of people, and

we should be able to make much better predictions. I think that, as I said last

time I spoke, we will probably be closer that we've ever been in this kind of

situation. I would expect the overrun from last year will come in at about 32

to 33 per cent, which is still below that monumental overrun that the previous

government had back in 1971.

We've had to do a great deal in terms of the whole financial

accountability business and the business of budgetary control.

We've had to do that, and we've done it: we've put it into

operation.

On the municipalities, we notified the municipalities at the

time of the overrun that it would be $1.10. You'll recall the

furor that took place at the convention over whether they were

going to have to come up with $12 million. That is not the

case. They have not had to come up with $12 million. It's

around $5 million. We'll be in a better position, once we have

completed the accounting for this year, to know the exact

figures. But it was certainly significantly below what they

had. They have been advised that for this fiscal year they

should budget for $1.30. A reference point for us, for the

interest of the Member, is 1970/71, which is a similar kind of

unemployment situation and economic situation. You can see

there what kind of welfare figures they had then, and they are

in the book.

We are still collecting the money from the municipalities. We probably will

be talking to two or three of them about slow payments, but I have full confidence

that all of it will be paid. The thing has settled down. I know that back in

August it looked like nobody was going to pay anything but that's not been the

case. Except for two or three municipalities that we'll be discussing the matter

with, I think we can expect that everything will be concluded within next few

weeks.

You talked about the Mincome programme in respect to the

extended-care people. I should point out that when we brought

in the Mincome programme one of the things that we did not want

to do was in any way make it appear to senior citizens that

somehow we were going through a means-test programme or that we

were looking to exclude people from the programme where there

would be a great fear about the means-test situation. So what

we did was to proceed, and there was a lot of PR done about it,

simply so that people should see this as a supplement to the

old-age pension and GIS, and we successfully sold that

programme. In the beginning it was difficult. We successfully

sold it.

Then we've been looking at the whole question of Mincome in

respect to people in extended care. Now in extended care people

receive the OAS, the GIS and if eligible, the Mincome. Their

only cost in that situation is $1 a day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, no. They've got their ordinary

costs.

HON. MR. LEVI: What "ordinary costs" do people have in

extended care when everything is taken care of?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Rental of apartments, their own homes

that they may want to keep up.

HON. MR. LEVI: This kind of situation, Mr. Member, is very,

very rare. I've only had one example of this. As a matter of

fact, when we debated this thing last year, you may recall that

many members of the public were saying that we should not be

doing this.

For instance, I recall some people responsible for trust

funds to people saying that it seems a little ludicrous to keep

banking some $213 a month for people, minus the $30 for the

dollar a day of tax money. I have discussed it with seniors,

and seniors have discussed it with me, and we have now moved to

take this route. It's not a question of that; it is a question

of applying those resources to some other area — that is all. I

think it is a question of that. I know of only one case where I

have had one letter where people might fit into the situation

that you're talking about, but otherwise people are banking

that money. We look upon the Mincome as a supplement situation

for people who need to have more in terms of the day-to-day

living. This is simply not

[ Page 3717 ]

appropriate for people in extended care, simply because all

of their needs are taken care of there. I think that that is a

fair judgment on what goes on and we can apply these resources

in some other area.

You talked about the Mincome programme in terms of the

federal government. Senior citizens fully understand that they

get OAS, they get GIS and then they get Mincome on top, and the

Mincome payment 65-and-over comes directly now from the

provincial government. The $30-odd is not in any way shared by

the federal government; they won't share past $205. In terms of

the other programme, the 60-to-64, they are sharing up to $160,

and the rest is being borne by the province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What are the figures now?

HON. MR. LEVI: The figures now are OAS at $122; GIS comes to

$205 and ours is $239.80. On July 1 we will pass on again so

that we will go up to about $242.

You made reference to the question about the employables. I

will try and deal with the regulations; I wasn't clear on some

of the regulations that you pointed out. On Mincome, first of

all, Mincome people are not classed as employable people, so

there is no question that they have to look for work. That is

not an issue there.

On the employability of people in the social assistance

system we restated the programme in respect to people having to

seek work. All of the offices are aware that if someone refuses

to work they will be taken off welfare, and that has happened.

