1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7631 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Riverview Hospital. Mrs. Dailly –– 7631

Premier's principal secretary. Mr. Stupich –– 7631

Parole Board appointment. Mr. Macdonald –– 7631

Gasoline and oil prices. Mr. D'Arcy –– 7632

Ms. Sanford

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 7632

Inspection of motor vehicles. Mr. Lockstead –– 7632

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 42: minister's office –– 7633

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Dailly

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

On vote 43: ministry programs –– 7655

Ms. Brown

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention and that of members to

the attendance in the House today of a group of students from St.

Andrew's Secondary School in the constituency of Saanich and the

Islands, visiting the Legislature and its precincts. Would the House

welcome them, please.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery

today we have some representatives of the logging industry who met with

members of our caucus over lunch: Keith Evans from E.R. Probyn; Jack

Menzies, E.R. Probyn; Charlie Andersen, Canadian Overseas Log and

Lumber; Bob Salvail, Indian Head Trading; and Peter Maddison from

B&I Forest Products. I would ask the House to please give them a

warm welcome.

Oral Questions

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

MRS. DAILLY: With a little bit of urging I'm on my feet.

question is to the Minister of Health. It has been reported that the

MLA for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) appeared before the

Coquitlam city council on Monday, February 17, 1986 and stated that

Riverview Hospital will be phased out within five years. Will the

minister advise whether he discussed this matter with that member

during one of the many long talks which we understand took place

between the minister and his parliamentary secretary?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, discussions between members are not subject to question

period. However, part of the question was in order, and if the minister

wishes to respond to the part that was in order....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I won't try to figure out which part was in order, but to the topic.

Officials

within the Ministry of Health have for quite a period of time been

holding discussions with different organizations with respect to

replacing the Riverview complex, as it's known now, with new

facilities. I don't have all the details. The proposal as it has been

put forward — and subject to input from quite a large number of organizations — involves

the possibility of replacing the west lawn, east lawn, centre lawn

buildings with new facilities on site, as well as some acute-care

facilities on site, with the possibility of one or perhaps two other

mental institutions elsewhere in e province. That is what has been

under consideration for quite a period of time. In fact, it was part of

that conversation an the consultation with members of the BCGEU, I

believe, that led in part to their advertising campaign. But the

concept had been put forward some months back and is still under

consideration as a possible replacement for those facilities as they

exist now.

PREMIER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday I started a line of questioning with the Minister

of Finance when.... Well, the bell rang. I was going to say he was saved, but

he didn't need to be saved. My question was about the hiring of a professional

campaign manager at a salary of some $77,000. I was wondering whether the Minister

of Finance had considered that himself. He was going to come back.

I have another question that I wanted to ask yesterday. In view of the fact that Mr. Lampert's experience — as I say, he's a professional — with

the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, the Social Credit Party of

B.C. and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is in the field

of election campaign management.... With this background, is the

minister concerned that the taxpayers may seem to be subsidizing the

Social Credit Party campaign by hiring a professional campaign manager

in the office of the Premier at this more than generous salary?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That was such a long question, I thought the bell was going to go again and I wouldn't have an opportunity to answer.

This

is the second day in a row that NDP research has churned out questions

with respect to one individual who is coming to the office of the

Premier. I would point out to the member that we are now embarked in

Committee of Supply on debating estimates. We have one set of estimates

before us, and I would think that the member would more appropriately

address those questions to the Premier when he is standing in front of

Committee of Supply to answer questions relative to his estimates.

could take the rest of question period listing a number of individuals

who served in rather special capacities between 1972 and 1975 — if

that is what the member seeks. The very straightforward answer is that

before this session concludes, the Premier will stand and answer

questions in Committee of Supply relative to any position in his

office, whether it is a position which has existed for quite some time

or one which is to be filled by a forthcoming incumbent. In that

respect I would refer the member to Committee of Supply.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I can get at the Minister of Finance; I can't get at the

Premier when he's off in Quebec. So I'm asking the minister. The

Minister of Finance said that I'm asking questions for the second day

in a row about people who are being hired in the Premier's office. I

now ask the Minister of Finance: are more people going to be hired in

the Premier's office at $77,000 a year, or is this the last of that

high-class help that will be hired in the cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a future-action question, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I again refer the member not only to Committee of Supply

but to a spending vote which appears in the estimates. I think it's

vote 4 — I'm subject to correction.

PAROLE BOARD APPOINTMENT

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. An

order-in-council of March 25 has appointed Sheila Veitch to the B.C.

Parole Board. Can the Attorney-General assure the House that Sheila

Veitch, or at least some member of her family, is a good dues-paying

member of the Social Credit Party?

Interjections.

[ Page 7632 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. members

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm going to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, because I take it that

it's a veiled attempt to criticize the appointment of a lady who was

placed on the parole board a year or so before her husband was elevated

to the executive council, served faithfully and was recommended for

reappointment by the chairman of the parole board, who is a public

servant. She would ordinarily have been reappointed — nobody

serves more than four years; they do a probationary year. She has been

elected as an alderman in her community. But this member across here

seeks to impugn her because she happens to be married to somebody in

government. That's an insult to women in this province who get out and

do things for their community.

[2:15]

MR. MACDONALD:

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm not here to knock the institution of

matrimony, but I want to ask the Attorney-General: when this vote came

up in cabinet for this order-in-council, did the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) abstain, or did he vote? Did he

support the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

GASOLINE AND OIL PRICES

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I assure him this is a coincidence, but anyway....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: To my friend

Huggy Bear: approximately a month ago the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) was questioning you regarding the very tardy way that

the oil companies were passing on savings to the consumer in lowering

gasoline prices and home heating fuel prices. I am advised that the

major reductions in crude oil prices have passed through the system

and, while there have been some reductions at the pump and some minor

tax reductions, the fact is that it would appear that petroleum prices

for motor fuel should be at least five cents a litre lower than what

they are in British Columbia. Has the minister taken action, which I

believe he said to this House he would, to persuade the oil companies

to immediately pass on their savings to the consumers in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the

member wasn't in the House, but I did file answers to that question in

the House. If you would check with the Clerk's office, I think you

would ascertain your answer at this point in time.

MR. D'ARCY:

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Several years ago the

government announced with great fanfare that they were going to a

royalty system of natural gas pricing by tying the price of natural gas

to residential and industrial consumers to the price of petroleum in

British Columbia. I am not aware, as of this point, that the price of

natural gas, as sold by the major utilities selling it — particularly Hydro and Inland — has

fallen, even though the price of petroleum has. Has the minister taken

any action to see that the price of natural gas to the consumers of

British Columbia will be lowered?

HON. MR. VEITCH:

Mr. Speaker, that question ought to be addressed to the minister

responsible for energy. I'd be happy to take it as notice for him, and

he'll bring back the answer.

MS. SANFORD: Mr.

Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs as well. He filed an answer to a question that was

posed to him some weeks ago on this particular subject of reducing the

cost of gas at the pump for the people of British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker, he filed an answer and did not give it in the House for a good

reason: because it didn't answer the question that was posed to him.

The question that was presented by my colleague for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy) is still a valid question in that the minister has not

responded to it.

What action has the minister taken to reduce the costs of gas and oil in British Columbia to the consumers?

HON. MR. VEITCH:

Mr. Speaker, it is really not my fault that neither the member nor the

research people that work in the NDP caucus can properly interpret data

that is given to them.

But having said that, if you will check the price of gas at the pumps, you will find that it has been reduced by — I know in Burnaby — about eight cents a litre in the last while. You can work that out in imperial gallons; I'm not sure what it is.

WEYERHAEUSER CANADA LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry, could he advise the House if

he has held any meetings with Weyerhaeuser with respect to value-added

production in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, not recently.

MR. WILLIAMS:

I wonder if that is the reason that Weyerhaeuser is investing $495

million in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and involving itself in fine

paper products in the prairie province? Could the minister advise the

House if he sees this as a serious matter and whether he will be more

diligent in the future and work toward fine paper operations in British

Columbia?

A supplementary. There are 215 new jobs involved

in a fine-paper operation in Saskatchewan that might very well have

been in British Columbia had the minister been diligent. Will he pursue

these issues?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee the member that I will be diligent.

INSPECTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Following the government's decision to eliminate mandatory inspection

of commercial vehicles, the police have been left with the

responsibility of protecting the public from unsafe vehicles. The

minister knows that. Random inspections by Vancouver police have

indicated that 70 percent of cabs tested are mechanically unsafe. When

is the government going to admit its mistake

[ Page

7633 ]

and reinstate mandatory testing at least for commercial vehicles?

MR. SPEAKER:

A future-action question, bon. member, could best be phrased in the

usual terms of: "Has the government decided...?" The member is familiar

with the process.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, as

the member knows, it is the law now that you must have your vehicle in

good mechanical condition, and I'm pleased that the Vancouver police

are enforcing the law. Regarding commercial-vehicle inspection, the

government will be announcing something shortly.

MR. ROSE:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on March 26 I asked the Minister of

Education about his failure to apply some $5.5 million to the textbook

fund, condemning kids to an outdated math program for at least another

year. Now that he's had an Easter break, I wonder if he has prepared an

answer to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please,

bon. members, That is not a point of order. It is clearly an abuse of

the privileges that a member has when he stands to be recognized in the

House. The Chair in many cases is more than lenient to members who rise

on points of order that are in some way at least related to a point of

order. The member has been a member long enough to know himself that

that is not a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, the Chair is not to be asked questions.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $216, 236.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I was very interested.... Oh, come on, sit down, Mr.

House Leader; 43 isn't ready for a while. I was very interested this

morning when I was listening to the Minister of Human Resources

indicate to us, in defence of the policy of this government, that he

was not happy when he said — and

I can quote him: " I don't like what's happening to the economy of

Canada, either." What has the economy of Canada got to do with the

economy of British Columbia? Just a little, Mr. Chairman. I've been

watching the minister slide around for the last two or three days, not

answering questions....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please, Come to order.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: A little what?

AN HON. MEMBER: A logistics problem.

MR. COCKE: Fair enough. The House Leader needs to get his paper off his desk. Thank you. Now he has got his paper off his desk.

Getting

back to the economy of Canada, Mr. Chairman, I contend that the economy

of Canada has very little to do with what we're seeing before us. We

are seeing an economy in British Columbia that is not in any way

relevant to the rest of the country. We have deteriorated since that

government, this incompetent gang, began running this province ten

years ago. They've run it into the ground. As they run it into the

ground, we hear the reports of what has been happening to those people

who are most affected — the

people trying to live on $350 a month from the great, beneficial people

in the Social Credit government. We don't like what's happening to the

economy, either, but we contend that it's the economy of British

Columbia and the people of British Columbia that are at risk as a

result of very bad policy.

I must admit that this minister

himself can't take the whole blame. We've got ministers of

international trade, of small business, of those areas that.... They

haven't been at work.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have been.