In April when I spoke on the estimates, I pointed out to you

our experience in the Vancouver area, where we instituted the

job finding in cooperation with Canada Manpower. At that time

I used figures where we had seen between October 1 and March

31, some 9,500 people that came into the offices who were

classified as employable. They were all referred to the rehab

and the job counsellors. I remarked at that time that about

5,500 actually reported for those interviews. The other just

over 4,000 did not show up, were not on welfare, did not

receive any benefits but just left. Of the 5,500, 1,000 were

placed in employment.

We worked with Manpower. Manpower have two of those people

now in the main office down in the downtown area. They do

interview them, they do the referrals and the follow-ups, and

we have the job statements, the print-outs, they share with us,

but it must be borne in mind that these are jobs that are not

necessarily of any long duration at all. People must take these

jobs. If they are acceptable to the employer, if they pay

$2.50 an hour and if working conditions are satisfactory, they

must accept it; if they refuse they are cut off. This is being

applied very much in Victoria.

We again are now interviewing families — not singles, but

families — at the request of some companies who are looking to

place people in the north for permanent employment. We did that

before. As you recall, I mentioned that we were moving people

from one province to the other and we had some trouble with

that. We worked some of the differences out and that did not

continue at the level it did because the demands in the other

provinces fell off.

So we have created, I think, an understanding out there.

Certainly in talking to Ministers when I'm back east I find the

word is out back there that you can't just come out here and

expect that you are going to get on welfare.

The other thing to point out is that in 1974 the average

payment paid to a single person on welfare, where they are

entitled up to $160, was $124 (that is the average monthly

payment) which certainly indicates to us that there were a

number of people who were coming on and going off after a month

or a maximum of two because it has been consistent over the

years that that caseload turns over in any case — single

caseload particularly — at 50 per cent a month. That is one of

the problems with the system in administrative terms. There is

a tremendous amount of interviewing going on. People come in

and they have to be assessed; they are on one month or two and

they go off.

In Vancouver they have been doing a total caseload review.

They've been calling in 160 people a week to look at their

circumstances. Because of the mail situation they've been doing

direct issue where people are picking up their cheques every

month at one of the churches on 12th and Hemlock. They have to

produce I.D., they have to say where they live, what their

circumstances are and what efforts are being made.

In reference to unemployment insurance, which the Member

raised, we were having problems. We have discussed it with the

UIC, and these things are being worked out. But UIC payments

were taking up to six or seven weeks, and because people are in

need they were coming to the office. That situation has worked

out a little bit but it's still, I think, taking three to four

weeks to get a UIC cheque, which means that if people are out

of money then they come along to the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: UIC gets refunds — at least, UIC refunds

welfare.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the thing is on the refund situation,

it's so complex and so costly that we have not been using that

process because we went through it three years ago. The

previous government tried it and it was too expensive.

But one of the things we have done, and which I

[ Page 3718 ]

think I should mention, is that we have worked out with the

unemployment insurance a joint programme where we match our

tapes, and we have been doing this since last November. We take

all of the employable people who are on welfare and we match

them with the people who are on UIC. If the people have applied

for benefits under UIC but haven't received them and are

receiving welfare, we then have an arrangement which works very

well; they give us the tapes three days before our cheques go

out, and on those tapes we know whether those people have been

put into pay, so we don't have double payments. We kick out

about 200 to 300 cheques a week.

Now once we can get the system operating, again, in terms of

the computer, in the rest of the province then it'll work out

very well. We've had good cooperation from UIC; it's worked

out very, very well. We've had good cooperation from Canada

Manpower. We are working, as you know, very closely with them

on the two community employment projects in Nanaimo and

Kamloops. That's a programme that myself, the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and the federal Minister are involved

in.

The disability rights situation. I've just got a message

that the July payment will be made. I see that the grant

terminates on July 31st. I will look into that. It was my

understanding when I met with them.... I told them that we

would not take any action until we heard from the Department of

Labour on their recommendations, because I gave them a great

deal of material, so I will undertake to look into it. My

understanding, in my discussion with them some weeks ago, was

that we will continue to keep you in pay until I get the

recommendations from the Department of Labour.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So that line then is kaput.