MR. COCKE: Then they're totally incompetent.

Mr. Chairman, in my town of New Westminster we have a food bank. It's the busiest business in town — handing

out food. It's an utter shame, an absolute disaster. In the city of

Vancouver you have seven of them. Seven food banks! Can you imagine

that? Now these people going to the food banks are not the derelicts of

the past. These people are people who held jobs. They are people who

don't deserve what's happening to them. And yet in our fair province

that's exactly what's happening. That government should hang its head

in shame.

Interjection,

MR. COCKE: The minister of transport and communications and highways and all the rest of the paraphernalia — ferries — is trying to intimidate me.

[2:30]

I say that we have to worry ourselves sick. Not only do we have these food banks, which have become a necessity in this province — can you imagine it? — but

people working for the government are indicating to people that they

should go to the food bank if they're in trouble. What have we got a

Ministry of Human Resources for? That ministry should have absolute

responsibility.... They are part of a government that has ditched our

economy, so their responsibility is even greater.

How much

do we have to increase the budget to take people off those food bank

lineups? Has that ever been worked out? We've established that there

has been no increase since 1982. I contend that it is 1981, but let's

give the minister that much leeway. Let's say it is 1982, and no

increase whatsoever. That's not to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there

hasn't been an increase in the cost of living since 1982. It is to

suggest that there has been an increase, and not only that, but in 1982

it was inadequate in any event.

[ Page 7634 ]

am concerned that this government is not taking the responsibility for

the areas that they have played a great

part in creating, and that is

poverty. When my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said

yesterday that they were partners in poverty, that was exactly true,

not only because of the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources is

not meeting its responsibility but because they created it in the first

place by their stupid economic development ideas.

This

government has been an utter disaster to this province. I say to the

people of British Columbia, those who would care to listen, that you

had better not forget what this Social Credit gang has done to our

province. Can you imagine sitting and contemplating 10 or 15 years ago

the percentage of people that are now out of work here in British

Columbia? It would be inconceivable. In those days there was an utter

disaster if it went above 6 percent or 7 percent.

Now we're

in the double digits everywhere and in major double digits in some

parts of the interior. Think about the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Segarty). How is he going to go back and face the folks in the

Kootenays and say: "I'm sorry for the 23 percent." That's 23 percent

statistical; it's 23 percent not only statistical but it's more than

that because statistics never ever take into account those people not

now searching.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister can make his speech whenever he likes to. The fact of the matter is that that's the way it is up there.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I don't need research for these figures. All you have to

do is just go to Statistics Canada. They'll give it to you all.

Sometime I'd recommend that to you, as Minister of Labour: do a little

homework, go to Statistics Canada. Find out what is happening.

Mr.

Chairman, the reason we're in these dire straits is because of a

government that has been totally incompetent. They've tried; they've

done their make-work projects. They have Expo zooming along. I'm not

sure how many friends they're making among their employees at $4 an

hour. The member from Chilliwack is going to have a hard time

convincing any of his constituents that they should go down there and

work for $4 an hour and pay room and board, or find a place to live, on

that kind of money.

They can't commute back and forth from

there to Chilliwack every day on $4 an hour. Mr. Chairman, we are

partners in poverty, whether we like it or not. Because of that, it is

time that the Ministry of Human Resources stood up, accepted its

responsibility for the poverty that has been created by this

incompetent government and went to work to see to it that the people

are no more distressed than they are.

I have taken some

time in Westminster to go down to the lineups, visit at the food banks

and talk to people. I see a mixture; a very big part of that mixture

however is people that are relatively young, in their young twenties.

You talk to those people, and you can see without a doubt that if this

goes on very much longer, they are lost totally as an economic unit

within our society. How many times do we have to live through this

depression attitude of this government? How many years do we have to

live this way and watch people destroyed before us? When they talk

about a lost generation, they're talking about a group of people that

should be our most important resource: the youth of this country. They

are the people who are being totally neglected and let down. They have

been led to believe that the government is going to solve the problem

someday.

You watch all the promises at the next election

that are going to be made by that group over there. If the people

forget the promises they made before and then what happened after the

1983 election, those long-suffering kids are going to be let down even

further. I honestly feel ill when I walk out after having spent an hour

or two with these people. They have given up, for crying out loud. They

say: "Where can I go? I've tried everything, and now I'm so damn poor I

can't even go and apply for a job because my clothes are ill-fitting.

I've picked up this; I've got holes in my shoes; I can't find a job;

nobody wants me; I'm dirty; I'm this, that and the other." That's the

way these decent young human beings perceive themselves. They are part

of our society, and we have let them down in this province beyond words.

For

crying out loud, I wonder when it's going to be time that this

government goes to work. I listened to a question in question period.

The member for Vancouver East asked the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) a question. He didn't even

know what the member for Vancouver East was talking about. He hadn't a

clue about jobs disappearing from our province. He hadn't a clue about

the fact that this this Partners in Enterprise government — Partners in Enterprise, indeed; partners in poverty is the correct description of this group....

Mr.

Chairman, since it's that way, I suggest to the Minister of Human

Resources that he turn things around for those people who are caught.

He can do it in two ways: one, increase their assistance so that they

can at least eat and be housed; two, give them counselling. Help them

out there. Create confidence-building programs. Otherwise we have that

lost generation among us, and when and if the economy is turned around — and it ultimately will be with an NDP government — those people will be ready to take their responsibility.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) made some remark about "last

time." The most successful government this province has ever seen is

the government from 1972 to 1975. Regardless of all your yapping and

laughing, it's true. We were absolutely the most successful government

this province has ever seen.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Why aren't you still government?

MR. COCKE: We aren't still government because of the fact that there were four parties....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Listen, that really disturbs that little gang back there.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hold it. One at a time, please. Order! The Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) will come to order. So will the Minister

of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Thank you.

[ Page 7635 ]

MR. COCKE: There were four parties and then there were two — and then there was one — or

two. In any event, that's neither here nor there. You're going to see

that you're turfed out, and I'll tell you I'll give you this as a

prediction: when that gang is turfed out, they will never be back as

Socreds. The Socred party will fall apart and that will be the end of

it. That will be the end of it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, hon. member. Shall vote 42 pass? The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE:

Mr. Chairman, the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) made a

statement before she left, which unfortunately many of the members

didn't hear. When the member for New Westminster was talking about food

banks in Vancouver, I think the first member for Surrey really stated

something that is so symbolic of this government. She made the

incredible statement over here that the food banks were a job creation

program.

MS. BROWN: Really?

MR. BLENCOE:

Yes. And then when I asked her about that she said: "Do you know what

they pay people at those food banks?" Do you believe that? That's their

answer to job creation — extending

the food banks in the province of British Columbia. I think the people

of British Columbia and the people of Surrey should know the position

of the member for Surrey: that her job creation is food banks in the

province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could return to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources, whose vote is before us.

MR. BLENCOE:

Before we broke at noon today, the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Barnes) was asking the minister about the situation of

Expo-related evictions in Vancouver. Unfortunately, the minister

refused to answer, and we expected answers when we came back as to his

position on those evictions. We would hope that the minister would have

some position, because he knows very well....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE:

I know. What I am going to ask now is if the minister would give us

some answers on his position on what's happening in Vancouver east.

What's happened in Vancouver has been a great shame to this province.

Many people have asked for some action. Many people have been

dislocated; hundreds of Vancouver people are on social assistance; the

majority of people living in that area are on social assistance; and

this minister for whatever reason has sat it out, has said nothing.

Clearly it would indicate he has made no overtures to his cabinet

colleagues or anybody else to protect those people in need in Vancouver.

Those

evictions are an insult to the people of British Columbia. They're an

insult to that minister, and that minister is continuing a partnership

in evictions and a partnership in dislocation of lives in the province

of British Columbia. The people of this province have asked for action.

He has a responsibility to protect those people and not administer a

partnership in evictions, and assist the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in his search and destroy mission in terms of those

people in Vancouver.

Those people have a right to be

protected; they have a right to their homes. This minister must realize

that over 80 percent of those people living in those lodging houses in

Vancouver are directly under his ministry.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What percent?

MR. BLENCOE: Over 80 percent are on government income maintenance.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of the people evicted?

MR. BLENCOE: Of the people living in that area, Mr. Minister. We had hoped that somebody with some responsibility — and this minister has said he is prepared to listen — would

have taken some action on this issue. But this minister has been

extremely quiet and has said nothing on the behalf of those people

being evicted in Vancouver.

[2:45]

Those are the older people of British Columbia, people who have served this province — the

handicapped, the aged.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds talked about

the partnership in poverty. This minister and this government continue

a partnership of eviction and a partnership of dislocation for those

tenants in Vancouver. We have asked the minister: has he tried? Has he

called to his cabinet colleagues for some action? Has he asked for a

suspension of those evictions for those people that come under his

jurisdiction, or is he prepared to be silent in this area? Is he

prepared to see these people suffer and their lives be actually

threatened by this government's lack of action for those people in

Vancouver?

It is an absolute scandal what this government

is doing, not only to the people in the province of British Columbia in

terms of human resources: but it is doubly scandalous in terms of those

older people, those handicapped people, in the downtown of Vancouver.

The member for Vancouver Centre today asked some questions on behalf of

those people, and this minister came back and clearly has not been

prepared to answer. I hope this afternoon he will answer and give us

some response from his ministry on behalf of those people in trouble.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

If I answered the questions when the member for Vancouver Centre was

not here, the criticism would have been: "Our member is not here."

AN HON. MEMBER: Again.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Again. However, I am more than happy to. One of these days the NDP is going to say what they would do — not

what they suggest others do, but what they would do, what legislation

they would bring in, what they would do with the city of Vancouver,

what they would ask the city of Vancouver to do. They would explain why

they, when they brought in legislation when they were government, did

not include those who were in hotels, as though the situation has

changed.

They would also explain what they would do with

respect to orders given by building inspectors and fire inspectors in

the city of Vancouver about renovations. They would explain

[ Page 7636 ]

that.

The member for Vancouver Centre today spoke about the deplorable

conditions in many of these hotels. Is the member for Victoria

suggesting that they not be upgraded, modified or improved?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

"Eviction" is a very nasty word, but it happens to be within the law of

Canada, within the law of the province of British Columbia and

apparently not offensive to the bylaws of the city of Vancouver. The

Ministry of Human Resources is responsible to some degree for

approximately 100 of those persons in Vancouver who received notice. My

understanding is that all of them have been relocated.

The member for Vancouver Centre spoke about the neighbourhood that these people who are being evicted are familiar with — their

neighbourhood. Contrary to what the member for Vancouver Centre said

about deplorable conditions, according to the member himself at least

some of these people prefer to live in those areas and in their present

quarters, even though he described them as deplorable.

remember dislocation of people under different circumstances, for

different reasons, in metropolitan areas; not only metropolitan areas

but suburban areas as well. It has happened previously. I'm sure it

will happen in the future. Even though the member for Victoria may not

embrace the concept of private property ownership, it's a fact of life

in Canada. People have certain rights with their property. They have

obligations as well under the law and the regulatory bodies, but they

do have rights, provided they follow the law. I'm not aware that a

charge has been made that these evictions are illegal.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member may know — or may not know — that

a number of tenants in certain areas of metropolitan cities prefer to

have the arrangement of a hotel rather than an apartment. They like the

flexibility. When I was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

responsible for the rentalsman's office, we spoke to many of these

people who said they preferred that flexibility. They did not wish to

be tied in to a month's notice or a yearly increase, or some of the

other restrictions. They preferred the method as it was; others did

not. But no government in B.C. has decided to bring in hotels under the

landlord-tenant provisions.

It's cute for those who suddenly are.... I don't know what the correct

term would be, but almost like a new-born of some kind. Expo was becoming so

positive that the left-wing of our community had to find something negative

about Expo, to the point where private individuals, owners of property, were

legally evicting tenants but it became known as the Expo evictions, as though

Expo were evicting people. With respect to that question, I've mentioned

that to the best of my knowledge the approximately one hundred people who are

on income assistance have all been relocated; I've been so advised by my

officials. Just because a person is over 65 does not mean they're a client

of Human Resources. In fact, they are seldom a client of Human Resources unless

they're handicapped in some way, or other conditions. Many are people who

choose to live in those areas, and have for many years; they're either independent

to some degree or they're pensioners of some kind. Many have accepted it

and they're moving out. Our people have been relocated.

Jim

McDowell, who was a director of the Carnegie Community Centre at Main

and Hastings, used to be involved in the DERA organization and was a

strong advocate of the cares and concerns of the people who live in the

downtown east side area of Vancouver. I'm not sure what Jim McDowell

does now full time, but part of the time he writes a column for the

Sechelt paper. It might be worth listening to a few comments from him.

"With

lots of help from the Vancouver media and his left-wing cohorts last

week, Downtown Eastside Residents' Association organizer Jim Green

staged a clever stunt to dramatize doctrinaire views of class conflict,

manipulate an ambitious politician, intimidate a hard-nosed power

broker and embarrass Victoria. Unfortunately, Green's sideshow had

little to do with halting the urban renewal and human removal that's

engulfing the skid-row residents DERA claims to represent."

He said:

"Five

years ago I would have seen it differently. As director of Carnegie

Centre, the city's most heavily used community centre, at the comer of

Main and Hastings, I clung to three illusions: DERA worked for the

residents; one could work with this entrenched community group on a

basis of equality and respect; Green could be his own man.

"Along with three DERA members — former

president Libby Davies, Jean Swanson and Rob 'Cowboy' Ellis — I helped

screen candidates for the community organizer position, something held

by Bruce Ericksen before he finally won a seat on Vancouver council.

Green was the man we selected. I asked him two questions: How could he

avoid becoming Ericksen's stooge? Could he dream up nifty stunts to

keep DERA's profile high? In the next two years I found that Green

fronted for bigger barracudas than Ericksen and had a huckster's knack

for devising simple, dramatic events that usually got lots of publicity

from little effort, most of it exploiting the people — the poor and the elderly — to provide propaganda for COPE, Vancouver's left-wing civic party."

The

misfortune of people is easily exploitable for political purposes. The

people who reside in that downtown

section of Vancouver have never had

what many other people might refer to as a very pleasant lifestyle. It

may come as a surprise to some people that, as the member for Vancouver

Centre said, some consider that to be their neighbourhood and their

home, and they want to stay. Others, I'm sure, do not, and would rather

be elsewhere. But to suggest that the Ministry of Human Resources is

responsible for the evictions, or has the capacity to prevent legal

evictions, is reaching somewhat, I would suggest. The minister

responsible for housing and the minister responsible for municipal

affairs have been involved in looking into the matter, as has the city

of Vancouver — to

such a degree that it spun off into a further inquiry about social

housing. But the Ministry of Human Resources has looked after its

clients to the best of its ability. My understanding is that they have

been relocated. Mr. Member, I have not received a letter from any of

those people, to my knowledge, complaining about the service they

received or in distress at being relocated.

[ Page 7637 ]

empathize with folks who are being asked to leave what has been their

home for whatever period of time. I remember the condominium craze in

Vancouver and, I suppose, in Victoria — although

I can't recall; certainly in greater Vancouver. People were being moved

out of their apartments because they were being converted — legally,

but upsetting a tremendous number of people. They were very upset that

suddenly they were being given notice and moved out, or being asked to

purchase their apartment as a condominium. This was another disruption

that took place which was perfectly within the law, although condemned

by some people as being just efforts by greedy developers to maximize

profit. There are some hotels — and I give them full credit — in the

Vancouver area who have said: "No, we're keeping our tenants." Good for

them. Others have said: "We're going to renovate. We're going to

upgrade, and we're going into the hotel business. " Perhaps they are

motivated by Expo or by the possibility of a quick profit. I don't know

how we can condemn them for doing what is perfectly lawful with their

own property. I think it's unfortunate that some people are being

dislocated at a difficult time in their lives.

I believe

our ministry has assisted, along with officials from the city of

Vancouver, to find accommodation for those who are on income

assistance. I understand that it has been successful. But I really

think it has been a marvellous opportunity for critics of Expo — and, I

suppose, of the provincial government — to use that particular

situation as the great example of the maximum failure of government.

Government

has a role to play in everyone's life, but I would suggest that there

are limits to what role government plays in everybody's life — not simply to make Jim Green feel happy, important or recognized. I certainly have better things to do.

MR. BLENCOE:

A brief response to the minister. He talks about the written law, but I

would suggest to that minister that there is also very much a spirit of

the law.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought we only had written laws in this chamber.

MR. BLENCOE:

Well, you know, we talk about compassion and understanding and concern.

That's one of the things we should be talking about. That is the real

measure of government in the end, Mr. Minister. I don't think there is

a very large percentage of the population of British Columbia who were

not offended by the lack of action by this government on what was

happening — and I have to suggest this was Expo-related — for those people in need.

[3:00]

The

spirit of the law is very important. I would also give the minister

some statistics that, I think, will be very useful for him in

recognizing why this particular area is of particular concern to many

people. According to the city of Vancouver and a downtown tenants and

lodging-houses survey, there are 16,600 people who live in the

downtown east side, 45 percent of them in lodging-houses. It's a stable

population — 57

percent of the lodging-house tenants have lived in the downtown east

side for more than five years. Over 50 percent of the people in the

area are over 55 years old and 19 percent are over 69. Eighty percent

of lodging-house tenants are on government income maintenance, and

another 10 percent are on workers' compensation or UIC payments. Fifty

percent of lodging-house tenants pay more than 40 percent of their

income on rent.

I would suggest that this government has

for years been subsidizing those slum landlords to the tune of millions

of dollars, and only when it becomes in their interest to make a few

more dollars do they put those people on the street. Never did they

renovate until they could make a few more dollars. That's the spirit

that we should be talking about in this Legislature.

You may talk about the fine print of the law....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Bold print.

MR. BLENCOE: Bold print — whatever

you want to call it, Mr. Minister. But those landlords have done very

well out of this province of British Columbia. Most of those people are

on some sort of government assistance or shelter allowance, paying

their way, paying those rents for those slums, and now when the

landlords see to make a few more dollars, they put the people on the

street. With all the money and the millions of dollars that you've

spent in keeping those slum landlords in business, you could have built

enough housing to house those people over the last ten years instead of

putting your money into other dubious projects in the province of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Have you looked at the numbers?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, I looked at the numbers. The numbers are quite astronomical in terms of how much money is spent on this particular area.

Now

the minister says they have by law the right to do what they are doing,

but only when they have a chance to take advantage of a situation.

Where were they in renovating those properties a few years ago? Where

were they? They weren't anywhere to be seen. They were making money on

the backs of the poor, and now when they want a few more dollars and

they see Expo, they're going to put those people on the street. It's

the spirit as well as the actual letter of the law, bold or fine or

otherwise, Mr. Minister. That's the issue, and that's what people in

British Columbia have been offended by.

You and your

cabinet colleagues have set about trying to set up another task force

to take a look at housing in the province of British Columbia as a

cover-up, when we need action for those people. The measure of

government is how it protects and looks after those in greatest need.

There is legislation on the floor of this House right now, Mr.

Chairman, that would protect those people and take care of them and

that would ensure they could at least live where they have lived for

many years.

I would suggest that this side of the House has

recommended for many years that rooming-houses and lodging-houses be

included in the Residential Tenancy Act. As a matter of fact, virtually

three years — I think maybe even two years to the day — I

stood in this chamber and recommended during the residential tenancy

debate that this very thing be included in the act on the grounds that

if we didn't do something, we would have the Knoxville situation here

in the province of British Columbia. Knoxville, I would remind this

government, is a smaller town, a smaller fair, and yet those evictions

in Knoxville attracted international attention and acclaim. Here in

British Columbia we have the same situation. This minister says they

have the law, these landlords. Where is the spirit and the intent of a

fair and caring

[ Page 7638 ]

government that has the power to say we want to protect those who need the most protection in the downtown east side?

haven't had the answers, and all we've had is the continuing policy of

a government that clearly doesn't care about those people in need in

the province of British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr.

Chairman, I've been listening to this debate since it started, and

anyone else who has been sitting through most of it I think would agree

with me that this debate on the Human Resources estimates inevitably

becomes one of great confrontation in this Legislature. And quite

rightly so, because I believe that if anything shows the difference

between the NDP philosophy and the Social Credit philosophy, it is how

each party would approach the whole matter of human services and their

delivery in this province. There is a very major difference. I think

that when the invective rises in this chamber, when people sometimes

end up shouting at each other, it is all part of the old parliamentary

tradition, frankly, of good debate. I often think that some people who

sit in the gallery may wonder about this display down here. But I hope

they appreciate the fact that to all of us this whole matter of

parliamentary debate is a great tradition which we are proud to take

part in. Sometimes tempers do get hot because of the philosophical

convictions of each side.

I am concerned that the Social

Credit government, who have been in charge of the direction of this

province and of the people in this province who, most of them through

no fault of their own, have to depend on the social services provided

to them by the government.... I am concerned that this government

simply is not doing an adequate job. Of course, it doesn't only relate

to the fact, in my opinion, that they are ineffective in providing the

right economic security and background for people in this province, but

to their whole philosophy on how people should have money distributed

and be looked after in times of need and stress. To my mind the whole

philosophy is wrong.

In preparing for my few remarks today,

I ran through briefly.... I won't take up too much time of the Chair in

this, but I would like to quote for the minister's edification from

"The Other MacDonald Report," which was compiled by groups that did

not feel that their point of view had been incorporated in the final

MacDonald report.