HON. MR.LEVI: Yes. I have had somebody check it just now,

but we will be discussing with them. I did point out to them

that it was not just a question that I wanted to make, but I

also wanted to involve my colleague because it did involve the

Workers' Compensation Board.

On the question of transportation, we were approached last year by the B.C.

Lion's Crippled Children's Association, which is doing the transportation, in

respect to picking up a deficit on one part of the programme only which was

the I.D. programme — the individual programme. And we did pick up the deficit

of some $30,000. As a matter of fact, it worked out about 50 per cent of the

deficit on that programme. We now have under consideration a much larger request

which they have made, and on which we will be making a decision within the next

few days.

As I said in the House once before, we also want to talk....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is that just for that specific programme,

or is it now a little wider?

HON. MR. LEVI: It covers more than that. Yes, it's a broader

one.

What I would like to do — and I've discussed this with

people who are operating transportation projects in the

province — is refund through the department a little over

$600,000 to 18 groups that are operating transportation systems

which are for the seniors and for the handicapped.

Within that funding are some moneys which relate to mostly

the rental of vehicles and equipment. We have broached the B.C.

Lion's people on this and we'll be meeting with them. I think

that they operate an excellent system. They have a collection

system, a ticket system — and I'm hoping that we can work out

some arrangement where they might be in a position to take over

the bulk of the operating of this kind of operation.

They, of course, raise money — capital funds primarily to

purchase vehicles — so we will be having discussions with them

about whether we can work out a much more rational system. If

we can, then this will auger well for the user because we can

see that there will be a reduction in the fare.

On the general question of the handicapped transportation,

in terms of my colleague, we have discussed it and it relates

to the acquisition of the vehicles and the special kinds of

equipment that go with these vehicles. I've had an opportunity

to see what they do in Seattle.

Our problem, I think, partly relates to.... In the

Vancouver area there is some service. It's more difficult in

areas like Delta and Surrey. The dial-a-bus system, while a

very good idea, I'm given to understand that it's a very

expensive system. They have not found the most appropriate

vehicle. One of the things that I once raised was the smaller

kind of vehicle — the airporter-type bus, the small one. They

apparently have a very short life, those kinds of operations.

We are hopefully working out some better arrangements with the

B.C. Lion's people — better from our point of view.

Again, you've asked me to comment on the question of Mr.

Epp, and I am going to side-step it. It's not something that

I'm involved with and I think you will have to wait until the

Attorney-General gets back. I cannot comment on that.

There's a reference that the Member made in respect to fewer

children coming into care. I'd like to point out that there are

not fewer children coming into the residential treatment and

group home centres. They are always full. We are getting less

children into care in the foster home situation who

[ Page 3719 ]

are under the age of eight. It is not a reduction in the

number of children in the residential treatment centres. It is

really a reduction in the number of children who are in the

foster home situation.

I think I have answered all of the questions outside of the

land claims one. Is there something I have left out?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like the Minister to also comment

on the inapplicability of having social assistance regulations

for Mincome. Mincome is not a social assistance scheme. It is

not a welfare scheme. We keep telling them it is a matter of

right, it is a matter of right, and they apply and are out of

luck if they are in an extended-care unit.

For example, this question I mentioned of the assets,

5(l)(f), eligibility of assets, British Columbia Gazette

regulations governing now Mincome: there is no eligibility for

social assistance, which now means Mincome, when a person 60

years of age or older without dependents has assets exceeding

$1,500. The Minister and I know well that there is a problem

here. Somebody can be wealthy and still be on Mincome — that is,

wealthy in terms of assets, not income. The government has

constantly repeated that Mincome is not a means test

matter.

I would like the Minister to comment on that, certainly

comment on the Indian lands claims, and certainly say a word or

two, not about Mr. Epp, heavens no, but just the issue raised

by Mr. Epp as it affects this Minister's department — namely,

incarcerating or locking up kids. All of the various things

that he described didn't get down to those hard-core delinquent

kids who need some sort of incarceration for their own

good.

I do appreciate the explanation about the $15,000 and that

letter. It appears that we had to spend even more money to tell

people about the deficit which was so enormous.

Perhaps the Minister could then comment on the incarceration

of children, on when we are going to get regulations government

Mincome, and whether he would also indicate the success or

otherwise of his B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission.

HON. MR. LEVI: We are at a loss over here to actually pick

up on what it is you are saying on the Mincome situation. The

Mincome situation is that someone over the age of 60 who does

not have an income over $239.80 can make an application. We did

institute looking at the imputing of assets. We look at

people's asset situation but there is no asset level in terms

of that. We are looking at that. The staff have made a note of

it and I will certainly reply to you this afternoon if I am on.

I am not aware that we have in any way changed that

situation.

With respect to it being in the social assistance regulations, we are making

the payments out of the social assistance vote. I think we went into that well

over two and a half years ago. I am not aware that we have made any change,

but I certainly....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister changed this on June 1 by

order-in-council. That is probably why he is not aware of it.

The fact is that now, according to the regulations governing

Mincome, if you are without dependents and you have assets

exceeding $1,500, you don't get it. That is what the regulation

says. You haven't realized the tremendously different system of

regulations between the social assistance regulations and those

that should govern Mincome.

I am pointing out to you that this order-in-council, dated

May 8, 1975, which becomes effective June 1, is inapplicable.

It is time you changed it. You are now in a situation where

Mincome is no longer a right. There is an assets or means test.

Really, Mr. Minister, just change it. Clearly, you don't know

what is going to happen this month if these regulations are

enforced by nit-picking bureaucrats who follow the letter of

the regulations as they are required to do by law.

HON. MR. LEVI: I can't accept the Member's

interpretation of

this. We went over these regulations with a fine-tooth comb. I

think what you are doing right now....

Allow me to check into this and I will answer it this

afternoon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: 354....

HON. MR. LEVI: Okay, we've got the reference. There was no

intent, in terms of developing the regulations, that we would

in any way change the eligibility of people on Mincome. There

is simply a

section in there that deals with the imputing of

assets. I will answer that this afternoon. That is your

interpretation of the regulations; we will get our

interpretation.

We will leave it at that until this afternoon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My

interpretation? I'm just reading your

own regulations.

HON. MR. LEVI: We will have an opportunity to look at it

over lunch and then I will deal with it this afternoon.

You raised an issue of a speech that was being mailed out.

The speech was made in the House. It was excerpted from a

speech I made here on April 23 dealing with children's

services. When we get mail and answer people, it is not sent

out in a broad way. It was sent to the MLAs because we have

agreed to send all material to MLAs. There is no mailing list

for such a speech other than what I have been using it for, and

that is for replying to people who ask me about

[ Page 3720 ]

questions in terms of the delinquency area and services to

children. There is no broad mailing of that other than in

response to letters that we get from the public. That's how I

send it out.

It is not printed by the thousands. As a matter of fact, it

is reproduced as we need it in terms of answering. I think

there are two speeches that we send out to people who make

inquiries. One is the March 11th speech which dealt with what

we are going to do in terms of the money in the department for

the future year, and the second one is the one we have just

discussed.

I'll certainly look into the Mincome one.

You dealt with the Indian land claims, or the question of

cut-off lands. We will be meeting on Tuesday. We hope to be

able to create some movement in this area. I think it is more

appropriate that we deal with this on Tuesday. We will have a

statement to make at that time, but certainly we should deal

with the Indian representatives on it, and then the public will

be in a position to know just what we are saying in terms of

this and, of course, there will be ample opportunity to respond

to it.

You asked about the Alcohol and Drug Commission, in terms of

its operation. I was not in the House when the great debate

took place about the handbook, apparently. I'd like to make a

comment about that. I was in Ottawa at the time when it came

out.

I think one of the things that should be understood about

that educational handbook is that there is reference

continually in the handbook as to where the material came from.

Again, we will do things which have been successful elsewhere.

Most of that, in fact maybe all of that material, was

abstracted from material that has been used in Alberta under

the Alcohol and Drug Commission there with some success. That's

why it was put together. There is nothing to my knowledge in

there that is new in the sense of what we have developed. We

have spent a great deal of time culling a large amount of

educational material, and we have put it together in that way,

and that's exactly what the intent was of that material that

was made available.