In here was an excellent philosophic

statement that I certainly would adhere to. It's because the Minister

of Human Resources' own philosophy does not seem to embrace this, nor

his government, that we are having this major controversy in this

chamber. If I may quote from "The Other MacDonald Report" — "The Role of Social Policy" — I do hope that some of the chamber will take an opportunity to listen to this:

"The idea of a welfare state is often associated with high

levels of government spending and the transfer of income and services to the

poor. But an advanced welfare state is not necessarily based on high government

spending or more redistribution to the poor. The proper conception of an advanced

welfare state is in its commitment to the idea of 'social citizenship'

for all members of society. This means that individual welfare should not depend

on how one performs in the marketplace, within the family or with private resources."

The final statement I want to get into the record is this: 'A state is a

welfare state when it guarantees a decent standard of living to all, as a citizen's

right."

This

is where we disagree, because in the opinion of the NDP, and of course

in the opinion of those who are out there receiving social assistance,

a decent standard of living is not being guaranteed by the Social

Credit government of British Columbia. That is why we are at this place

in the debate today. We are trying to express to the minister and to

his government that the manner in which they are handling the needs of

the people today is simply not sufficient to provide a decent standard

of living. Why should some people in this province have the standard of

living of survival, a decent standard, and others not? This is the

basic question that faces us, and the basic question is: how do we

handle it? I know that the Social Credit members may say, "Yes, we're

working on it," but here again is where we have a very major

difference.

I believe that the Social Credit government....

I know the Minister of Human Resources has reiterated this a number of

times. We have to have the megaprojects, he keeps saying, before we can

do anything more to help the people out there who need help. The NDP

says yes, you've got to have projects; you've got to do something out

there to create jobs, to create money. We won't get into the debate on

the megaprojects, but the point is, we believe that you must continue

to develop the people resources and the human resources at the same

time. You cannot let the people and their resources and their

well-being lag behind while the government proceeds bent on their

particular pet project of the time.

The tragedy is that because the Social Credit government has held back on services to people — and I'm thinking of all areas now, not only human resources but in health, in education — they

are creating potential adult tragedies who are going to be a great

social burden and are going to create much distress for many people in

their own families and outside of their families. Because of the lack

of services given to them today, they are going to be future serious

problems. Unfortunately the Social Credit government does not seem to

understand or show the concern for keeping up those necessary services

now.

This is our great concern. You know, it basically gets

down to somewhat of a conservative philosophy. The Minister of Human

Resources is certainly a very clear-cut conservative. He has always

shown that in his ideology; he shows it in his speeches. Now I do not

happen to agree with that ideology, but let us say to the minister....

I quote today from Sydney Harris. I don't know if any of you read him

in the Times-Colonist . I

always read him because I think that this man poses some very

interesting thoughts in his articles. In today's column he talks about

intelligent conservatives — "a

group that North America is not too crowded with." I must say that

unfortunately that is probably the same in British Columbia. He says:

"Intelligent conservatives have always recognized that making

concessions to the less fortunate is the best way of retaining one's

privileges, and that cold exploitation is the surest way to lose such

privileges sooner or later." He refers to some conservatives in the

past, such as Bismarck in Germany, who actually brought in the first

social security system. His point is that their motives may not have

been basic concern, although I'm not saying that conservatives don't

have a concern, but many times it is to the advantage of the

conservative to see that the rest of the people out there are not held

down and that their privileges are not denied and that they are

properly taking their place in society.

[ Page 7639 ]

a matter of fact, he goes on to point out how the opposite is being

done now in the United States. May I quote: "Sometimes I think we have

the dumbest conservative class in the world." If I may digress — but not really; I'm trying to make an analogy here — it

certainly fits into the present situation in the United States, where

we see, on a much larger scale of course, the conservative philosophy

at work, endorsed by President Reagan. And I know that you may say, Mr.

Chairman: what does this have to do with the human resources debate in

British Columbia? There is an underlying philosophy there which I am

trying to bring to the attention of the House, which the NDP believes,

embarked upon by the Social Credit government, is not taking any of us

in the right direction, particularly those who are suffering at the

moment from unemployment and other deprivation.

[3:15]

Here

is an example of what President Reagan has suggested, Mr. Chairman.

They have to cut their budget, so you know what he suggested? Cut over

$1 billion for college students; cut back in 40 social programs,

including rural housing loans, and then cut back on medicare. It goes

on and on — all

the programs which are going to cause serious problems with many of the

citizens in the United States, which again will only be seen there in

later years. But you know, the interesting and the tragic thing, may I

put in, Mr. Chairman, because I feel very strongly about this, is that

at the same time he's proposing those cuts, what is he asking to

increase? The military budget.

All right. We're not dealing

with a military budget here in this province, but at the same time as

the Social Credit government embarks on some basic cutbacks or no

increase. even with inflation, in services to people, we see them

spending other moneys in areas that are completely repugnant, frankly,

to me and to others. I'm referring to something which we've heard many

times before in this House: the amount of millions of dollars that are

being spent by this government on political advertising. You take just

a fraction of that money and apply it to some of these people in need.

Mr. Chairman.... I think the people out there in the province are

getting a little tired of a government saying: "But we don't have the

money to increase the needs of the people of this province who need to

have their lives brought up to a decent standard. We don't have the

money." Yet there is always money to propose to the people of British

Columbia that this government is great. We all just received the

government advertising sheet — again

just a straight party propaganda sheet. Lots of money for that; money

is always there, but not money for those people who need help today.

You

know, Mr. Chairman, when you hear about a floating yacht with all the

VIPs and food and drinks going through under the Lions Gate Bridge, it

sounds great. It's marvellous for those who are partaking and enjoying

it, but at the same time that that yacht is floating through with

people enjoying food and refreshments paid for by all the taxpayers, we

have food banks in our city. It's that terrible, terrible scene of

opposites, the rich and the poor in this province, which makes one

question the Social Credit government's philosophy. How can they

continue to say that they are really concerned about people when at the

same time they don't blink an eye at spending money on extravaganzas

while people are lining up for food banks?

MS. BROWN: They don't have a philosophy.

MRS. DAILLY:

This is the problem: I think they do have a philosophy. One of our

members behind me just said they don't have one. They have a very

arch-conservative philosophy when it comes to saying that the people

out there don't all need to be brought up to a certain standard of

living. They don't seem to take that as their social contract within

this chamber, to see that no one is out there suffering below a

standard of living that they can live a life of dignity with.

Is my time up, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Another minute or two.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, dear, because I did want to come to the minister very specifically — I know he'll be glad to hear that — and

just ask him.... When it comes to senior citizens, the whole area I

consider of major cutbacks which really concern me in human resources

is in the area of the seniors, supplement, which, as already has been

mentioned, has been reduced by $1.5 million. I know the minister said

this morning that it doesn't matter, because they do get other

assistance in other areas.

Let's take SAFER. I think the

problem with SAFER is that the regulations have to be looked at again.

There has to be a more formal review of the rent levels and

participation levels. What I am saying to the minister is: your

government has accepted cutbacks for seniors. The 60- to 64-year-olds

are not eligible for the federal pensions, and of course we know that

the GAIN supplement does not go to them either. Today with the cost of

living and inflation, I think it is a disgrace that they are not given

the opportunity to be included.

I have many more things on

seniors. Would the Minister of Human Resources at least give

consideration to looking seriously at the plight of the 60- to

64-year-old?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The very quick answer

to the seniors supplement is that the ministry anticipates fewer

recipients next year. The numbers in that category actually have been

declining for a period of time, for a number of reasons.

Just

a couple of moments in response to some of the comments from the member

for Burnaby North. I certainly take no offence at all at the

philosophical dissertation. I know no offence was intended or expected.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

am concerned about political clichés with respect to the well-being of

individuals. Philosophically at least I believe that there is no one

answer, and no one has all the answers. I think most people in our

society and most people who are elected have a genuine concern about

the needs of people who have little capacity to care for themselves.

There are going to be differences of opinion with respect to the

involvement of government in anyone's life. There is a conservative

attitude, there is a non-conservative attitude. There is a liberal

attitude, a socialist attitude and other philosophies of politics which

have an attitude. But I think the government's record over the years in

British Columbia has indicated that the citizens of the province,

through their government, have developed and produced a large number of

programs which are beneficial to the citizens.

A person who

is in need of income assistance is unlikely to frequently say that they

have reached a point where they have adequate funds. It is inconsistent

with being in need,

[ Page 7640 ]

and

I don't think government is going to find itself anytime able to

replace income, what a person may be able to achieve on his own, if the

opportunity is there. So income assistance by its very nature is not

complete replacement for what income could be, might have been or was.

want to comment on the question asked earlier: what has the economy of

Canada got to do with British Columbia? Very succinctly, a great deal.

I mentioned earlier that the interest paid on the national debt alone

costs B.C. $2 billion a year. That's a lot of money. In fact, that's

more money than the Human Resources budget, so of course it has a major

impact on British Columbia. Let's not forget we're Canadians as well,

and we also pay federal taxes, and it all comes out of the same

taxpayers' pockets. I believe that there is an absolute amount

taxpayers can be expected to pay to governments for whatever programs.

So it does have a huge impact on British Columbia and the citizens of

our province.

MRS. DAILLY: I see I did not convince

the minister to change his philosophy. Maybe we'll have to do one more

speech, and I'm not sure it will make a great difference.

this time, however, I would like to go back to a very specific question

to the minister. It is to do again with SAFER. You did yourself refer

to the fact that SAFER is a kind of buttress and assists the senior

citizens and that's why one shouldn't be so concerned that there is no

basic increase there in this budget. I would like to ask the minister

specifically: would you consider adding to the SAFER regulations

provision for formal annual review of rent levels, participation levels

and household coverage rates? I think this has been recommended to your

ministry by a number of groups, because adjustments should be made in

the SAFER program.

You did yourself mention that they had

dropped. I think what you have to look at is the reasons for the

recipients dropping. I think it is time that a close look was taken at

the SAFER and its present regulations. Would you do so?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I would be pleased to look at that question, yes. I certainly would be

pleased, and I would respond to that member in some detail if that's

what you are asking.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I

would like to raise two or three issues with the minister. Perhaps the

best thing is just to raise them all at once, and let him respond. I'm

sure that we may have a different philosophy relative to institutions

for the mentally retarded, but I'm not sure whether that minister is

quite as adamant as the former minister in relation to the idea that,

no matter how badly retarded, that person should not be in an

institution. I think "an institution" is open to broad

interpretation.

We can talk about a very institutional type of institution, or we can

talk about the more homelike setting type of institution, but it's

still an institution.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Group home.

MRS. WALLACE: A group home, yes, if you want to call it that.