All right, in terms of where they are going: I pointed out,

I think, back in March — it is so long ago that I can't

remember...April — that we have developed another detox

centre. We have one here, we've got one in Vancouver and we

have a third one coming on stream. We have now operating in the

Victoria area a programme dealing with people who are employed

and have problems. That's part of the renting of the wing of

the Oak Bay Manor. I would like to point out that we constantly

get, in terms of the alcohol problem, only that focus on the

very visible 3 or 4 per cent of the so-called Skid Road

alcoholic.

Well, we have to move away from that because the 95 or 96 per cent of the people

who have drinking problems live in suburbia. One of the things we have been

able to address ourselves to, which I think is the worthwhile way of doing it,

is to see whether we can keep people in employment. Now the commission has had

discussions with industry about this kind of programme, and we have a project

going on now. That is that on their recommendation, staff who are employed or

staff who were employed but have been put off since because they have a drinking

problem and won't come to grips with it.... They have referred some of those

people and said if they are prepared to take treatment we will take them back.

Now that's one of the better ways in terms of intervention that we can think

of and certainly deal with. We've had good cooperation from industry.

An interesting sidelight on this is that in dealing with the

Burns Lake Native Development Corp., in the development of the

mill and the training of the loggers up there.... When we were

up there at the graduation, we met with the board and they

discussed with us that they would like to have by September two

people who could be available to work with the people in the

mill who have drinking problems. Now they are doing something,

planning for this right in the beginning, and that's a very

good move in terms of where we want to go with this

problem.

I don't think that we can constantly look at these rather

dramatic and very tragic pictures of the Skid Road alcoholic.

They are only 3 or 4 per cent of the problem. We've got to find

a way of making some impact in suburbia and we feel that one of

the priority areas is certainly getting into the whole question

of those people that are disabled or are becoming disabled at

work.

The other programme that I think the commission has done

extremely well with is the impaired-driver course that they are

operating in six areas of the province. That's a good attempt

at both the remedial and preventive areas. That's another area

they have gone into.

We have been able, as a result of the commission, to do a large number — we've

got 126 projects in the field. These are projects that are well accepted by

the communities. The commission is low-profile and it is low-profile simply

because we cannot meet high expectations out there. It is a slow process in

terms of dealing with the heroin problem. It is, as I said previously, the other

attacks that are going on about the heroin problem through the CLEU people,

and the kind of things that have now been rationalized in terms of the methadone

programme. Also, all of the people who work in these projects have gone through

the training system that they set up last fall. They have an accreditation.

They have an understanding of the kind of expectation we have of the service

we purchase or the kind of programmes they put on educationally for the community.

[ Page

3721 ]

So while it has been low-profile, there are no magical

solutions to this thing. What we have stressed particularly are

the two areas the maintenance area in terms of the heroin

addict and care for the alcoholic — but particularly in the

educational area, the preventive area. Those are two ways of

going, and of course the police force is playing their part,

through the whole CLEU organization and they are tackling it

from the other end. I think that that's a good way of

approaching it. But I don't think it should leave anybody with

the thought that somehow there is a magical solution.

I have had an opportunity to observe very closely the kinds

of approaches that have been taken, for instance, in the State

of New York where in eight years they spent over $1 billion and

got absolutely nowhere with that kind of situation, simply

because they insisted on trying things that had been tried

elsewhere and had failed. One of the things that we did say in

the beginning when we set up the commission was that one of the

things we would not do was to try things that had been tried

before and were not successful.

There are other questions. We are working closely with the

Department of Health, the nurses and the health educators. I am

satisfied, given the way you can move with this problem, that

out there in the public that is the way to do it. We're now

moving into more specific areas, particularly in relation to

the non-Skid Row employable person who has drinking problems.

We are now examining the whole problem of the very young addict

and the kind of facilities that need to be set up. There are a

couple of operations going now that are operated by non-profit

societies.

MR. GARDOM: Where?

HON. MR. LEVI: There's the Corinthian thing out of the

valley and, of course, there's the house in Vancouver.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): First of all, I would like to

say that I very much appreciate the annual report which the

Minister made available yesterday prior to starting discussion

of his estimates. I think that while we may disagree with some

of the economic performances of the department in terms of the

points raised earlier and the overrun, the annual report is

excellent and very explicit. I think the Minister is to be

congratulated for the much-improved annual report. It's better

than any year that I can remember because of its clarity.

As I say, one can disagree and agree with a lot that's in

the report, but at least it's easy to read and it's very

explicit.

I wanted to say that I think that the people of British Columbia, by and large,

recognize that this is a difficult portfolio and that it costs a lot of money

— $516 million. But I basically believe that the people of British Columbia

are in favour of many of these programmes, provided they get the impression

at the same time that the dollars are being used in a judicious way and in a

closely supervised manner.

Frankly, I am just amazed that the government was so inept

or careless, or something, to create the impression that the

$100 million overrun was a clerical error. We know that $10

million of it was a clerical error, I understand. But, just in

passing, let me say that I was amazed that the government could

either be so tactless or careless or whatever. Whether they

talk from now till Doomsday, the people of this province think

that the Minister made a $100 million clerical error. He can

talk till he's blue in the face or till he's 99 years old and

the people of this province will still think that. I just hope

that the Minister learned a sorry lesson on that particular

situation.

When you look at this annual report, there are many dollars

being spent in very productive ways to prevent some of the

social problems which if not prevented cost four, five or six

times the amount of dollars to straighten out the mess. If one

has to look at the most prominent example, it is in the area of

juvenile problems. We have covered that pretty well this

morning; I don't want to go over all of it again. But I noticed

in the report that the Minister states on page 37 that where

special services to children have been utilized extensively,

there has been a corresponding decrease in the rate of juvenile

delinquency and other problems associated with youth.

Over the page, he goes on to point out that at the time of

referral to these special services, 27 per cent had committed

juvenile delinquent acts or were in trouble with the law. At

the completion of service, 14 per cent of those 294 children

were no longer in that behavioral category. I think this is the

kind of material in the report that is very encouraging.

But, of course, special services to children, again, is

expensive in terms of dollars. I just think that the people of

British Columbia have to recognize, as in so many other topics

that come before this House, that you can't have it both ways.

If you want to prevent illness or disease, or if you want to

prevent lawlessness, or if you want to prevent juvenile

delinquency, you have to start at the other end because it's

not as manifest to the public as spending money at the other

end to apprehend lawbreakers or to treat people in hospitals.

That's very obvious when a patient enters a hospital or when a

prisoner enters a jail. But all the mechanisms that might be

put into play at the front end to try and prevent that ever

happening are expensive but not nearly so obvious. I think

that, as the Minister pointed out, the debate we've had about

juvenile delinquency, and which is continuing in the province,

is good because there are

[ Page 3722 ]

some eyes and ears being opened to the facts and the

circumstances that truly surround the whole problem of young

people.

As I say, I very much like this annual report, but there are

some parts of it just a little bit puzzling. Talking about

juveniles, I am amazed to read that we're still talking about

the post-war baby boom.

On page 48 it says: "The need for more resources for

teenagers is attributable to the adolescent problems as a

result of the post-war baby boom." Well how post is post-war?

My God, I was a teenager when the war ended.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which war?

MR. WALLACE: The Second World War. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on — not that one.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's right. I was 16 when the war ended.

Now, how having a post-war baby boom with teenagers 30 years

after the war ended, does puzzle me a little bit. That's one of

the areas of your report, Mr. Minister, that rather left me

puzzled.

On page 48 the report says: "It is estimated that numbers of

children in the 10-14 age group will peak in 1975, the 15-19

age group peaking in 1980." I think that the arithmetic is a

little out of line.

The main effort of the Minister to provide services to

children in a preventive way is much to be supported, I think.

But again, there seems to be some measure of contradiction

because I've just received a letter from workers in a

group-home programme right here in Victoria. They were working

with some of those young individuals who have had troubles with

the law. They are described as severely disturbed children and

hard-core delinquents. That "hard-core" phrase really worries

me, too, because I don't really think that encourages a

remedial or an optimistic approach when you use the word

"hard-core."