What

I'm talking about specifically in this instance is an institution that

is in my own constituency. It's operated by an organization known as

the Cedar Lodge Society. That institution has two parts to its

operation, or it did have two parts to its operation. It had a school

for younger children who were mentally retarded or disabled, and it had

an operation for older students, in the form of Skeleem Village, where

the group home philosophy came in.

I'm sure, Mr. Chairman,

you will be aware, and I'm sure the minister is aware, that the

boarding part of the school came under some difficulty, and as a result

of some rather indepth research and study the boarding part of the

operation was phased out. The school room per se had been taken over by

the school district and operated as part of the educational system. It

was upgraded at that time, as far as the safety requirements went — fire,

health standards and all those kinds of things. That particular

building now sits vacant. The accommodation

part is not so good, but

the school is there.

What the Cedar Lodge Society is facing

are some rather grave difficulties with being able to continue with the

adult part, which uses the workshops and so on that were jointly

operated before. We now have a situation where I am concerned that the

whole thing may well fail if the government doesn't take some action. I

understand that the lodge is very actively pursuing several

alternatives, but some of those alternatives are related to disposing

of that school property. There are 150 acres there. It's an ideal

setting for treatment of severely disturbed, mentally handicapped

people who have various problems — schizophrenia, or whatever. An ideal setting.

because of financial pressure that society has to make a move and

dispose of that school property, to some developer or whomever, it's

not going to leave that whole entity intact. I'm concerned that that

may happen. I'm wondering whether or not the minister, in conjunction

with himself as Minister of Health, is prepared to take some interim

steps to assure — whatever options may be out there, and I understand there are some very viable options out there — that that whole unit be maintained as a viable and operating unit for the treatment of mentally disabled people.

When

I look at the statistics as to what is happening in this particular

area, this south island area, I notice that last year we had 38

residences in this area for mentally retarded; this year, in 1985, we

went up by one, to 39. That's a 2.6 percent increase. During the same

period, the number of persons accommodated went from 111 to 132, an

increase of 21, or nearly 19 percent. What that indicates to me is

overcrowding.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: They are small facilities; they're group homes.

What

we're looking at is a need, a very definite need. What I'm asking the

minister to do is to assure us that he is prepared to take some interim

steps to ensure that that society can remain in total, viable, and

operating until such time as a final plan can be put in place that will

accommodate it all.

I want to talk a bit also about the

mentally retarded association, which operates out of Cowichan and

operates two very fine services there. One is the Opportunity Centre

for adult retardees. It's doing an excellent job. They have a beautiful

new building there that they've built. It is an asset to the community

in many, many ways. It's used for community functions. There is an

intermingling of those people who work and operate within that

facility. It's an excellent arrangement.

In conjunction with that we have Children's Place. We're much indebted to a former, former, former Minister of

[ Page 7641 ]

Human

Resources, who made a goodly grant to that particular institution. It

has been under some difficulties. There were problems with the

management of the association there, and the good old democratic

process took hold and there were some changes. We now have a good

viable association that's operating both of those institutions very

equitably.

They have a full enrolment and a waiting-list at

Children's Place. It's an integrated day-care facility where they take

kids who are absolutely "normal" and kids who are mentally or

physically retarded — blind, lame, the halt — and

they intermingle. It's one of the most beautiful things in the world to

go to visit that place, where you see those blind or crippled children

accepted quite normally by the other children there. If the little

blind boy loses his ball, it's just a matter of course that the other

child goes and picks the ball up and gives it back to him. It indicates

to me the possibility, you know, of a dream come true, where people, no

matter what their physical or mental disability, are accepted fully and

completely into society. It's happening there with those young children

who haven't been taught that those kids are different. They accept

them. It's a great thing to see. And Norah Keir, who instigated that

whole idea and brought it into place, is certainly to be congratulated

for what she has done.

They, I understand, have asked for

some block funding. I would like to suggest to the minister that that

is one of the most valuable places that he could put his money — into

block funding for those two operations. They're carrying a lot of

capital costs because of that great new centre they have built for the

adult retardees. I'm not knocking it. It's a beautiful centre, and it's

good to have, but they are carrying the costs on that and they need

block funding for operating. I understand they've asked for something

like $2,500 a month, which would carry them through for the year. I'm

certainly hoping that the minister can assure me that that is in place.

talking about the day care, they have just had to raise their fees.

They've upped them $10, so it's $260 a month for those over three years

and $360 a month for those under three years, and then various rates

for the special children that they have in there depending on the

degree of disability. That simply aggravates the situation with the

subsidy, because we in Cowichan are not a particularly affluent

population — yet.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE:

I hope that day will come, but we're still suffering from the fact that

our processing plants have been limited in production, and we're still

suffering from the downturn in the forest industry, because we

certainly were a one-industry area.

We are in need of an

increase of those subsidies. They haven't been increased since 1981.

There is difficulty. I'm just hoping that that full registration at

Children's Place and that waiting-list will not disappear because of

that $10 increase, because that may just be the breaking point to a lot

of the parents who are in there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order. One moment, please. The member for New Westminster and the

second member for Surrey will come to order. The member for

Cowichan-Malahat continues.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I've learned to ignore that member for Surrey very easily.

The

third issue that I wanted to raise with the minister relates to child

abuse. The situation relative to the trained and qualified personnel

that are needed has been raised by my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown) and others. In Cowichan-Malahat, between 1984 and 1985, the

recorded cases of child abuse have increased by 108 percent.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Do you have the numbers on you?

MRS. WALLACE: I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I could get them.

What

we have there is absolutely no paid, trained child abuse workers. We

have one volunteer working in family life who is just run to the point

of breakdown. I don't know how strongly I can urge the minister to do

something about giving us some help there. I have written to him, and

he has answered me and said that they provide this kind of service for

these children, and that as far as mental health is concerned, I'd have

to talk to the Minister of Health. Now he can talk to himself about

that. We had an interministerial committee established. I've got two of

the ministers on that committee sitting there right now in the persons

of the Minister of Human Resources — and surely he can outvote the other one — and

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). We need to do something about

this, instead of just having that interministerial committee sit there

and not come up with some answers. They keep passing the buck. I've

written to the Attorney-General, I've written to the Minister of

Health, I've written to the Minister of Human Resources, and one just

passes me off to the other. It's like a perfect merry-go-round.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Hardly.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it is, Mr. Minister, and you've been part of that as Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I wish we weren't restricted by statute and could let some of that information out to the province.

MRS. WALLACE: I have no idea what the minister is referring to, but he can fill me in when he stands up.

I have a report here — and as far as I know, it's a public report — on

the interministerial issues. I'm looking for the cover of it: "Child

Sex Abuse Policy for the Ministry of the Attorney-General, April 1985."

It talks about treatment and support services, and it talks about a

long-term goal. It says: "The long-term goal of the approach outlined

in this report is not only the protection of the children concerned but

the reduction of the occurrence of such crimes. The availability of

treatment programs for offenders is therefore, in view of the ministry,

critical to the success of new justice system initiatives with respect

to child sexual abuse."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, hon. member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Cowichan, in a very general

way, on the mentally retarded question, with respect to attitude or

policy, I agree that an institution can be defined quite differently

depending on who is using the word. I believe that normally, when we're

[ Page 7642 ]

speaking

of institutions.... Certainly when I'm speaking of institutions, I'm

referring to classic provincial institutions such as Tranquille and

Woodlands — of

that nature. I suppose a group home, or whatever, is an institution as

well. Perhaps an institution is simply "other than your own home."

think it's important that we try to provide the level of care closest

to a home setting as possible, depending on the condition of the

individual. There is always going to be a need for institutional care

for some people. There are cases of retardation and other difficulties — sometimes multiple handicaps — where

it would be impractical if not impossible to care for such a person

other than in a properly managed institution with professional staff.

We are trying to provide the closest possible level of care to home

care. If a youngster can remain at home, or if a youngster can be

returned home and cared for by the parents, that's what we would like

to accomplish. If not, we would like the youngster, if possible, to be

in his community; if not, perhaps in a smaller setting than a

provincial institution. Certainly there is going to be a need for

institutions of some kind for some of those individuals.

I don't know the details on Cedar Lodge. I'll be pleased to look into that. It sounds very nice — 156

acres or whatever. I understand that there have been some difficulties

in funding. I also understand that one of the major hospitals is

speaking out loud about possibly using the area for treatment of

adolescents suffering from mild forms of mental illness. So they're

looking at that, although I think there's a fair amount of expenditure

for renovations.

I am not intimately familiar with

Children's Place in Cowichan. We rarely block-fund. We purchase

services as provided by societies for special needs children — or some

other particular activities. We contract with societies to provide

services. This is normally how it is funded. I'd be pleased to look

into that, however, to see if I could get more details on that.

The

child abuse question. I mentioned to the member that I wish we could

say more about certain cases, which we are prohibited from doing now by

statute, because there is some information I believe the public should

be very aware of with respect to child abuse. We are not hiding behind

the skirts of the law, to use a kind of mixed-up metaphor, but the law

does specifically prohibit breaching the confidentiality, and that's

really very important.

Information obtained by the Ministry

of Human Resources is confidential, for a very good reason obviously.

But because of that confidentiality, sometimes situations with respect

to abuse.... The information we have on specific cases is not to be

released unless it is being released to a court. I think there are

certain situations where we would like to be heard and have some of

this information generally brought before the public of British

Columbia, in some instances, where it never goes to court.

The

committee is hardly passing the buck, nor is the superintendent of

child and family services passing the buck. They are looking into a

very, very serious problem in the province, one which perhaps has

become better known because of a number of programs which have been

initiated by the ministry over the past number of years with respect to

awareness, with respect to reporting.

[3:45]

the member, Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that there has been an

increase in reported incidents. We've seen this across the province.

There has been an attempt made by the ministry to encourage people to

make such reports. We do know of instances where reports simply were

not made, even though the information we have is that people were well

aware and well aware of their responsibility. But in some instances the

reports were not made for a number of reasons, and that is being

clearly looked at.

We recognize that no matter what system

you may put in place, it is not going to work perfectly. We recognize

that no matter what requirements you make of citizens, not all will

participate. We certainly don't want to have a situation where child

abuse is either ignored or not reported or encouraged in any way. We

don't want the system to be failing in that, nor do we wish the

citizens to be failing in their responsibilities.

We will

have more on that later as that report comes in. I expect it to be in

in a reasonable period of time. But we share your concern about child

abuse, and there are many, many forms of child abuse. We recognize that

as well. We were discussing this earlier today, the very real

difficulties members within the ministry have in dealing with certain

cases, particularly when there are allegations, and the allegations

must be followed by an investigation, which could be followed by a

hearing, which could be followed by a court case in a different court.

You're dealing with a very difficult area, and it has to be handled

with a fair amount of skill by all concerned.

But yes, the

numbers are far too high, and I believe the ministry and others are

working very hard to try to resolve that problem, although we couldn't

expect to have complete success. But we are certainly trying to achieve

maximum success within the capabilities of individual people.

MRS. WALLACE:

I appreciate what the minister has said, but he hasn't answered my

question. He has given me a lot of platitudes. He wrote me on March 11,

since he's been the Minister of Human Resources, in response to my

question of whether he will provide some assistance, some counselling,

some trained workers in Cowichan for child abuse.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

No, I am talking about the sort of workers that we used to have there

that we no longer have, and what you've told me.... "As you know, the

Ministry of Human Resources is responsible for investigating

allegations of child abuse in order to protect children who have been

subject to abuse and neglect." Then you go on: "The ministry also

provides support services to families, including child care workers to

assist a child and his family." We do not have those in Cowichan.

That's what I am asking the minister for, and that's what I have been

asking for for the last six months, and I am getting nowhere. I am

getting this runaround.

MR. COCKE: I just want to

supplement something that the member for Cowichan-Malahat was talking

about earlier. I think it's fortuitous that at this moment we have the

Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources before us,

because the question of the facility at Cobble Hill — called the Cedar Lodge Society — impinges

on both those ministries. I understand that the board of directors are

absolutely desperate; they are bankrupt. They will sell to the first

bidder, and I think that would be an absolute sacrifice which the

people of British Columbia should not look forward to. The

[ Page 7643 ]

major

hospital which that minister talks about can put together a program

there and in no way will it stand in the way of the ministers.

Incidentally,

I agree with that position they've taken with respect to

de-institutionalization wherever possible. A program for young adults

is desperately needed in this province, and that place lends itself to

that situation. Because a major program has to be developed, for the

time being there just has to be management of the facilities, and that

could be provided for not a major amount of money — I

would think something under $100,000 for a whole year. I believe that

that use of that property, which is there for the government not to run

in and of itself but there to provide a very much needed program for a

situation in B.C....

The time is so short on this that

because of the attractiveness of the property I'm afraid we might lose

the opportunity. Outside groups are presently interested, naturally;

who wouldn't be? Seventy beautiful acres in the district of Cowichan,

in the Cobble Hill area close to Shawnigan Lake, and it would be so sad

for us to lose this opportunity. I would ask the minister quietly if he

would get in touch with his officials at both levels, but particularly

his officials in the Ministry of Health, to took very seriously at

providing at least interim care. If it's found later that the program

is going to be inadequate, in the government's eyes, then the property

isn't going to be the least bit devalued. It will still be there and

can be disposed of at that time if necessary. But for heaven's sake,

let's grasp an opportunity where that opportunity exists. There's far

too little being done for young adults who are desperately in need of

mental health care.

I leave that with the minister, but I

sure hope something can develop as quickly as possible. Time is short,

in my opinion, on that particular situation.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was waiting for the minister in case he did want to reply, but if he's not standing up I'll continue.

the opening of this session I think the government gave this House, as

well as the people of the province, a pretty clear signal that it was

going to continue to ignore some of the very real problems facing our

unemployed people throughout this province. One of the things discussed

in earlier announcements — the budget announcement, the throne speech — was

the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources was going to reduce the

GAIN program by somewhere in the neighbourhood of $11 million. The

reason given at that time — quoting right from the budget speech — was

that such a decision reflects the success of our economic renewal

program in creating jobs. Unemployment in the Okanagan-Boundary area

does not reflect that statement. It's true that there has been a slight

increase in job creation, but all of those jobs were created in the

Vancouver area. There are just as many people unemployed now and on

income assistance — in fact more — than

there were a year ago. All the employment creation has been in the

metro Vancouver area. The interior of this province has been

sacrificed. In 1981 unemployment in the Okanagan-Boundary area was at

7.7 percent, That was prior to the government's restraint program.

Subsequent to the initiation of the restraint program that unemployment

doubled to 14.2 percent. By 1986 it is now at 17.7 percent. That

doesn't reflect the reality of that statement.

Getting back

to my initial statement of the reduction in the GAIN program of $11

million, the rationale for that reduction sounds hollow indeed against

the reality out there in British Columbia, where ordinary British

Columbians remain unemployed, where over 223,000 men, women and

children in this province are relying on Human Resources, on the GAIN

supplement, for their daily bread and butter.

Mr. Chairman, in the Kamloops region in 1982 there were 9,292 individual recipients — that's men, women and children — who

were receiving the income supplement through the Ministry of Human

Resources. In 1984 that figure increased to 1,828. Mr. Chairman, the

recent figures that I've just obtained from 1985 show that that

increase has continued. There are over 16,500 men, women and children

in the Kamloops region who are drawing from the services of the GAIN

program. That's an increase in three years of 78 percent. An increase

of 78 percent in two years.

In the Okanagan-Boundary area,

which includes the constituencies of Shuswap-Revelstoke, my area in the

north Okanagan, Okanagan South and Boundary-Similkameen, in 1982 there

were 10,686 GAIN recipients. In 1984 there were 17,191. In 1985 the

figures that I have available indicate almost 20,000 people — 19, 871 recipients. That is an increase of 88 percent in two years.

The

government says the reason for the $11 million reduction in the GAIN

program reflects the success of our economic renewal program at

creating jobs. Mr. Chairman, the reality puts the lie to that

statement. Unemployment is not working. The GAIN program is not working

because of the fact that there are so many people drawing from that

program and being forced to live below the poverty line in this

province. Families are living at half the poverty line throughout

British Columbia. This government is a government of partners in

poverty. I know that statement has been made before, but I think it

succinctly summarizes the reality out there that ordinary British

Columbians are having to face every day.

[4:00]

community office in the city of Vernon runs an advocacy style office. A

number of volunteers work in that office supplying information to

people who come in from the community. I must admit that in the 6,000

inquiries that we've had over the year and a half since I've been in

this House, I would have to venture to say that almost two-thirds of

those inquiries have been inquiries about Human Resources problems —

mainly inquiries about the income supplement program. It's just amazing

to see the problems that people are facing out there. When we deal with

the Human Resources workers in the area — I know they're all dedicated

individuals, people who really do care about individuals out there —

they

are pressed to the absolute limit. No wonder they can't do their jobs

properly. No wonder there are mistakes being made in the situations

where they have to make a decision in child abuse. They're over-worked,

they're understaffed, and they're forced into making policing decisions

on the spur of the moment. It's absolutely atrocious. The child abuse

team has been disbanded. A worthwhile part of this ministry was just

lopped off at the head when restraint was introduced. It's forcing the

social workers into a policing role where they have neither the time

nor the resources, and they no longer have the energy or the spirit to

deal with the many problems.

I want to turn to a couple of very specific areas of concern, address them individually to the minister, and give him

[ Page 7644 ]

opportunity to respond to each one. I would like to have individual

responses. The first one deals with Human Resources garnisheeing

settlement moneys through the court system. I cite a couple of cases

with regard to ICBC settlements. What is basically happening is that

the ministry has been siphoning off moneys that have been obtained by

individuals who are income recipients through the GAIN program. They

have been siphoning off that money through the settlement process.

People

on welfare have been required to sign waivers which have basically

forced them to relinquish the settlement they've obtained. Let me give

you a specific example. This regards a situation in Burnaby that was

cited some time ago — December, 1985 — in the Province ,

but you can check on that. I'll read a

section of it, because I think

it lays it out fairly clearly. This individual was a battered child and

came to MHR as a foster child a few years back. She's now a 19-year-old

hairdressing student, and unknown to her, the ministry had been

siphoning off money from a traffic accident award that she had received

four years ago. The award was for $8,000 from the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia and was awarded to this individual after she was

hit by a car while crossing a road in Burnaby. Because she was a

juvenile, the money was being held in trust through B.C.'s public

trustee. That individual learned when she went to look at her account

that the $8,000 was suddenly reduced to about $4,900. What had happened

was that the Ministry of Human Resources had been billing her trust

account to the tune of $375 a month without her knowledge. The reason

for that was to pay for her foster care. I guess, in strict terms, it's

legal, but I think it's rotten policy. It's policy that should be

stopped.

I have another case, and I might add that I was

just talking to the solicitor on that case only about a half hour ago.

Mr. Chairman, this refers to a single mother in the Vernon area,

presently on welfare, who was attending Okanagan College and trying to

obtain an upgrading for an occupation that she was trying to get into

through the college. While travelling to the college one day, she was in

a vehicle accident, received some severe whiplash and had extensive

medical treatment. Eventually she obtained a settlement through ICBC.

What

happened was that Human Resources walked in, and according to the legal

counsel, under duress she was forced to sign an assignment or a waiver.

In essence, what has happened is that MHR has taken those moneys

accorded to her through the settlement. I want to repeat that it's my

understanding that this individual was requested to sign this

assignment under duress.

Legal counsel advises that this

can be fought at the Supreme Court, and he's at the point of going in

that direction because of that very nature. I think the minister should

take the time to look at that. Here's an individual who has received an

award through the courts for pain and suffering. Human Resources, like

Big Brother, walks in and says: "We want some of that money. You have

no right to that money." She has no recourse, because if she didn't

sign it she was threatened to be cut off of the GAIN program. That is

not what I call fair. I think it's rotten policy, and I think that the

minister should have a close look at this policy.

I have a

couple of other points to make, but I'm going to sit down at this point

and let the minister respond to that if he wishes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The concept of income assistance is to assist those people who

basically have no income, or who are in certain circumstances where

they require assistance. The amount, I suppose, is important, but if a

person were injured in a traffic accident and their source of income

was gone and they required some assistance from the ministry, it would

be normal to have them sign an agreement whereby they would restore

certain amounts, because they would otherwise be ineligible. You're

speaking of $8,000, I believe, in that one. What if it were $100,000 or

$200,000? Would you recommend that the public trustee, who is...? I

believe the terminology is "guardian of the purse of the person," or

something.

don't know the circumstances of the one

individual. I don't know whether that individual is a ward of the

superintendent. But when it comes to the moneys, the public trustee is

the guardian of that money. The public trustee makes these decisions —

whether payments are made on her behalf. If it were a private trust,

the private trustee would make those decisions.

Income

assistance is for those without income, without assets. We do not

provide income assistance for individuals with assets, no matter if

it's awarded through the courts. That's how these settlements are

reached: through the courts. That's not offensive to the system. I

don't know the circumstances surrounding the college student. But a

person cannot be forced to sign anything. You don't have to go to the

Supreme Court; a law student would know that. Under duress.

Someone

comes and says that they would like assistance, or whatever, while we

conclude this case — we're seeking a settlement from ICBC, or whatever

— and

Human Resources assists. The understanding is always that if a

settlement is reached, they will be recompensed. That's reasonable. In

effect, you are loaning. A person comes into a certain amount of money,

for pain, suffering or for whatever; they are suddenly with assets,

money — whatever amount that may be. They are no longer eligible for

income assistance. I don't know how you would convince the people of

the province otherwise. Because a person is handicapped or because a

person finds himself in a certain way does not mean that he

automatically receives income assistance. This is not a pension plan;

it's income assistance, and there are certain requirements which must

be met.