I understand that at this particular project, 612 David

Street in Victoria, the 15 child-care workers will no longer be

financed after June 26. When we read in the annual report of

the preventive measures which the Minister wants to support in

special services to children, then we discover literally the

next day that one of these programmes in Victoria is going to

have the 15 child-care workers' services discontinued, I

wonder.

I notice the Minister has left the chamber — perhaps the

Deputy Minister can make a particular note of that. I have been

contacted by four or five of the workers who feel that they

have produced productive results and that the service does,

indeed, not only serve as a remedial measure to some of these

young delinquents, but manages to get them trained for a job

where they can settle down in society.

This morning I talked on the phone to one of the people who

wrote this letter. They're not unaware of the fact that money

doesn't grow on trees either, that there has to be a priority

set on dollars. I understand there are four full-time workers

and 15 of the temporary staff. To discontinue the 15 and expect

the four permanent workers to deal with this very difficult

delinquent problem seems to me really.... Is this an extreme

reaction to the overrun problem? Is the Minister over-reacting

by cutting back on services which will undo a lot of the good

that's been done in the preventive field as far as child-care

problems are concerned?

I also have a letter here that relates to the other side of

the coin, you might say, to the Island Unit which I believe was

formerly called "Brannan Lake," and which is still in

existence. The person who has written to me in confidence has

listed many of the young people living there, and opposite a

large number of these names are notes such as: runaway, absent

without leave; another one, has never appeared; another name,

has quit school; another name here, on an indefinite visit;

another one, has left school; another entry here, not attended

since before Christmas; the next one, left school at the end of

February. On and on it goes.

It seems from this information sent to me in the mail, in

the case of this unit up island, although it's thought to be a

unit where young people are apprehended and locked up, the

information seems to show that a very large number of them come

and go as they please and some of them have been missing for

some considerable time. Could the Minister say how satisfied,

or otherwise, he is with the supervision and control of the

young people who are apprehended at the island unit?

We've heard a great deal of discussion on, and I think

there's a great deal of merit in, the fact that a small

percentage of the delinquents do require to be apprehended and

locked up — I hate that phrase "locked up" — at least

apprehended and kept restricted to a certain institution.

This letter seems to suggest that at the present time these

inmates of that institution up island pretty well come and go

as they please and that doesn't seem to be solving

anything.

I just want quickly to ask the Minister about the adoption

of Indian children. I'm amazed that the supreme court held a

hearing in October on that very contentious issue as to whether

Indian children being adopted by non-Indian parents lose their

status. Could the Minister tell us: first of all, what is

happening at the present time? Is it just simply that Indian

children are in limbo as far as being adopted by non-Indian

parents? I notice in his report the Minister states that there

is a real attempt to have Indian children adopted by Indian

parents. This, of course, makes a great deal of common sense,

So what

[ Page 3723 ]

is happening? Is the whole thing in limbo?

Secondly, is there any indication of when the decision of

the supreme court is likely to be handed down? As a layman, it

puzzles me that an issue of this importance could be heard in

October, 1974; we are now in June, 1975, and the welfare and

future of many children and families appears to be in

limbo.

I would also just ask in passing what the experience,

success, and otherwise of the Vietnamese children who have

found homes in British Columbia is. Is the Minister carrying on

some follow-up review and monitoring? They were given a great

deal of publicity at the time. I don't know to what degree some

of the cases, as happened during the end of the war, turned out

not to be orphans at all but, in fact, have one or other parent

in Vietnam. I gather that the ones who came to British Columbia

had been well screened long before the fall of the South

Vietnamese government. I wonder if the Minister could at least

give us some follow-up on that.

Another interesting part of the Minister's report is when he

is talking about juveniles. I just want to return to the

juvenile problem for a moment. He mentions on page 62 the

importance of marriage breakdown in creating an increased

number of problems with young people. I think it is really

under the

section dealing with social assistance, as it

happens. In relation to juvenile problems I wonder if the

Minister has some statistics on marriage breakdown which led

him to include this in the particular part of the report. It

suggests that the Minister is well aware of the influence of

the home and family unit.