Don't get on our back about a youngster not knowing

what her trust is; that's the public trustee's responsibility. We don't

administer that fund on her behalf; the public trustee does. But it's

not unreasonable. Again, if a youngster were in a foster home, and a

relative passed on and left her an estate, we would expect that estate

to pay for her care in the foster home, or a portion of it at least.

That's not unusual; there are many instances where individuals who have

their children in a foster home are paying for that care or a portion

of it. We want to assist those who require that assistance. It may

sound harsh. And I suppose added to that is the background of the

youngster, and some of the difficulties she's had in life. But it

really doesn't change the rules and regulations and the procedures. The

taxpayers have said that through various programs they're prepared to

assist people in need. There are certain qualifications as to what "in

need" means, when it comes to the financial end. A person with assets,

with income, is deemed not to be in need. Certain numbers are achieved,

and I presume that is the circumstance of these.

[ Page 7645 ]

There

is a miscomprehension, frequently, among many people that certain money

provided to individuals is a pension. That is not the case. We don't

administer pensions. We are involved in income assistance, income

assistance only in that way. And certainly not siphoning off. We would

be subject to great criticism by the courts if we were not following

the rules. The public trustee is responsible in one case: that decision

would be made by him to pay for foster care. And in the other case, a

person is not required to sign anything under duress. That's an

improper procedure; it may be an improper word used by the lawyer.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Is threatening to cut them off of GAIN not duress?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Perhaps I missed it. Did you say the person was on GAIN when injured?

The person had previously been on GAIN. Then I'd have to look at it.

But I can't accept that that was said. I can't accept it, because I

have not heard that. But I would certainly be pleased to took at that,

if you can give me some of the details. Did you say you have written?

Fine. I'd be pleased to look at that.

am slightly jaundiced when it comes to statements by lawyers on behalf

of their clients — no offence, Mr. Chairman, to any member of the bar,

but frequently there is a different story. I'd be pleased to took at it.

MR. MacWILLIAM:

Just to clarify those points to the minister, the individual was on

income assistance at the time of injury. As I said, she is a single

mother and was trying to obtain specialized education at the college at

the time, and was threatened with the cancellation of her GAIN policy

if in fact she did not sign the assignment. To me, that's duress and a

direct threat, and if that can be done, then it's rotten policy and

should be changed.

I can understand the minister's

rationalization that if a person receives a $100,000 or $200,000

settlement it certainly changes his financial capability, but the two

cases that I have cited are not major settlements. In fact, much of

that money may have to be paid out in legal fees. What happens with MHR

coming in and garnisheeing those settlements is that the person is

maintained in that downward spiral of welfare and is unable to climb

out of the bottom of the pit.

I think that we have to look

at these situations with a degree of humaneness and a reality that

these individuals have not received these moneys in any other way but

through a legal assignment for pain and suffering involved. I think

that changes the situation considerably. However, I will supply that

information to the minister, and I do hope that he has a look at it.

The

other concern that I wanted to address is the lack of a register for

adoptees and natural parents in the province of British Columbia. It

was brought to my attention that there is an obvious need to establish

a provincial register for adoptees and for birth parents. Apparently

British Columbia is alone with Prince Edward Island as the provinces

without this service. B.C. apparently has had the reputation of

withholding information from citizens regarding natural parents of

adoptees.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MR. MacWILLIAM:

I want, for the clarification of that member who continues to interrupt

the House, to refer her to the Jack Webster show where a number of

cases were cited....

[4:15]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. minister and the member for Surrey, the member for North Okanagan has the floor.

MR. MacWILLIAM:

It's interesting that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) is

continually referring to my going back into the classroom or getting a

real job. It's really interesting because, you know, this member has

not said one positive comment in this House since I have sat here, in a

year and a half. I just want to say to that member that I'm proud of

the profession that I came from, and I can say to that member that at

least I had an honest job.

MR. REID: So have I.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Go turn another odometer back.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The hon. member is not imputing anything improper with

respect to the second member for Surrey in his statement? In saying,

"At least I had an honest job," you are not imputing anything improper

with respect to the second member?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Absolutely not.

I mentioned, there have been a number of cases cited; in particular one

where a middle-aged adoptee could not unite with a consenting birth

parent simply because of the lack of access to information available. I

would simply ask the minister if he would consider any changes to the

present regulations which would make such information a little more

accessible to consenting parties. I'll sit down and let the minister

respond at this point.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Very

quickly, there are two provinces in Canada which do not have registers:

British Columbia and P.E.I. The other provinces have variations of

registers. There are generally two types, generically known as passive

or active. B.C. has neither. What we do provide for adopted people is

information known as non-identifiable: that is, medical information,

genetic information if it's available, ancestry, and so on. It's

considered to be non-identifiable.

I happen to agree that

consenting adults should have the opportunity of reunion. I don't agree

with being active and seeking out people who have not let it be known

that they want to have a reunion. The passive registers basically

provide that an adopted person may register and the natural parents of

an adopted person may register. If the two parties, or three, of the

two principal sides each have registered, then they would be advised

that the registry has received a request from the other party, and are

they still interested in meeting? Should they both be positive, then

information would be supplied to allow them to meet.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

[ Page 7646 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

No, not available. That's what they refer to as a passive registry.

Active registry is where one person applies and government, on their

behalf, tries to seek out the other party. In my own opinion, that's

going a little too far, but a passive registry, yes, as a possibility.

It would require change in legislation. It also would require, I think — with respect — a

pretty strong opinion from the people in the province. We do have two

sides and there are two opposing points of view. There are a number of

organizations representing those who have been adopted. There are also

groups that represent those who put a child up for adoption, and there

is another group which uses the slogan.... I'm not trying to demean

them, but the slogan "as if born to," and those are the adopting

parents. Some of the adopting parents in some organizations feel that

they would, in effect, be betrayed should that information be made

available to the children they have adopted. That's their opinion. I

find it a bit difficult to deny adults the opportunity of learning

about themselves. There is a very strong difference of opinion. Heavy

emotional attitudes are expressed over this issue.

Again,

I would like to hear from those sides. I've certainly heard from the

parent-finders, for want of a better term — that's one of the

organizations — and

others who have been in communication asking if we would consider this.

I'd very much like to hear from the other side. I've heard in the past

from the others that they feel it might be considered a betrayal. The

argument is put forward as well that it might cause reluctance on the

part of people to adopt a child, knowing that at some point that child

would perhaps be able to reunite with its natural parents or birth

parents. I listen to that, but I don't subscribe to it. I think a

19-year-old, a 20-year-old, someone 21, 25, 30, 35 years old who

decides they would like to find out who their natural parents were and

perhaps meet them is unlikely to deny the love of their adopting

parents. I don't see that as a problem, but some people do.

would certainly ask the people of the province to let me know how they

feel about it. I have very strong attitudes myself, and I don't think

it's proper that I attempt to impose them on all the other people

associated with adoptions. I just happen to have a very strong point of

view, but I'm not saying it's the only point of view or the correct

point of view. Basically I'm in favour of a passive registry.

MR. MacWILLIAM:

Just to further that line of discussion, perhaps the minister can

confirm at the end if he has any intentions of implementing a passive

registry in the near future. I'll leave that one at that.

The

last one, Mr. Chairman, is regarding natural parents of handicapped

children. I have had numerous letters — perhaps a dozen or two dozen —

which

I will supply directly to the minister; in fact, I can do that now.

These letters outline some of the concerns, the costs and problems that

the natural parents of handicapped children incur in caring for those

children. After checking out the regulations under the present

legislation, there does not appear to be any direct means of support

for natural parents who have handicapped children; however, there is a

means of direct financial support for foster parents who are in charge

of handicapped children. It seems most inequitable that the natural

parents of a mentally or physically handicapped child who want to hold

on to that child are unable to obtain any means of support, and because

of income level or other extenuating circumstances may in fact be

forced to give up the care of that child simply for financial reasons,

when on the other hand foster parents are in fact receiving a fairly

significant supplement for the care of those children.

realize that subsequent to the budget address there have been a couple

of minor changes, which I welcome. Eligibility for additional homeowner

grants, which previously were available only to handicapped homeowners,

has been extended to parents with handicapped children. That's good,

and I welcome that change.

There

is also a minor change

regarding the fuel tax rebate for handicapped persons. That is going'in

the right direction, but I would like to advise the minister that it is

not enough. And I would like to ask him directly to respond to those

letters, to take to heart the concerns of those citizens throughout the

North Okanagan who have written me in this regard, and consider a

program of financial support for those families — natural parents — who

are interested in continuing to care for their handicapped children,

providing a means of support so that they may do so.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I guess there would be basically three categories of family with respect to these special needs children — I

guess we can call them that and get away with it because it probably

covers them all. You have a foster parent situation, an adopted parent

situation and a natural parent one. A child with special needs is

frequently given up by its natural parents. This could be for many

reasons, many of which are not income-related. Depending on the

difficulties of the children and their problems, some parents simply

cannot cope with them. It's beyond their capacity. The ministry permits

the child to be placed without adoption. That's one level of custody.

The child can be placed in a foster home and cared for, paid for by the

ministry. If the parents have the financial capacity, they will be

asked to contribute to the care, because statutorily the parents are

responsible for the well-being of that child. That's one arrangement

which can be made, and sometimes it is only for a period of time.

Frequently it may be that the added imposition of a special needs child

is too much for a family with the needs of other children. If the other

children leave the home, then perhaps this special needs child can be

returned.

The adopting parents are in a similar situation.

It is possible that some people who foster special needs children now

could consider adopting them but for financial restrictions. That's

possible; there could be some. One of the great difficulties with

special needs children is that at some point they may require

institutional care. Some parents are reluctant to develop a long

relationship, only to see the children perhaps institutionalized,

depending on what condition they may suffer.

The idea of

providing financial assistance to parents to care for their own

children occurs under our income assistance program on a regular basis.

But it is based on income, on their financial capability. They can

reach a certain point where they qualify for certain benefits, such as

medical coverage. If they are below another level, they receive income

assistance, and there is allowance given for a handicapped dependent.

[4:30]

are dealing, I suppose, again — and I don't know the background and

history of the families who have written to the member — with the

position of those kind of caught in the middle. They are not wealthy

enough to not really have need

[ Page 7647 ]

concern about costs, and they are not poor enough to qualify for that

which is available now. Those are the folks in the middle again.

spoke earlier today about the feasibility, or the philosophical view,

of providing assistance to adopting parents for special needs children — whether

it was a good idea or whether it would be viewed as paying people to

adopt children, or as people adopting children because they get paid.

We never want to have that attitude around, because it would be wrong

and detrimental, I think, to the concept of adoption.

would be pleased to do some research on this question. I am only

reluctant to say anything too definite because I would like to know

whether other jurisdictions have done this and what they experienced —

what

the results were, or what attitudes they may have on it now if they

have had experience in this area. It sounds like a reasonable thing to

do. But again, we are speaking of those who are in a financial

situation in which they require assistance — perhaps for regular

routine living rather than the added burden of a special needs child.

So I don't know.

One

other quick point. We are not dealing in pensions — I we are dealing in

income assistance. It could be argued — maybe some other time — that

a person who is so handicapped could perhaps be in receipt of a pension

of some kind, as a child, to be paid to his trustee or guardian, just

as adults can receive a handicapped pension or allowance. Actually it

is income assistance. I am using the word "pension" now; it's income

assistance. There are federal pensions associated with that.

individual family which has the capacity to care for their special

needs children unlikely would ask for some help. There is some minor

assistance offered federally through the income tax now. Maybe it's not

minor to some, but it's an increased exemption for the handicapped. I

understand in 1986, as I mentioned earlier, for the first time they

will be including those who suffer from mental retardation, rather than

the categories previously of legally blind and confined to a wheelchair

or a bed. I think that's a move in the right direction.

I'll

be pleased to respond to you and, if you wish, to the individuals, and

spell it out a wee bit and see if we can get a bit more information.

It's not unlike a suggestion made earlier today. It's certainly worth

considering, because we want to provide the handicapped youngster, if

we can, with home care by their natural parents, if possible, depending

on the needs of the child and the needs of the parents. But the idea is

worthy of consideration. Whether we can institute it I don't know, but

I'll certainly look at it.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased to

take

part in this debate, however briefly. I hope that my tone will be

somewhat less raucous and bellicose than the exchanges that occurred

here yesterday. I don't think that the minister will be able to stand

too much of that on two subsequent days, so I'll try and keep it

reasonable and logical and decent if I can.

I'm pleased to

see the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) here today too,

because I'm going to cite some figures in a little while that deal with

his riding as well, and congratulate him for staying out of trouble

recently. He's become the Teflon man of the B.C. Legislature. I hope

that doesn't take too long to end, because there are certain people who

are a bit outraged with some of the things that have been happening

lately.

I think, though, that if we do have a bellicose

tone or an angry interchange, it isn't necessarily anger at the person;

it's anger at the policies. I think that we have every right to express

outrage at the policies that condemn so many people to perpetual

poverty. I think it's a bit unfair of the minister, as he did

yesterday, to attempt, noted as he is — famous — for being a fair

man.... I think it's really unfair when he twists, or attempts to

twist, an attack on the minister's policies to an attack on the people

who work in social welfare and human resources. That's what he did

yesterday.

The criticisms were made against the policies,

not the people. I think all of us have a great respect for the people

who work in social welfare. They're dealing constantly with people in

trouble. They're dealing constantly with people who are under stress,

and often with very angry people, and sometimes very violent people.

They frequently put their jobs on the line, and I'm glad most of the

time that I don't have their job. It's tough. So the attack isn't on

the people.

There was also an attack against this party for

suggesting that the government wasn't doing enough about employment,

and he criticized us for raising legitimate questions about

megaprojects. Everybody knows you've got to have some megaprojects. I

mean, you wouldn't have any hydroelectricity at all if you didn't have

dams, and they are megaprojects. You've got to have a mixture. The CPR

was a megaproject. So you've got to have a mixture of megaprojects and

microprojects. There's no question about that. The question is, though:

should you concentrate all your eggs in the megabasket? That is the

question. Because whether you're talking about a nuke plant, a tar

sands plant, a large dam or whatever, you're talking about $1 million

per job. That's what you're talking about in cases of investment — roughly

$1 million per job. Our criticism is the fact that the total reliance

has been on the megaprojects, and that you're not getting enough

employment bang for a buck out of those jobs. That is a fact.

Sometimes there are real spinoffs from those jobs. Nobody questions that. The Roberts Bank and the coal stuff — there

were a great number of spinoffs from that kind of development. Nobody

questions that. But for other jobs there are no permanent jobs, or very

few, as a result. And to constantly increase your capacity for

producing hydroelectricity, as they're doing in Manitoba, Quebec and

Ontario, when the demand is declining, is not always the wise thing to

do at the moment either.

That really doesn't deal with what

the subject is for today. The subject is the minister's estimates. The

minister's estimates deal with poverty and the alleviation of poverty,

or, if you like, employment, which is one of the best ways to alleviate

poverty. I think most people would prefer meaningful jobs to handouts.

When

we talk about whether you concentrate almost solely on megaprojects or

whether you have a mixture of mega and minor projects, it has a great

deal to do with employment and a great deal to do with the

redistribution of income and a great deal to do with poverty. That is

the link-up that I'm attempting to establish: if you starve education

and you starve welfare, you have developed a permanent underclass.

There are people who are condemned to spend their whole lives in that

position. That is happening all over North America. We are developing

this vast gulf of the haves and the have-nots, and it has implications

and spillovers for many things, including social welfare.

[ Page 7648 ]

Mr.

Chairman, I've got some notes here for the riding that I represent,

plus the riding of Maple Ridge-Dewdney, plus the riding of

Maillardville-Coquitlam. Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for

Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) is interrupting the member for Dewdney (Hon. Mr.

Pelton), and he can't hear what I'm saying. I would suggest that she

stop doing that so I can get through to the member for Dewdney, the

Teflon man of the environment. Here are some really disturbing figures

in terms of social welfare. I'm giving them, so I'd like the member for

Dewdney to hear them.

Here

we have GAIN caseloads by

category for the various months of March '84 and '85, and the percent

change from '83 to '85; they really are bad. Single men, the caseload,

2,263; March '84, 2,003. That's an increase of 12.98 percent. We could

go right through the single women, one-parent families, two-parent

families, couples, children with relatives. The total cases amount to

an increase of about 500 total cases, '85 over '84. But if you look at

the total cases '85 over '83, it amounts to an increase of some — and I

can give you the hard numbers; and I want to be correct about this —

32.5 percent. I thought that the restraint was over and recovery was

just around the corner.

you look at the statistics related to employment, they look to be

improving in the lower mainland; certainly in the Vancouver area they

have been. I think if you're going to give the bad news, you should

give the good news too. Here are some February '86 unemployment figures

for the lower mainland: 11.7 percent; in March, 11.4 percent; in the

year before, March '85, 14.4 percent. So that looks like a modest

improvement. If there is a modest improvement in employment, then why

isn't there an equivalent reduction in the social welfare cases? I

think we need an explanation of that. As a matter of fact, the total

dependent cases of total recipients is about 25 percent higher in '85

than it was in '83, which is just about the number of people put out of

work by the restraint program. But now we have recovery, so why aren't

these people all back working? Where are they? Why is there an increase

in our areas of people who are dependent for their livelihood on social

welfare? Why is there a food bank running in Haney? Why is there one

running in Port Moody, constantly, if things are so rosy? The happiness

boys are all over there, and the gloom-and-doom guys are all over here;

that's what we're told forever. So if things are so great, why is that

increase so blatant? I don't know.

We've got one of the

worst records in Canada, in terms of unemployment; almost as bad as

Newfoundland and P.E.I. We've got very little to brag about, and yet

we're going on with these flashy projects. It's very difficult to have

your picture on television, with your hard hat and a bulldozer, if

you're sitting beside a municipal sewer. But you can sure do it if

you're building a dam or some other thing that is good photo ops. It's

a serious problem in the three ridings that we represent. I'm sorry

that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) has gone,

because I think he would have been pleased to hear these statistics too.

It's not just an attack on an individual — in this case, the Minister of Human Resources — it's

an attack on the priorities of the government whose deliberate policies

freeze social welfare at the time of an increasing caseload. And they

haven't been changed, while inflation has gone up roughly 15 to 18

percent in the years cited, '82 to '85. How does one explain that to

people? I don't know, but I hope that somebody tries.

Mr.

Chairman, I may try your patience a little bit in terms of order here.

I want to alert you about this, in case you'd gone to sleep and might

not catch me, you see. Red alert. Be alert. Wake up.

[4:45]

want to talk about the policies of Human Resources as it regards the

support for people who are going to school. I'm not certain that I know

what they are. I did hear the minister say that he didn't like

inflexibility, either statutory or bureaucratic. I think he said that

yesterday. That was one of the things I caught during his fulminations.

It was good stuff. It said: "Argument weak here. Shout louder." He had

that in his notes. In any event, I want to talk a little bit about a

brief that we received up in Cranbrook from a very interesting person

who is not a New Democrat; nevertheless that person is interesting.

This has to do with the need for learning assessment.

What

has that got to do with social welfare? Well, I want to tell you what

this has to do with social welfare, and I hope to be able to get some

answers from the minister, or at least the deputy minister, on this

policy. Eighty-eight percent of juvenile delinquents are learning

disabled. Eighty percent of teenage suicides are learning disabled. If

identification and remediation are in place by grades K to three, there

is a success rate of 86 percent; if no identification or remediation

until grades four to seven, the success rate is 45 percent; if no

identification or remediation until grades eight to 12, it's only a 10

percent success rate.

What's that got to do with Human

Resources? It's got to do not just with Education, but it has

implications.... The lack of identification, the lack of remediation in

the schools and elsewhere has a great deal to do with the Ministry of

Health because learning difficulties result in the increase in the use

of alcohol, drugs, mental and emotional breakdowns, family breakdowns,

suicides and attempted suicides. For Human Resources the learning

disabled teenager can't get a job; therefore he is a permanent guest of

Human Resources.

The learning disabled adults who can't

fill out application forms or don't know their problems don't even know

they are learning disabled. The adult illiterate, the person who can't

keep a job, the learning disabled adult who can't keep a job during the

recession because he can't even cope with retraining, the families

which are split because of it, all have implications for the

Attorney-General — those are obvious: people in trouble with the law — and the Ministry of Labour in terms of retraining.

it has implications for all of these people, and so that's why I am

interested to know what the policy of Human Resources is as it deals

with, say, the learning disabled adult. I had lunch today with a very

earnest young man who has a learning disability and has done a great

deal to overcome that. Because he was never even identified until he

was an adult, he wasted a lot of years. That's, I suppose, the kindest

thing I can say about it.

People who are on welfare are

discouraged from going to school. Now those very people who are on

welfare should be encouraged to go to school for two or three reasons.

Those people with less education are the first out of work — the people

who can't read, can't fill out a form and can't cope with a job. I

would like to know what ideas the minister and his deputy might have to

be able to encourage people who are on Human Resources to attend

school, especially the local colleges, so they can either get academic

or vocational training.

[ Page 7649 ]

It's

a little easier to get MHR support if you're going into