I couldn't agree more with the Minister that for those

children who do get into difficulties there must be a clear

placing of responsibility on the parent, particularly in

respect to making some contribution to the cost of damages that

were incurred by the juvenile. The reports that I have read

from different areas of the lower mainland show that frequently

when the police apprehend a juvenile they proceed to the

juvenile's home and there is nobody there. This is sometimes

very late at night or in the early hours of the morning. When

we are committed to spending large sums of money providing

services to children and dealing with the juvenile problem, it

makes no sense at all if we leave the juvenile to handle the

whole situation himself and let the parents go free of any

responsibility for the financial damage or vandalism that has

been caused by the juvenile.

I have heard this in principle a great deal, but I wonder if the Minister has

any specific proposals as to what he is doing in this direction presumably in

conjunction with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). It is only in court

that this to me seemingly reasonable proposal to involve the parents in responsibility

can be implemented, The police can go back to the child's home and complain

all they like that they can't find the parents, but if there isn't a day of

reckoning for the parents in court or some reparation involved in terms of money

for damage done, then we can talk all we like but I can't see there would be

any improvement unless there is some action implemented. Maybe the Minister

could tell us what specific ideas he has in placing responsibility on the parent.

Briefly, in talking about social assistance, we believe the

time has come to try and eliminate as far as possible that 15

per cent of the community that the Minister mentions are

employable. The other 85 per cent, for whatever reasons, have a

continuing need for social assistance. We don't dispute that

and we completely support the concept that they should share in

the affluence of this province by being given reasonable

support. What we are particularly interested in is the 15 per

cent on welfare who could be employed. One thing I would like

to ask the Minister is his opinion of British Columbia opting

out of the Canada Assistance Plan. We know it would cost

dollars initially but we in our party and the people who look

at the social assistance project in the Conservative Party

wonder if we are really getting the kind of assistance,

cooperation and willingness on cost sharing to meet the

specific goals and needs of the people in British Columbia —

that 15 per cent in particular.

We believe it would be possible to set up a five-year

programme that we would call a transitional programme, and with

intensive educational and re-educational programmes spend time

eliminating as far as is possible the group of people who could

be employed but who, for one reason or another, can't find work

and can't succeed in maintaining a job over a period of any

great length of time.

Coincident with that, we feel that it should be made quite

plain that at the end of, say, the five years, and we are not

rigid as to whether it is four years, five years or six years

.... But we feel that at that point in time and during the

five-year transition facilities of education, retraining and

re-education should only be made available to Canadian citizens

or landed immigrants.

We have a policy paper being studied federally by the people

of Canada at the present time, and we get the impression that

there is not enough co-ordination and planning between

provincial and federal levels of government at the front end.

This has got nothing to do with race or colour or creeds. It is

a question of people coming into the country with federal

approval and moving through to this province or other provinces

with a minimum potential to be able to work or to be able to be

trained or to be able to play a productive role in society.

Again, the people of Canada can't have it both ways. You

can't scream and dance and shout about the cost of social

assistance and blame the

[ Page 3724 ]

government of the day if in fact many of the problems are

created by an increase of population either in the country or

in this province of people who just don't have the skills or

the training or the education to fill a productive job in

society.

I notice that we are running out of time just at a point

when I really wanted to ask the Minister a whole series of

questions in this general direction as to whether it would be

feasible, over a period of a few years, to tackle the very

difficult problem of that 15 per cent of employables by means

of a very intensive education, re-education programme, mainly

provincially organized and directed. With the greatest of

respect, the Minister has said that we get a lot of help from

Canada Manpower. I've come across quite a few people, one I

quoted the other day — the mining millwright who has been all

over the place in the last few weeks and just cannot get work

because he's had a lung disease which no longer permits him to

work in the mines.

We talk in general terms about how the province and the Manpower department

of the federal government find jobs for these people. I'm just saying that they

really don't do a very good job, in my view. There are too many people who are

employable who want work, who would work and who cannot get work. I think that

that has to be one of the main problems we should be concentrating upon.

It is obviously now time to adjourn.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada