1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2165 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Re-routing of Island Highway.

Mr. Chabot — 2165

Compensation for auto insurance agents. Mr. Gardom — 2165

The Karen Magnussen Award. Mr. Wallace — 2165

Rehiring of Department of Highways employees. Mr. Fraser — 2166

Graduates of BCIT mining technician course. Mr. Phillips — 2166

Sukunka coal negotiations. Mr. Gardom — 2166

Hunting-Merritt labour dispute. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2166

Investment by government in troubled companies. Mr. Wallace — 2167

Committee of supply: Department of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement estimates.

Mr. Phillips — 2168 Hon. Mr. Levi — 2178

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2169 Mrs. Jordan — 2178

Mr. Phillips — 2169 Ms. Brown — 2178

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2169 Hon. Mr. Levi — 2179

Mr. Smith — 2170 Mrs. Jordan — 2180

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2170 Hon. Mr. Levi — 2180

Mrs. Jordan — 2171 Mr. Morrison — 2180

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2173 Mrs. Jordan — 2181

Mr. Phillips — 2174 Hon. Mr. Levi — 2181

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2174 Mrs. Jordan — 2181

Mr. Phillips — 2174 Hon. Mr. Levi — 2182

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2175 Mrs. Jordan — 2182

Mrs. Jordan — 2175 Hon. Mr. Levi — 2182

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2176 Mrs. Jordan — 2182

Mrs. Jordan — 2177 Hon. Mr. Levi — 2183

Mr. Phillips — 2177 Mrs. Jordan — 2183

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2177 Hon. Mr. Levi — 2183

Mrs. Jordan — 2178

Minister Without Portfolio estimates.

Mr. Chabot — 2184 Mr. Smith — 2190

Hon. Mr. Calder — 2185 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2191

Mr. Chabot — 2187 Hon. Mr. Calder — 2192

Mr. Wallace — 2187 Mr. Gardom — 2193

Hon. Mr. Calder — 2189

Legislation estimates.

Mr. Richter — 2194 Mr. Phillips — 2196

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2194 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2196

Mr. Wallace — 2194 Mr. Curtis — 2197

Mr. Chabot — 2195 Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2197

Mr. Williams — 2196

An Act Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province

of British Columbia (Bill No. 172). Hon. Mr. Barrett. First, second and third

readings — 2201

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I'd like the House

to join with me in welcoming a group of students from Alpha

Junior Secondary in Burnaby North.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

RE-ROUTING OF ISLAND HIGHWAY

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A

question to the Minister of Highways: the mayor of Gold River

is elated that the Minister has decided to re-route the Island

Highway through Gold River instead of south from Woss Camp to

Sayward. I'm wondering whether the Minister would care to tell

us if his elation is justified.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I don't know

where he got the information from. I must check his information

because he knows more about it than I do. At no time have I

given any indication that the re-routing was even being

considered.

You keep getting these dream things. I don't know where you

get them from — nightmares or something. You keep raising these

questions that are just absolutely without foundation and are

not even being considered by the department.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: the mayor

of Gold River is on record as having stated that he understands

that the Island Highway is going to be routed through Gold

River.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's on that basis that I answered the

question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is important to remember that

the Member takes responsibility for a statement of fact.

Questions are really not supposed to be based on statements of

fact but actually questions asked of the Minister.

You've asked the question of the Minister and he has

replied. Now, how you can have a supplementary on the basis of

that I'm still wondering.

MR. CHABOT: On March 26 I asked a similar question.

He stated at that time that no firm decision had been made. So I was just wondering

whether a decision has been made. I was wondering whether the mayor from Gold

River's hopes and expectations had been fulfilled. The supplementary question

really is: has the Minister of Highways discussed the re-routing of the Island

Highway with the Mt. Waddington Regional District?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's the same answer as I gave you at

that time — no.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind Members in Beauchesne, p. 147,

they shall not repeat in substance a question already answered

or to which an answer has been refused. The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey.

COMPENSATION FOR AUTO

INSURANCE AGENTS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Highways. Yesterday the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) utilized the term

"negotiated purchase" dealing with concerns that the Government

was getting into. I'd ask the Minister of Highways if he's

prepared to make compensation available to any of those people

in the insurance industry who will suffer loss as a result of

being unable to compete in that endeavour.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, there's a bill before the House. The

legislation is very clear,

MR. GARDOM: I wasn't asking the Hon. Minister if there was a bill before

the House. I'm aware of that fact just as well as he is. I'm asking if he's

prepared to make compensation available to people who….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Where a bill is on the order

paper, a question which relates to it should be asked in the

committee stage of the bill and not during question period if

it's not urgent or important.

MR. GARDOM: It may be an oversight, but compensation doesn't

appear to be in the bill. I wanted to help the Minister.

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

THE KAREN MAGNUSSEN AWARD

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Minister of

Finance if he'd care to comment on the perpetual fund that has

been reported in the Press as being set up to provide awards

for skaters, the Karen Magnussen award.

[ Page 2166 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier and Minister of Finance): Yes,

there was an announcement yesterday by the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) of Government policy. I wish

the House to know that Miss Magnussen will be our guest Friday

morning. As Members of this Legislature on behalf of the people

of British Columbia, we will have the opportunity of giving her

a personal gift at that time.

MR. GARDOM: Is that because the Government is on thin

ice?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at all, Mr. Member. The question

was, "Is the Government on thin ice?" No, but we have seen some

unique figure skating performances. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

REHIRING OF DEPARTMENT

OF HIGHWAYS' EMPLOYEES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A

question to the Minister of Highways. The Government indicated

that all Department of Highways' employees laid off were to be

reinstated on April 1. Have these employees been hired yet? If

not, what is the new date?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At no time did I say that all of the

employees laid off would be rehired April 1. I said rehiring

would commence April 1. It's up to each local district and

engineer as to who he hires and when he hires them, according

to the needs of each particular district.

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

GRADUATES OF BCIT

MINING TECHNICIAN COURSE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I'd like to….

MR. SPEAKER: Would you use a microphone please, although you

don't need it. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I'd like to ask

the Minister how many of the graduates in the BCIT (British

Columbia Institute of Technology) mining technician course were

able to find work this year.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): That's

a question for the future. I have no knowledge of how

many of them are even asking for work.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What

the Minister of Mines has really said is that he doesn't know

how many students there are in the BCIT course.

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

hypothetical, unless he has a crystal ball.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, then. I'll ask him a supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker: how many students are enrolled in the

course?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That question should be directed to the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

SUKUNKA COAL NEGOTIATIONS

MR. GARDOM: A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. There's

been a paucity of information, Mr. Speaker, to the House

concerning the Sukunka coal transaction. I'd like the Hon,

Premier to inform the House as to what stage these negotiations

are in.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're in the second stage of

negotiations. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Do you want a second question?

MR. GARDOM: Yes. Are we to assume that that follows the

first? Secondly, how many stages to come after that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The second stage does follow the first.

Then after the second stage, there will be the third stage.

Shortly after that, it'll be at the fourth stage. If necessary,

we'll go to the fifth stage. At any one of the stages I will

give you a report at what stage we're at. At the conclusion I

will tell you how many stages we've gone through to get to the

conclusion. I want to be very open about it, Mr. Member.

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

HUNTING-MERRITT LABOUR DISPUTE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask

the Minister of Labour if he is still using his good offices,

or otherwise, in the Hunting-Merritt labour dispute, where I

believe he has put a company proposal to the employees

concerned.

[ Page 2167 ]

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): We have had a mediator

involved in that dispute, Mr. Speaker. He was unable to bring

about a solution to the strike. Subsequent to meetings in my

office with both parties, there has been no further response

from either party to put forward any new proposals or to ask

for any intervention from my office.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the company claims that they

put forward their final offer at the request of the Minister

and made it available to him. May I ask whether he in his turn

passed it on to the union negotiators concerned with a

recommendation as to whether or not they should accept it?

HON. MR. KING: A proposal was put forward by management in

response to my invitation to do so. This was with an agreement

with both parties, with the unions involved and with

management, that I would not put that proposal on the table

unless I had an indication and a commitment from the trade

union group involved that they in turn would be prepared to

submit that new proposal to their membership for a vote.

I was unable to obtain that kind of commitment. As a result,

the offer was not put forward.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm trying to find out when his proposal

went west. I gather that the proposal was requested from the

company by the Minister, and at that time the union officials

and the company were in agreement that it should be put

forward. Later on, the union officials withdrew their support

for considering such a company proposal. Is that correct?

HON. MR. KING: No. What you gather from the explanation I

have given is completely false. There was no such agreement

initially. There was an agreement that I would try to obtain a

new proposal. I was successful in accomplishing that.

There was a contingency tied to it. It had to contain

certain things before the union people would be prepared to put

it to their membership for a vote. In accordance with the

agreement I made with both parties, I did not try to gain the

commitment from the union when it was found that the new

proposal put forward did not contain the minimum requirements

which the union insisted on before they would accept it for a

vote of their membership.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker,

whether or not the proposal which he invited the company to

submit was presented to the union delegation and was considered

by them or whether it was withdrawn by the Minister prior to

being given to the union negotiators.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Member didn't seem to

understand. The union indicated certain basic prerequisites

that they would insist on before putting it to the membership

for a vote.

When I received the proposal, I indicated to them that a

certain key issue that they had requested be contained in the

new proposal was not, in fact, embodied in the new proposal put

forward by management. On that basis they indicated they were

not prepared to accept the proposal and as a consequence, in

compliance with my commitment to management, I did not reveal

the full contents of that new proposal to the delegation.

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

INVESTMENT BY GOVERNMENT

IN TROUBLED COMPANIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier — in an

inter-view in the Financial Post he is reported as

saying that the government did not intend to follow the example

of free enterprise governments which invested in troubled

companies. Could the Premier tell us if he has been

misquoted?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I've certainly not been misquoted, Mr.

Member. Your question couldn't have come at a more advantageous

time because at this very moment I have had placed on my desk a

report from our Economics and Statistics Branch related to our

economic development and the question you mentioned. I'll read

the last paragraph. Well, I'll read the whole thing:

"The Hon. Alex Macdonald, Minister, Department of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce today released the department's

Bulletin on Business Activity . Mr. Macdonald stated

economic indicators show that the provincial business community

made progress in the opening months of this year. This

broadly-based advance enabled the provincial economy to provide

30,000 additional jobs…."

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If they don't want the answer, the

question was, "Are we investing in losing industries?" and the

answer is that the broadly-based provincial economy provided

30,000 additional new jobs in the month of February of last

year.

This Government's policies as asked by that Member have led

to this increase in the number of employed persons in the

labour force, In February of 1971 it was 856,000; in February

1972: 865,000; February 1973: 895,000 employed in one month and

that's a record figure under this Government, not even equaled

by that group over there.

[ Page 2168 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it was responsive, but the

question was really too general as well. A further question on

the same subject?

MR. WALLACE: I don't think the answer referred specifically

to what might happen by investing in troubled industries. These

jobs presumably had been created prior to the government's

decision to buy Colcel, for example, and it seems to contradict

the public statement the Minister has made.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is very clear, Mr. Member. The choice

is between this Government being something more than a business

in terms of closing down a town like Ocean Falls or seeing the

whole northern economy of this province based on the forest

industry jeopardized. Therefore we made a conscious decision

after careful research to move into both areas. Without that,

Mr. Member, we would have the option of families going on

welfare. We would rather see the money going into the

maintenance of jobs rather than having those other working

people subsidize these people on welfare.

Time will tell whether or not we were right. I think we're

right, and I think that the nerve and the drive and the energy

of the people of this province will prove us right over that

period of time. And I welcome the test of our policy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of order. Mr. Speaker, we have an

opportunity under the rules of this House, or at least under

the agreed rules, to have statements on motions. I feel that

while very interesting information has been given during the

question period, it was quite clearly out of order. It was out

of order because we have the opportunity of making statements

of that nature by way of statements of Ministers and having

corresponding comments from the Opposition parties. During

question period the objective is to acquire information.

Now, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs

who is unable to answer it because of a filibuster launched by

the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I want to point out that it's a fault on

both sides in one respect. The question should not be so

general as to launch into a reply that is a speech on the

general economic situation. That is not the purpose of question

period. So in that sense I should have stopped the question. I

don't like stopping questions if I can avoid it.

But then I am faced with the problem with the answer — that

I don't know quite what he's coming to and I have to wait to

find out. It makes it very difficult for a Speaker if he's

always going to be interfering in question period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We certainly appreciate your

difficulties, but the question was specific. It was whether a policy statement

made previously had been abandoned. Apparently the lengthy dissertation was

that it had been abandoned. Now that was a fairly clear….

MR. SPEAKER: Order. We can't have a debate on that point,

but if you have an objection to a question or an answer that is

not being responsive according to the rules of question period,

please stand up and raise your point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, this is the point of order that I'm

raising. The point that I am raising is this: if the question

period is to be effective….

MR. SPEAKER: The question period is over. Mr. Clerk.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION

AND SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT

(continued)

On vote 238: Minister's office, $72,484.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I just have a few short questions to ask the

Minister. I want to say that certainly I'm pleased with the

sincere effort the Minister has taken this morning in an

endeavour to answer the questions in a sane manner. The Premier

almost lost control of himself last night during his hysterical

creation which must have come from his tired….

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

proceed with his questioning of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, but I

thought the Premier having lost control of the House, had lost

control of himself last night.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if benefits

should be paid only when there is no work available to people

in their own trade. In other words, if a person is on social

welfare and there is work available in his own trade —

something that he can do himself — does he feel that these

people should be paid social welfare when there is work

available in their own trade but they haven't taken it and

they're

[ Page 2169 ]

physically capable of doing so. I'd like the Minister to

give me his comments on that, and his thoughts on it, and his

policy on it, as a matter of fact.

I'd like to ask the Minister, should communities have the

option of putting welfare — recipients to useful work. I'm

referring to maybe parks boards, or exhibition boards during

the summertime who run their community exhibitions and so

forth. There's always work to be done with regard to repairing

fences and painting grandstands et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister his feeling with

regard to payments to seasonal workers where during their

seasonal work their wages are greater than the welfare

entitlement for any one year. Supposing that a fisherman or a

man goes out to work in the oil field in the winter, or goes

out to work in the forest and he earns more wages during that

particular season than he would have earned had he been on

social welfare all year — what is the Minister's response in

that regard?

One further question, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the

Minister what his feeling is with regard to students receiving

social welfare when their parents can actually afford to look

after them — to buy their clothes and to feed them. Would the

Minister honour me with replies to those questions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Chairman, in respect to somebody not wanting to work if they have an opportunity

to go to work in their trade — the policy of the department is that nobody can

forgo an opportunity to go to work and expect to stay on welfare. Not at all.

If we know that somebody can in fact go to work and isn't going to work, then

there'll be something done about that. Everybody has an obligation to make an

effort to try to go to work, no question about that at all. We had one or two

difficult cases; people who want to take us to the courts and the whole appeal

system, but by and large this isn't the case.

In terms of work for welfare, which I think is what you're

saying, we have work-activity programmes which are financed by

the department which do this kind of work in communities.

Certainly one of the routes to go for municipalities is to

initiate some winter programmes. Then you can get some people

off the welfare rolls.

I think we realize that winter works programmes don't really

get at the hard-core unemployed. They usually get at the trades

people and those who have been in and out of the work force.

But we do have work activity programmes which we finance.

On the question of seasonal pay and the business of welfare: in the department

we base welfare on need, and it can be done even on

a daily basis or a monthly basis, but we don't look at the yearly picture. Somebody

comes into the office and they try to establish a need — we look at what has

taken place over the few months.

For instance, if a man comes in in October, and in September

he got a $700 cheque, I would think that if he was not able to

explain what took place with that $700 cheque, I doubt whether

he would get welfare. But we have to do it on that kind of a

basis.

In terms of students: we are not really taking care of

anybody under 18 anyway — unless they are actually in the

community.

Now, there are to my knowledge about 120 students in

Vancouver who are having welfare administered by the Children's

Aid Society. These are people who are transients, where there's

been no possibility of getting them back to their homes. But as

a matter of practice, I think that the effort is being made to

see that the parents do assume that obligation for the young

people.

We have had some difficulty with students of this age simply

because we were putting them into hostels at about $5.50 a day.

But what has worked out better is certainly to have Children's

Aid administer the funds based on the what was then a rate of

$102, and is now of course more.

Have I answered all of your questions? Fine.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question. In other words, on

this seasonal deal, if a man should go out — and it's been

known to happen in the oil fields — and make $12,000-$14,000

a season, then comes home and spends it on a trip or goes on a

two-month drunk or something — then comes back and says, "Well,

I've no money left, I'm going to go on social welfare." Is

there any worth with this gentleman on behalf of some of your

staff to say: "Well, now look, if you are going to continually

do this — you go out and earn good money…if you are not

going to be responsible yourself, give us your cheque and we

will give it back to you." There are cases where this happens

and the families, the wife and the children, are the ones who

suffer during the summertime. It is sort of "bust and

boom."

The other thing I would like to ask the Minister: does he

agree with this winter works programme? There was a programme

not too long ago where if an employer hired somebody who was on

social welfare, the government paid half the wages. This seemed

to work. I know we took advantage of it, and did take these

people off the welfare roles and they became very spirited. I

know some of the ones we hired — actually when spring came, they

were so revitalized that they went out and really got back into

the mainstream of life again. Would you….

HON. MR. LEVI: …It was a good scheme. We

[ Page 2170 ]

are looking at it again to re-introduce it. There was

nothing wrong with that at all. I thought it did have good

possibilities and was successful, I think, in around 1,100

cases. So certainly there is good credit due there.

In going back to the seasonal thing….

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Are you

going to have a look at that?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes we are going to look at it.

In terms of the seasonal thing: the main thing is that and

we, fortunately, don't get too many of these kinds of cases. If

we do, the individual has to explain to us where the money has

gone. Someone can't come in and admit that he has made an

enormous amount, then he's broke. What we really have to look

at is are there any children. Is there a wife and children

involved? Then of course, we are going to have to disregard all

of where the money went and take care of these people, And we

would probably administer the cheque in that case, if there is

a problem. Fortunately, they are isolated cases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few questions and remarks to the Minister in his salary

estimates. The former administration introduced a programme

which they called the "job opportunities programme". It was a

programme that designed to try to cope with the problem of the

hard-core unemployed employable type of person. As I understand

it, the programme was quite successful in that once the

department interviewed these people and gave them some

encouragement, at least moral encouragement, and had a

discussion with them about job opportunities, you provided them

with a certificate. They then went out and looked for their own

job if that was available to them.

I understand that we had a fair amount of success in finding

employment for these people. I would like to know if the

programme is an ongoing programme and if it is continuing; if

we have any statistical information available to us yet, as to

the length of employment for these people that did find jobs? I

believe the programme limited our participation in their salary

to 50 per cent of their salary earned for a maximum period of

six months. Have these people stayed in the mainstream of life?

Did we have a fair number of them fall back into welfare

categories, or were we able to rehabilitate them to the extent

that they continued on in the work force beyond the six month

period when we participated actively with their employer in

paying their salary?

It seems to me that that is the type of a programme that we should encourage

more than just direct payments inasmuch as it is a cooperative effort between

not only your department, but employers and the people themselves. To be successful

there has to be an incentive and a motivation there that will rehabilitate people

and get them not only actively employed for a matter of a few weeks or a few

months, but into the work force on a permanent basis. I wonder if the Minister

would be prepared to comment on that programme. While I am on my feet, I would

like to canvass one other area with the Minister — the plans of his department

for the disenfranchised native people of the northern communities in British

Columbia.

I know that we have problems, for instance, in the Fort

Nelson area that are not peculiar to Fort Nelson alone. It is a

problem of a lack of job opportunities, of lack of training. It

is a problem of too much time on their hands and the

availability of alcohol, which has always been a problem. Yet,

we have in the same area many times of the year a terrific

shortage of employable people.

For instance, the industry catering to the public — the

tourist industry, the restaurant industry, the logging camp

industry, the oil patch industry — at times of the year find

themselves run off their feet because they can't find any

help. If you travel the Alaska Highway in the summertime, along

about the end of August, you will find that every one of the

people who operate a tourist camp are so dead tired and weary

that they don't even want to see another tourist come in the

front door. Their biggest problem is trying to get help during

those critical periods when their business is 300 or 400 per

cent greater than it is during some of the winter months.

Is there any real thrust towards a programme that would help

these people in their own areas? I don't think we can take them

and remove them from the area and transport them somewhere else

for training, but if we had personnel available to go in and

work with them, it would probably go a long ways to

rehabilitate these people.

I know the Hon. Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder)

will probably be speaking about this particular matter later.

He has a special responsibility in that respect but that

doesn't relieve your department of any responsibilities that

they have.

It seems to me that it is unfortunate where we do have a

resource which happens to be untrained, unskilled, that we

can't make use of them, particularly when we have job

opportunities right within the area where they live. I would

like a few comments from the Minister in that respect also.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, in respect to the first

question — I think you were talking about the on-the-job

training which was administered previously by the former

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 2171 ]

Campbell) — the job certificate. Actually, in reply to the

other Member, that's what I was referring to — that we are

reviewing that.

In terms of the non-status Indians: I approved the other day

a programme, a work programme, which they came to us about and

which we had under consideration — I think it was $168,000

which will find employment for 82 people. They will be involved

in the continuation of their winter warmth programme. That's

the one where they are taking a look at the houses of some of

their seniors — they are insulating them and putting on new

roofs and this kind of thing.

We have had a number of discussions with the non-status

Indians about employment programmes. As a matter of fact, they

made a proposal to us about the Fish Lake — the Chilcotin

facility the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was

referring to before. We will be meeting with them about other

work programmes. I think your point is certainly well taken in

respect to the north. They have shown a tremendous amount of

initiative in these kinds of things and they have come to us.

This is the first one we have approved — we are now looking at

other programmes. So certainly, we are very much involved in

providing this kind of job opportunity for them.

Let me just say one other thing — without getting into my

colleague's portfolio, We did last November, in respect to

Indian people in this province, say that if they had a need for

a facility on a reserve — where this need was in respect to

children or somebody — that we would be involved in this. I am

happy that we went up to the South Quatti reserve which is on

the north of the Island, we met with them, saw the need for a

receiving home for children, a very serious problem. I was

accompanied by the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and happily

we've now got a joint arrangement with the Department of Indian

Affairs and ourselves to put up $90,000 which will develop a

facility for a receiving home, day care centre and activity

centre. It was our initiative, but the Indian Affairs people

came right in with us so that it's a 50-50 proposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I am sure it was an

oversight on the Minister's part. Perhaps he would go back to before the lunch

hour break — pardon me, lunch minute break that lasted five minutes — I asked

him how many day-care centres in British Columbia, which had been started under

LIP programmes or OFY programmes, are operating; where they are in the province

and how are they being financed now and what is he doing about the standards.

I understand some of these had really deplorable standards, and I am not one

who thinks that everything should be measured by standards — the atmosphere

is important. If he would answer that.

I'd like to speak for a moment, Mr. Minister: I've canvassed

your estimates very carefully and I've canvassed your report.

You have repeatedly stated that you're following through with

the policy of the previous Minister in putting great emphasis

on home resources and breaking down of centralized types of

institutions and treatment care that there is going to be an

increase of finances to this home-care type of situation. But

nowhere do I find any allotment or any statement about budget

counseling.

Surely when one examines the problems of people on fixed

incomes — whether they be senior citizens or whether they be

single parent families or people on low incomes, people who

have graduated from the tragic state of a so-called past

welfare family — it's not always a shortage of money that's the

problem, it's how that money is used. So frequently today one

finds, on close examination, that the priorities of people on a

lower income are very different from the priorities of people

on a mid-income or even a higher income. Where if someone like

the Minister and some Members of this House or a manager of a

small plant wouldn't have a colour television and might well

see that his children had tennis shoes instead of expensive

soccer boots and actually control their family's budgeting much

more closely and have a much more conservative approach to

financing and priorities. But, in the lower income family

there's a tendency to place an emphasis on other

priorities.

Now I recognize that in using the example of a colour

television, this is not the best type of example because the

answer is, "Well, we don't go out very much so we need it at

home." This is probably a very legitimate claim. But, if you

look in the shopping baskets, so often you'll find that the

single parent family or perhaps those on a lower income will

use the expensive prepackaged foods — TV dinners, this type of

thing;

whereas a moderate income family, by nature of education

perhaps, has a priority which would involve them buying a more

economical type of food and utilizing it in its better

sense.

So often part of the problem in low income families is that

incentive is gone. They'll have land around their house where

they are, but there will be no incentive to grow their own

vegetables;

whereas a mid-income family will have their kids

out there and they will be growing their own garden. So the

whole matter of priorities and budget counseling is very

important.

Alberta has a very good programme to examine. I would be

pleased to give the Minister the details if he wanted them.

I think there needs to be in every single parent group in

British Columbia, and there are many of them forming, someone

who is available to provide

[ Page 2172 ]

budget information should these people want it. One usually

finds when groups are together and start talking on a positive

vein, that they want this type of information.

The Department of Agriculture helped the Vancouver people

put on some excellent programmes about two years ago. They were

practical programmes on how to buy economically, how to buy

quality foods economically. It wasn't a matter of just a TV

programme, it was a matter of reaching into the community. A

group of women or some men would meet together, there would be

one discussion leader who might or might not — be directly

involved in the low income situation, although it's preferable

if they are. There was a little book that went with it so that

they could read ahead of time what was going to be on the

programme. Then they could follow the programme. And then

afterwards they could have a discussion.

It has marvelous graphic illustrations on can sizes and

understanding of weights. I think it's very difficult for us to

recognize that there are many people even now in British

Columbia that don't know how many ounces are in a pound. I

guess they pretty well know how many cents there are in the

dollar, but most of us don't know how much those cents will buy

for a dollar.

There's a great need for familiarization. There's a great

need for helping these people — I don't think on a highly

professional basis — to understand the needs of budgeting. It's

something that should have been in the schools a long time ago.

It's in there now. It does present problems because even among

so highly respected a profession as teaching, we find teachers

who don't know how to budget either. It's probably a common

problem to all of us.

I think, Mr. Minister, it's disappointing to me that in your

estimates this very vital first step isn't there. Surely the

answer is not to shove the money in and then do it. The idea is

to put them together and have them work together.

I would also like to ask the Minister about some of the less publicized — for

obvious reasons — programmes that have been going on around the province where

there has been a group of, perhaps, single parent families who have had a very

difficult time. They're to the point where there's just no motivation. These

people have been organizing in programmes where it's been a matter of meeting

with these people to the point where there has to be provision for child care

while they're out. Coming to a meeting's been an effort and they haven't attended

to their personal care. They have cigarette burns down their dresses. They haven't

had their hair done. And through slow companionship and motivation, even to

having their hair done and paid for by the department

— which I believe in in certain circumstances — that these people have slowly

regained a sense of identity and a sense of worthwhileness.

But it's been a matter of going right back and trying to

help these people even plan their day in the most simple of

terms in order that they can get out. I wonder if the Minister

would let me know how many of these programmes are still going

on; how many he anticipates for the future and if he will keep

this policy in effect.

I think in the long run, one can't adjudicate the success of

these programmes by the number of so-called obtainable levels

by bodies. It's a matter of if there is an improvement in the

situation and in the attitude of the individual. But if you did

wish to measure it, it's my understanding that some of these

people are now in the university, some have graduated from the

university, having started through this type of motivational

programme, and that this training has been largely paid for

through government sources.

I personally feel this is an excellent type of programme

that has a great deal to offer, Again, this is where you need

budget counseling.

The matter was brought up a few minutes ago regarding

welfare for teenagers or people who didn't work. I would like

to express to the Minister a concern that I'm finding in some

families where assistance to a teenager is causing a real

problem in the original home — on a financial basis.

As the Minister knows, I'm sure, if he's got teenagers —

lovable babies become revolting teenagers for a certain period

in their life. At this time there's a conflict between parent

and teenagers and teachers and standards. And often, in a huff — and I think sometimes it's a good idea to let them go — the

teenager will take off. This is fine. But I think the state

does not have a responsibility to make this easy. If the

teenagers want to make the decision themselves that they are

going to leave home for relatively minor things — and the most

controversial one right now, I think, is the length of

hair.

There are young people in British Columbia, in the past and

some now, who are living with other families in neighbouring

communities, receiving welfare payments which are well beyond

any capacity that their parents could give them. They go home,

they have money to spend that their brothers and sisters don't

have — they're disturbing to that environment and it sets up a

climate where it's quite profitable to leave home.

I think that we have an exaggerated impression of how much

money teenagers should have to spend today and how much they

really have. I would ask the Minister's view on this. I think

it's terribly important in trying not to see any teenager go

hungry or get into a situation beyond their capacities to

[ Page 2173 ]

handle.

Also that we not put ourselves in a position as government

where we're making it easy for young people to leave home,

where we're making it profitable for young people to leave

home, and where that easiness and that profitability when the

child returns to the home just adds a greater strain within the

home. It not only creates jealousies among their brothers and

sisters, but it also is encouraging to their brothers and

sisters to leave home.

I'd ask the Minister how many cases like this he thinks

there are in British Columbia or, if there is no record, if he

could endeavour to ascertain for the next year how many

situations there are like this and if in his emphasis on

returning children to the home situation by offering financial

assistance he'll be very careful to see that the policy does

not aid the one child you're trying to aid in such a way that

it creates a destructive force within the home.

Again, I'm sure budget counseling would be a very close part

of this in-home resource centre approach.

The next question I'd like to ask the Minister is this

matter of — I didn't want to use the term "fraud" — a

guaranteed holiday through the government auspices on behalf of

the taxpayers. But there is fraud in social welfare. I don't

for a minute want to exaggerate the situation at all. I think

that many people who receive welfare or rehabilitation services

are in genuine need and I think every person in British

Columbia is very pleased to contribute to this and to see that

the highest possible care and assistance is given. But what

knocks the public is that when they're slugging it out and

trying to look after their families, there are obvious cases of

abuse of this programme and downright fraud. I think that this

not only knocks the taxpayer and makes him very resistant to

good, constructive rehabilitation programmes, but it also gives

those who are receiving assistance an undeserved tarnished

image. It slops over. No matter how much we say it shouldn't,

it's going to.

And so the Minister, without in any way suggesting that there are large-scale

abuses, I believe has a responsibility within his department and his sphere

of administration to take the necessary steps to see that there isn't fraud.

It's very human and very charitable to say, "Well, the few that cheat mean nothing

compared to the number that we help." But I don't think that's a realistic approach.

If there are fraudulent actions by people then these should be suitably taken

care of and suitably repaid, not only for the benefit of those who are genuinely

in need of assistance and receiving it, but to bring more and more public acceptance,

more and more public enthusiasm for assisting those less fortunate than ourselves

and not, Mr. Minister, giving perhaps the very genuine hard-pressed taxpayer

the need or the opportunity to get on his high horse and cry "wolf" and have

good reason for it.

I think that we've been a little bit afraid of expressing

the attitude that responsibility is a part of citizenship

today. Our responsibility as legislators and your

responsibility as a Minister is to care to the best of your

ability for those in need. But it's also to protect those who

pay. The overall benefit to everyone, I believe, far exceeds

the few people who might be cheating and don't like to be

caught.

So I would ask what the Minister has been doing and will do

about this. As I say, I don't in any way want to create alarm

or make wild accusations. That's not the position at all.

I have a few more questions, but perhaps the Minister would

like to answer these and other Members would like to speak.

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to the question of fraud, we are

constantly being advised by well meaning citizens that there

are suggested cases of fraud and we investigate them. In some

cases charges follow that. I appreciate the Member saying that

she is not highlighting it as something that's horrendous. It

isn't. But we are aware that this is public money and we have

an obligation to investigate every complaint that we have.

A lot of the complaints do not bear out in terms of the

facts, but nevertheless we do do that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well I'm not particularly in favour of having

the police staff go out hunting. You see the solution, I think,

partly to this problem is that if you've got more staff, then

the staff can be dealing with individuals and doing some home

visits in terms of where they're supposed to be working — not

in the office but with the families. Then you become cognizant

of what's going on. But we can't hire a team of people to go

out hunting this kind of thing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, we're mindful of this problem.

We certainly check things out. But as we broaden the field

staff and the staff get into the homes and we are dealing with

these people on a fairly regular basis, this kind of thing will

fall away. But we are not in any way underestimating that there

can be these problems.

In respect to teenagers, we're into a slightly different bag

now with young people. I don't think that any of the welfare

rates we've been paying have ever attracted kids to leave home — not too many. We find that some of the people we are dealing

with on welfare are young people who have come to the attention

of our department anyway because they're somewhat disturbed

young people. By and large,

[ Page 2174 ]

most people that leave home prefer to make it on their own,

and are doing it. They're out working, picking up jobs. So I

don't feel too concerned about the fact that we might be

resulting in breaking up families. I think it's a completely

over-exaggerated problem.

Now, under debt counseling and budgeting, I asked the staff

to give consideration to budget counseling and debt counseling

simply because one of the solutions, one of the pressures that

we can remove from a lot of people — not just people on welfare

but a lot of people — should become more aware of the orderly

payment of debt process which is not available under the

bankruptcy Act. There is now the possibility of going through

bankruptcy on a personal basis for something like $ 5 0. We are

working up a procedure for the staff to become aware of this

and make it known to their clients.

There is in the field staff budget a training item. Also, we

will be holding a number of seminars with our staff about

various techniques, including the budgeting. Nutrition is

something else that we're getting into. We're hiring a

nutritionist. We're generally introducing a number of

programmes that could be advantageous to families.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one plea to

the Minister on behalf of a group of people in our society that

I feel very strongly about. When the Mincome brochure came out — I certainly don't want to fault anybody in his department or

the Minister or anybody else — but there was some

misunderstanding among some people, particularly war veterans.

Some people got this form and it says that "we guarantee you at

least $200 a month." I know of some cases where the person who

received a war veterans' allowance, a pension, thought that it

was going to be taken off. We allow him the first $50.

I would like to make a plea on behalf of these people to

make an exception, particularly for those who are receiving war

pensions. I do it because of this reason. The majority of these

people gave the best years of their life, in their youth or in

the prime of their life, to go and fight for the freedom that

we enjoy today. A lot of them were left in very difficult

financial circumstances, because they didn't have the

opportunity. While other people were at home, particularly in

wartime with good jobs and full employment, the majority of the

ones who were receiving pensions left their homeland to go

overseas and fight for us. They didn't get a chance to build up

any nest egg.

I think we have the opportunity to do something for these people in the way

of a bonus, if you like, but certainly to forgive all veterans' allowances,

all veterans' pensions, and pay them the Mincome over

and above this. We can certainly afford it. The money is there. The province

is in good shape. I think it would be an excellent gesture on your part, Mr.

Minister, to do that. I am making a plea on behalf of this segment of society.

Would you give me your comments on that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. LEVI: I appreciate the Member's comments. We've had

a number of requests about this. We constantly have this thing

under review. We do at the moment exempt the first $50. But I

appreciate his comments. We do have problems with the federal

government, mind you. They won't share in anything that we

exempt. They're not even going to share in the $50. So we're

having some ongoing discussions with them.

MR. PHILLIPS: One other thing, Mr. Chairman, before this

vote is passed. I have some questions that I'd like to ask the

Minister with regard to food co-ops. I didn't hear anything

about this in the last session. It must have been a hallway

news conference….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This matter is before a

committee of the House and therefore is not….

MR. PHILLIPS: Before a committee of the House? Social

welfare committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's before the agricultural committee and is

now under consideration. Therefore I would ask him not to ask

MR. PHILLIPS: This group that appeared before the

agriculture committee….

MR. CHAIRMAN: This matter was referred….

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that what the Minister said when he says

he's planning food co-ops? I'll ask that question. It's a

perfectly legitimate question. Just because we have one group

that comes and seeks money, that's not the policy that's laid

out here. It has nothing to do with the policy which I read in

the newspaper.

We have one small group, Mr. Chairman, who have come to the

agriculture committee requesting funds. That is the policy

that's laid out here — that the NDP are planning B.C. food

co-ops. It has nothing to do with a small group who are coming

to the agriculture committee. I can see no relation whatsoever.

This

article states….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate this matter

to the estimates or at

[ Page

2175 ]

least to ask the Minister to clarify the view, Otherwise, I

would consider….

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll relate it to the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Otherwise, it would properly be a

matter to come under the agriculture department. I'd ask him to

put his question to the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: May I relate it to the estimates? It says

here, "Rehabilitation Minister Norm Levi Announced Tuesday…." It's his estimates and I presume that he's going to….

The thing is that this can be very well related to the

Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement because

maybe it's the Minister's intention to have welfare recipients

work for the very co-op that he's going to put up. It could

very well be. There are people who are on social welfare who

could be trained to work in these co-ops. I think it's very

important. I would like to proceed with further questioning on

this, with your permission, in all fairness, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Hon.

Member to allow the Minister to clarify this statement that

he's made. Then if further questioning seems to be necessary,

I'll allow him to do some.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. LEVI: I did make statements last fall. By agreement

with the Minister of Agriculture, he has agreed to carry on

with this particular project that we've been discussing. One of

the things that he has done is to put a question before the

House committee. So it's squarely in his department now. It's

not anything that's in my department at all.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish we'd been informed

of 'this change of policy before the Minister of Agriculture's

estimates came up. Here we're going through this….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've got a perfectly legitimate question here.

I still don't know what the policy is on the co-ops, after the

Minister has made an announcement, Mr. Chairman. I want to

know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Hon. Minister has answered that

this is now fully the responsibility of the Department of

Agriculture. Therefore I would ask him not to pursue this

matter further.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to know what this Government's policy

is with regard to food co-ops. Would the Premier like to give

it to us, now that it's been shuffled between one department

and another? I didn't know this when the Minister of

Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich) estimates were up, or

certainly we would have explored it further. I don't know

whether our money's going to be spent setting up co-ops or….

Really, Mr. Chairman.

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

a new subject or to take his seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's closure, Mr. Chairman. It certainly is.

We can't find out. We can't get any questions answered during

the question period. We bring up a subject under a Minister's

estimates that he's made a whole report on. We can't get the

answers. We don't know….

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

please. I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further to the

statements of the Hon. Member for South Peace River, when the

Minister gets on his feet, would he clarify his own views on

cooperatives? Even though the matter is before a committee, I

think it is important that the statements by the Minister be

discussed in this House. I think it is important whether the

Minister has some preconceived ideas about food

cooperatives.

The Minister has not answered a couple of my questions. I'm

sure this is just an oversight on his part. He was going to

answer the last one. That was in relation to the number of

day-care centres in British Columbia which were financed by LIP

and other programmes and how they're being done now.

I'd like to go back for a moment, because the Minister

didn't answer my specific question. He wasn't given a chance to

by the Premier last night. With regard to girls who previously

would have gone to Willingdon School if it were open, are they

in foster homes, generally? What avenues are open for treatment

for these girls? If we become involved, as MLAs, who do we

contact for help for this type of girl?

I'd also ask what the Minister's plans are for the future of

the physical plant that was Willingdon School? There's a good

deal of money involved there. I understand that he's made one

statement that it might well be used for the Canada Summer

Games. I don't oppose this but I also feel, Mr. Minister, that

there are many young people and children in this province who

could benefit very much from the use of that facility on an

interim basis.

The Canada Summer Games are financed very well

[ Page 2176 ]

by the federal government. We're certainly glad to have them

in British Columbia. I think we have to look after our citizens

in need first. I hope this would be the first priority. At the

physical plant, there's much to recommend the school, certainly

in the way of grounds and recreation.

I'd like to ask the Minister what his feelings are about a

pilot project that I was involved in in his department. There's

been an effort to arrange a family exchange programme between

single-parent families in certain areas of the province with

predominantly rural families. The opportunity for a single

parent and his or her children to visit and live in a home in

another part of the province with rural families can have many

benefits.

The Minister is smiling. If he knows about it, I'm sure he

recognizes as I do that it's fraught with problems. Also, I

don't think the idea itself is bad. We even had trouble with

the British Columbia Railway, as the Minister obviously

knows.

But, Mr. Minister, this is a germ of a good idea. Following

our relatively unsuccessful or unspectacular attempt, the

Department of Agriculture came up with the same idea. I think

that the fact that two people came up with an idea may mean

that we just went about it the wrong way. I don't know that it

was a failure, really. Certainly the hosting families in the

interior derived much benefit from it. I've had letters from

them and have referred them back to the Minister's department —

that if they're interested in doing this again, they should

contact their local representative.

I would hate to see a lot of government summer camps for

children developed in British Columbia. But I think an

opportunity for families who are genuinely in financial need to

organize their own type of outings and summer programmes could

be beneficial. There's a group in Saanich, I believe it is, who

have a friendship club. It's self-organized, self-help, and has

had a great deal of benefit, which I won't go into because it's

probably more beneficial because it isn't too highly

publicized.

I know that there was an interest there in undertaking a

family camping trip with their members. Finances were a major

problem. I think you have to be realistic in assisting these

programmes. But perhaps there could be assistance in

reservation of a government park campsite. Or perhaps there

could be a central loan area in certain regions, where people

could donate sleeping bags, tents, this sort of thing, and keep

them in stock so that those who want to take a camping trip and

don't have the finances could utilize this service without any

great cost.

I don't know whether the Minister does any camping, but my experience has been

that every family should take one camping trip, even if it leads to divorce.

Secondly, many families today are still tenting, some by choice and some by

necessity. I think this is an area that the Minister should investigate. I would

ask if he would.

HON. MR. LEVI: With respect to camping, I'll have a

statement to make in two or three weeks about a camping

programme. On a general level, I do camp quite frequently,

especially up in the Osoyoos area. That's where I like to go

camping.

With respect to your exchange programme, I think you were

being a little generous when you said it was a germ of an idea.

I think it was probably a scintilla of an idea that just about

disappeared. We had a number of problems with it. We weren't

quite sure what it was going to end in. I'll be very frank with

you. I haven't taken another look at it. You've drawn it to my

attention. I'll look at it again. I don't really…Well, I

think I've said enough, I'll just take a look at it again.

In terms of the Willingdon School, we have now formally

given the school from April 15 to September 1 to the Canada

Summer Games. The children's committee has been discussing for

some time alternate uses of the Willingdon and Maples complex.

We've met with the residential treatment centre people. We've

had a number of discussions around the best use of this

facility. I'll be very frank with you. We haven't had a meeting

of the minds on it. We've decided that we need more time to

deal with it. We'll certainly have something to come up with by

the first of September. In the meantime we have turned it over

to the summer games as B.C.'s contribution to this forthcoming

event.

I don't really want to comment on the food co-op thing

because I am on the committee, and the question is before the

committee. The thing is that the Minister of Agriculture had,

on two or three occasions, made mention of his position with

respect to co-ops, and had taken it over from me. He has

written a number of letters to many, many people, of which he

has sent me copies. Just about every region of the province has

written to him about it, and he has replied, in fact, that he

will have a statement to make sometime during this session. At

the moment, of course, it is before the House in respect to

co-ops.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: I keep blocking on the LIP, I'm sorry. In

terms of the LIP programme, what we have been doing, and I

appreciate your remarks about the standards of LIP programme

day-care centres, is to take over three or four who have come

to us for subsequent financing. The latest one, I think, was

the one in Vancouver — the one at the King Edward High School.

Obviously they have to meet our standards; otherwise we are not

prepared to finance them. We are in touch with LIP about the

ones that they are putting on, and we have told the LIP people

that we

[ Page 2177 ]

do not want to be in a position of having to fund a day-care

centre, particularly in an area where we find there are far too

many day-care centres in the first place. We want to be able to

spread this service around. But there is fairly close

cooperation with us in terms of which ones are being set up,

and which ones we'll take over.

I do get a little concerned when I hear that there is an LIP

programme at UBC, for the development of a further six day-care

centres for the public. That is a bit of a concern — after all,

we are financing quite a bit of service out there now, so that

one could cause us a little anxiety. I'll be speaking to the

LIP people again about that.

We do take them over — selected ones, not all of them — but

they have to meet our standards.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister's comments in regard

to the conglomeration, if one can call it that, and I know LIP

people haven't been terribly cooperative in taking the advice

of your own people as to where these might be centered.

Again, this is another example of a good type of programme

that can be destroyed through the public getting the wrong

impression, and through, as the Minister said, those funding it

not listening to the department. I hope that every emphasis

will be put on to encourage the federal government to listen to

your suggestion, and I agree with the Minister completely. I

have heard about what I agree is an apparent excess of

provision of day-care centres at the university, when in fact

there are many other areas of the province where they could be

better utilized.

I thank you, Mr. Minister, as a taxpayer, and I think in

speaking for the area I represent, I do not envision taxpayers'

money going to provide child-care so that the parents can just

swing. I think every taxpayer is prepared to assist, providing

they know that the whole programme is well supervised and is

beneficial, but not if it should become a substitute parent. I

think we must get back to this business of responsibility. If

young people want to get married and have children, then they

have to accept that there are privileges and responsibilities,

certainly in regard to the care of one's children.

With regard to the standards: are these LIP centres examined

in any way for safety and proper care of the children by your

department?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's the health department's

responsibility.

MRS. JORDAN: I see, so there are none in the province that are under

the federal government's sponsorship?

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, no.

MRS. JORDAN: I wouldn't want the Minister to misinterpret my

statements when I say I don't think one would be hidebound by

standards — I really don't. But I think that there are times

and conditions where a lesser technical standard can still.

provide a very beneficial environment for them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly don't

wish to prolong this debate. The Minister has been very

cooperative. There is one more question that I would like to

ask him: is the Government intending to issue food vouchers to

welfare recipients that can be cashed in at co-ops?

A second question, Mr. Chairman: will special food vouchers

be given to purchasers for surplus B.C. fruits, vegetables and

fish from the new fish plant?

And the third question — it is not a question on the third,

it is a statement, a suggestion that the name for this be

"Socialism at Safeway." That should be the name for this new

cooperative plan.

Another question, Mr. Chairman, that I should like to ask

the Minister: how many apartment house operators did he have to

reprimand for raising rent when Mincome was brought in last

January? I know that the Minister was very strong, and stood

very firmly last October in saying, "If any of you guys raise

the rent because some of our old age pensioners are receiving

an increase, then we are going to name you in the paper." I

would like to know how many he had to name in the paper.

HON. MR. LEVI: Let's go to the first question…I've lost

it. What was the first question?

MR. PHILLIPS: Food vouchers — Socialism at Safeway.

HON. MR. LEVI: I don't favour food vouchers, anyway. We are

paying cash to people, and people can make their own choices

about where they want to shop. I would hope that if we make

some decisions about co-ops people on welfare and many people

in the community will take advantage of becoming members. But

that is entirely up to them, The second question was in respect to what? You have so

bamboozled me with the last question. Oh, B.C. fruits. Well,

I'm sure that you know that this is a government policy, and

that we want to have people buy B.C. As I understand it, we

will be having a programme which will accentuate this.

On the rent question, I phoned two apartment

[ Page 2178 ]

owners myself, in respect to increases — one of them was in

my riding — and asked them if they would agree to roll back.

One did, but the other one didn't. I checked with the Apartment

Owners' Association, but the individual was not a member, and

they said, "Well, this is one of the constant problems. It

would serve no useful purpose to name him, because he would

just go on doing what he wants anyway."

I said earlier that we did have very good cooperation from

the apartment owners' association. I met with them, they did a

survey of their own and, based on that and some of the

interviews, we felt that although there were individual cases

there was certainly nothing outrageous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 238 pass?

Vote 238 approved.

On vote 239: general administration, $275,862.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one question, Mr. Minister, in relation to

the salaries. They are all up, and yet I understand that salary

negotiations haven't been completed yet. Is this a projected

figure, or are the employees actually receiving this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while the

Minister answers?

MRS. JORDAN: Fine.

HON. MR. LEVI: These salaries relate to last year's

increases.

MRS. JORDAN: I see. And there is a new position, Mr.

Minister — oh, pardon me, it's my eyesight. The Assistant

Deputy Minister and Director. This was filled before. You have

a new social worker 5 at $12,840, Mr. Minister. Could you

outline what the duties of this new social worker will be?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, this is an assistant to the director of

programmes, Don Bingham. He is packing an enormous load, and we

want to get him an assistant to take some of the load off him.

That is why that position is there.

MRS. JORDAN: There used to be previously a personnel

officer, I think, or someone who acted in that capacity. You

have a new personnel officer. Could you explain that,

please?

HON. MR. LEVI: We have a personnel officer and an

assistant. We do have a new personnel officer, Mr. April 4, 197 3

Spence. He is handling the personnel matters for about 1,100

people in the department, and it is just not possible for one

man to do all that work, especially as we are now also taking

over some municipality functions. So we are bringing more

people in. That is an assistant to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 239 pass?

Vote 239 approved.

On vote 240: assistance and rehabilitation division,

$342,910.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: In relation to this vote, I did ask the

Minister a question under his salary vote. He didn't complete

it, and I thought I'd wait until we got here. That's in

relation to temporary assistance to Mincome at $200,000. I

assume that this is for staff for mailing. Perhaps he would

outline their duties and what they did. I would assume that

this is the vote that covers the advertising of Mincome. The

Minister at my questioning did say that the voices on the air

were two senior citizens, and I would ask him: was one of those

senior citizens an MLA?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leo. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't hear any popcorn popping in the

background. I wonder if the Minister would answer those

questions.

HON. MR. LEVI: The advertising came out of the social

allowance vote — 243. The $200,000 in respect to temporary

assistance to Mincome, of course, was for the whole setting up

of the Mincome programme. We had to take on a large number of

people in order to get everything ready — the cheques into data

processing, and the office that we set up. Part of the money

was spent on that, and part of the money is now being spent on

staff.

MRS. JORDAN: This isn't just for the original production —

there is a carry-over.

HON. MR. LEVI: There is a carry-over, yes.

MRS. JORDAN: Will I get a chance to talk on 243 to find out

if…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are other speakers, Hon. Member. I

recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thanks

[ Page

2179 ]

very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question

about the rehabilitation plans for the department, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Under the last government

there was sort of a division made between rehabilitation and

education. The feeling was that education was not a part of

rehabilitation. The way they divided this was that if you were

on welfare you could continue to get your welfare payments if

you took a mini-course in hairdressing or something like this.

But if someone on welfare wanted to go through university or

wanted to do a course in teaching or medicine or law, that

person automatically would be taken off of welfare.

What I want to find out from you, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman, is: do you still have this kind of division

between what is education and what is rehabilitation or do you

consider education to be part of rehabilitation?

Now an example of this that I'd like to bring to your

attention is that of people, for example, who I counseled when

I was at Simon Fraser — sole-support parents who were on

welfare and had children. As soon as it was brought to the

attention of the welfare department that they were students,

they automatically were taken off welfare. So they had to leave

university and go back on welfare again.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: Just a minute, please. I allowed you to speak for

about five hours. I waited patiently in my seat….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: O.K. Fine.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I contacted the former Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement and prepared a brief for him — Mr. Galardi, I think

the name was — showing him that it was to the government's

advantage to assist people so that they could go through the

educational process and get off welfare rather than forcing

them to remain on welfare until they were old enough to go on

the Old Age Assistance programme.

I got a letter back from him stating that this was an

educational matter and was not covered by this department.

I would also like to bring to your attention that this was not necessarily

all women. There are some men, too, who came onto this programme who were faced

with the support of their children and found that in order to continue supporting

them they had to leave university and stay on welfare.

Now, I realize that your statement last night said that the

working poor would be able to apply to make up the difference

between what the welfare recipient would receive and what the

working poor would be earning. Do you consider a student

working poor? Because while you are a student at university

it's not necessarily possible, if you are taking care of

children at the same time, to work. Would the students come

under this category?

The other item was that you also mentioned a nutritional

allowance for pregnant women. Would this nutritional allowance

for pregnant women also apply in the case of the working poor

or would it only be for the pregnant women who were on

welfare?

Would you make a statement, Mr. Minister, about your

home-maker programme? We are kind of anxious to hear how it's

going, and if you have started doing anything on it. Thank you

very much.

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to the question of education, we

are meeting next week with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) around this particular subject. I know that the Member

has been involved in this question. As I understand it, the

department has of late been very cooperative but keeping on

the very realistic cases. There have been one or two that have

been very unrealistic and we haven't agreed to go along with

them.

Our approach to rehabilitation is that whatever it requires

within reason for someone to be rehabilitated, even if it's up

to the university level, has to be looked at if the potential

is there.

I am hoping as a result of the meeting next week that we can

make a statement which is very specific around this ongoing

process.

On the question of women, who are pregnant, I don't want to

say anything at this time because we are still trying to assess

the numbers. The statement I made last night applies to welfare

recipients but we'll certainly have to look at it. I haven't

had a chance to do that.

Home-maker service. We have had a number of meetings. We've

also increased the grants by 50 per cent. As you know my

colleague, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and I have met on it. We are looking

to develop a home care home-maker service. We've met with the

home-making people about further training and expansion of the

training process.

We're looking forward to taking off the welfare rolls a

group of people who heretofore had no expectation of getting

off. I have in mind women of 45, 50 and over who have real

basic home-maker skills as a result of being mothers and wives.

We are

[ Page 2180 ]

hoping to employ them. We are looking forward I think in

talking to the people who are going to have the course so that

we can look forward to enrolling about 200 people and coming

out with about 150 the first year from the one training area

alone. So it is a potential in terms of employment. We will be

meeting with them again once they have come up with a training

programme.

Let me say this: the home-makers are in need of a place to

do this training. At the moment in Vancouver it's being done at

the community centre. What they really need is to have a house

because that's the kind of situation people will be working in.

We're looking into this for them as well.

Did I cover all of your questions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, about

the home-maker programme. Presently the home-makers are not

covered by the minimum wage law. Would your home-makers be

covered by the minimum wage law?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, we have met with the home-maker people

and the association and I'll be making a statement about that

in respect to this minimum wage situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I had a question to ask the Minister, but I'd

just like to comment on the statement made by the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver-Burrard to the Minister regarding a couple

who have a child, I assume, and were on welfare at the

university. I think this is an area in which, unless there were

extremely unusual circumstances….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, one parent? I was just going to caution the

Minister that I really think if the taxpayers found that they

were supporting couples on welfare at university that this

would raise their hackles. It would seem relatively unrealistic

until we're a little more affluent than we are.

I would ask the Minister regarding code number 001, office expenses under vote

241 — the previous expenses were $2,000 a year and there is now a vote of $52,000

for the coming year. This seems like an extraordinary amount. I recognize that

the Minister is taking on more field staff, but you can do an awful lot of redecorating

for $52,000. I wonder if he could break down for us what this money is being

used for and which offices and how many people it will service.

HON. MR. LEVI: …this particular item, you know, for all

of the equipment and the setting up and the office expenses. As

you know, we have our office at the moment down on Johnson

Street, in the Bellamy Building. We have to rent that space and

set up office. At the moment there are 40 people working in

Mincome.

MRS. JORDAN: Did this include any mechanical equipment —

typewriters, computers?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, there are a number of pieces of

mechanical equipment relating to envelope stuffing and this

kind of thing. We had to buy a bit of accessories for that.

MRS. JORDAN: I accept the Minister's statement. I suppose

for 40 people it isn't too much. Is the Minster planning to

open Mincome offices around the province, or will it operate

from a central headquarters, relying on your staff and MLAs to

refer to people with problems?

HON. MR. LEVI: We're going to operate centrally. We have

under review at the moment a very interesting booklet that is

being prepared by one of the staff on Mincome and we're taking

a close look at it before we do something about it. I think

that people will make use of our field offices — and MLAs — and

we'll keep them informed of any changes.

MRS. JORDAN: Will the booklet have your picture on it?

HON. MR. LEVI: You might note from the annual report I don't

have my picture in that. I'm not all that beautiful that I want

to be that…

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, we'll vote for you.

[Mr. Fraser in the chair]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask

the Minister how many floors of the Belmont Building they're

planning on using. How much space do they have in that

particular building?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that this is relevant to this

particular vote.

MR. MORRISON: Well if it concerns that $52,000….

[ Page 2181 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: We're going to have the whole building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 240 pass?

Vote 240 approved.

On vote 241: assistance and rehabilitation division,

$6,799,189.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: In the salaries, Mr. Chairman, there is a new

position, the assistant director of operations. I would ask the

Minister, "who he?"

And then, just down a short way, under "social worker 7," the previous vote last year was $26,520. Two positions

are listed for this year and I would assume at that rate there

were two last year, unless we had a $26,000 social worker on

the staff, but it's a decrease to $25,000. Is this a

typographical error or did we clip someone's salary?

Would you like my questions all now or would the Attorney

General like to withdraw the vote so that Minister can go and

have lunch and refresh himself?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, he's overweight now. (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: There's an increase in the welfare research

grant from $15,000 — it's code number 019. It's increased from

$15,000 to $122,000 this year. I wonder if the Minister would

outline how he proposes to spend that money; how many people

will be involved; and if they are grants to individuals, how

they will apply for these grants.

Just below that, code number 129 — motor vehicle and

accessories — $85,500 last year and $140,000 this year. Is this

for new field staff? If so, how are you purchasing these cars?

Are you leasing them? Are you buying so-many? Are you into

compacts, mini cars — what type?

I would also ask the Minister, I think just under this vote,

if he can give us an estimate of what the average cost is to

hire a field worker — by hire, I mean in terms of salary,

office space, equipment, secretarial service — in order that we

can utilize this information for next year.

HON. MR. LEVI: …but what you have there because of the

reduction is — one of the workers resigned — we hired somebody

else who came in at a lower level because they didn't have the

seniority of the previous person.

In respect to the $140,000 item on the motor vehicles: when we were doing the

estimates, I said to the staff, "Be realistic. Don't tell me what you think

we can get away with, be realistic." This is a realistic figure. For

example, since we recently took over the Kamloops Welfare Department, we had

to pick up six cars for the staff because the municipal cars stayed with the

municipality. We took the staff; we have to find them cars because they're servicing

that area.

There was one other question in relation to the $122,000

which was the welfare grant — $107,000 of that is part of that

research project which is taking place at Brannen Lake, which

is a study of behaviour traits in adolescent boys.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those are various projects?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. We are also looking into foster home

services for children as a project.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, I can't hear the Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: Sorry. The $107,000 of the $122,000 is a

research grant relating to Brannen Lake School — the study of

behaviour traits in adolescent boys, evaluation of children's

services. The latter is extremely important to us. I've said on

a number of occasions that we must have an evaluation component

in the services that we purchase. We are not prepared to

continue purchasing services without such an evaluation.

There is a project for residential care for all emotionally

disturbed children. We are looking at that with a profile

study. Foster home service for children — we are looking at

that as a project. Social Assistance Services for Children is

also a projected project.

Now the expenditures for the projects are approved by the

health and welfare department of the federal government and are

100 per cent refundable. It's completely covered by them.

MRS. JORDAN: Right. I don't object, Mr. Minister to the use of this

money. I think it's being well used, except I don't understand the cost of research,

and $107,000 for one project in one institution seems a little bit high to my

mind. Could you outline briefly how many people are involved in the research

project and, really, sort of guesstimate the disbursement of the funds?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I apologize to the Member. What I was

looking at with $107,000, was really reflecting the increase

from last year — while the programmes I described, will in

fact, cost approximately $122,000 — that's four proposed

projects, all of it refundable from the federal government.

MRS. JORDAN: And you will be submitting a report on these

and breakdowns for next year?

[ Page 2182 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, we'll make that information available.

You know, we have a policy that all reports that we do will be

published.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 241 pass?

Vote 241 approved.

On vote 242: health care division, $238,058.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I don't know what

this division does and I wonder if the Minister would briefly

outline. It seems to be a director and two specialists and a

pharmacist. Is this the group that handle the drugs that go

out? It seems heavily laden with sort of chiefs and

typists.

HON. MR. LEVI: It deals with divisions of the medical and

para-medical services. Also, those two people are responsible

for approval of the handicapped pension allowance — Dr. Laundy

and Dr. Duncan — and any other approval that is needed in

respect to drugs, optical supplies and that kind of thing. This

is our medical service which I will be more than pleased one

day, to turn over to my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke). I think it's more appropriate for a department like

mine to purchase service from the Minister rather than us

operate this kind of department. That's my personal feeling

about it. But that's what it's for. Their primary function, at

the moment, is handling handicapped allowance, pensions

application and applications for drugs under the subsidy

programme. That's what they do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 242 pass?

Vote 242 approved.

On vote 243: social assistance, $215,968,000.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I must again repeat the

question — which seems a little irrelevant with the size of the

vote — was one of the voices on Mincome an MLA, a senior

citizen? And the other thing — this is medical services and

drugs. Is the Minister considering expanding services in this

area to all people over the age of 65; also to those who have

chronic illnesses, but may not necessarily qualify for medical

care. I think of celiac children, epileptics — those who are

having trouble paying for a necessary drug for their survival

but they don't come under the medical care programme. I find

myself often going to your department to try and get these

people help.

HON. MR. LEVI: I only know of two Members of the Legislature who are

over the age of 65, that's the Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and

the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett). Neither of them recorded anything

for us in the Mincome programme.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, we didn't need a juvenile role, so we

didn't mess around.

The Government is reviewing, and I think we stated before,

the whole question of a broadening of the free drugs to senior

citizens and to some other people. It's been stated by myself

and the Minister of Health that what we're looking into is a

bulk buying procedure with the other western provinces. Once

those discussions are concluded, we may be in a position to

make a statement. I think the Members will appreciate that bulk

buying is an enormous saving — not only with drugs but

prosthetic devices as well. But it is under consideration.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

MRS. JORDAN: The Government itself and the Minister isn't

planning on going into drug production or drug manufacturing

themselves?

HON. MR. LEVI: Not that I'm aware of, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 243 pass?

Vote 243 approved.

On vote 244: New Denver, $480,058.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a short word about New Denver — I think to

a layman's point of view, an excellent situation which has

struggled along. All that I'd like to ask the Minister about it

at this time, is whether or not they will continue with their

summer programme, I understand that they've been involved, I

think it was in my own area last summer, in working in projects

with the parks department and the forestry department — and

whether he will arrange further of these for the boys.

The other thing is the travelling expenses. Unless I've

missed the boat somewhere — only $500. Is that to cover all

travelling of students? Supposing they go on a trip somewhere —

is that the staff and the students in that $500? If it is, does

the Minister feel that this is adequate? I'm not suggesting

that the students should be junketing around the world, but

there must be, in their integration with the playing sports

with the community teams and that, times when they go with the

teams.

[ Page

2183 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: In terms of the summer programmes, yes, we are going

to continue. We will be continuing with that.

In terms of the travelling expenses: I'm afraid that I can't

make any comment. I see there's one, but that relates to the

office and not to the boys. I can assure the Member that

whatever they need to travel, that won't be a hindrance, we

will make the money available.

MRS. JORDAN: You'd better give the staff a trip out of there

once in a while too, it's pretty isolated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 244 pass?

Vote 244 approved.

Vote 245: child welfare division, $398,414 — approved.

Vote 246: provincial home, $431,180 — approved.

On vote 246: Brannen Lake School for boys, $1,054,739.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has explained that

he has a research project going on there. In relation to the

salaries, in trying to compare them with other positions, it

would seem that the director received rather a high increase

this year, as it's $15,960 last year and $ 18,420 this year. Is

there a reason for this? Perhaps he'd explain it.

HON. MR. LEVI: He was assessed by the commission. They said

that in view of the experience, ability and responsibility he

has, he was classified upwards. It was well-deserved.

MRS. JORDAN: I wasn't questioning that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 247 pass?

Vote 247 approved.

On vote 248: Division on Aging, $260,811.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I'm glad to see some increase here too. Pardon

me, it's a decrease. Sorry. I wonder if the Minister would explain essentially

why. Are you not planning on expanding the services for the Division on Aging?

Do you not feel it's necessary or are you shifting some of their

responsibilities to another area? If you could explain that.

Also, I would just comment to the Minister regarding his

memo for possible candidacy of future councilors. I think all

Members appreciate this. For my part, I have sent it on in

order that they will bring forth their own suggestions.

Hopefully, they'll be good people who the Minister may keep on

file. There's no political attachment to them. I think it will

be handled on a basis — as you know, there are often factions —

where those suggested will be reasonably acceptable to all.

Perhaps the Minister would outline just whether or not he

intends to expand the role of the senior citizen councilor. I

think I'm right in suggesting that he's expanded the allowance

by $10.

HON. MR. LEVI: In connection with the Division on Aging, you

may recall that their primary function before was in the

financial area — pensions, supplementary allowance and so on. A

lot of that work has now been taken over by the Mincome.

What we're endeavouring to do now is to find a whole new

role in terms of the social service area for the department. In

terms of the councilors, we will be planning a gathering of

these councilors. We'll probably have 100, once we've appointed

the other 25, here in Victoria some time in the fall. What we

want to do is to give them a very specific function. We want to

give them a kit and keep them informed on a regular basis about

any changes in services relating to senior citizens.

About a month ago we did have a conference of people from

the field on the whole role of services for senior citizens. We

had representatives from the four senior citizens groups, as

well as people who work in the field. We're now endeavouring to

find a whole new function for the Division on Aging as they

phase right out of the financial thrust, which is what they've

had for some time.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister's comments and

commend him. I think this is an excellent approach. I would

just remind him — as I find I have to do frequently, being a

non-metropolitan Member — that while you will be having

regional or non-metropolitan directors come down, there's

always a problem of communication between the non-metropolitan

areas and the city. It's in every profession; it's in every

group. You sometimes get a very well meaning and a very good

dominant figure who's always back and forth to the trips. But

there's a breakdown between the people who are involved.

When the Minister has conferences like this, I would hope

that there might be times when he would select people at large

who might bring a broader approach. I would also hope that he

will take the

[ Page 2184 ]

opportunity to meet with these people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 248 pass?

Vote 248 approved.

Vote 249: blind persons' allowances, $366,000 — approved.

Vote 2 5 0: disabled persons' allowances, $2,337,000 —

approved.

Vote 25 1: education of soldiers' dependent children and

expenses, $46,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

On vote 252: Minister without Portfolio, $63,120.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Vote 252, Minister without

Portfolio. I want to start off by congratulating the Minister

on being the first native Indian to have been appointed to a

cabinet in this country.

But I don't think that's a reason for the Government to bury

you in a little corner over there in the Douglas Building. Mr.

Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, that man has more ability

than that, I'm sure. I can't understand why the Government will

not give him greater responsibilities than they have. Certainly they've given him the question of studies. But if

they really believe that these studies are justified and the

needs of Indians need full-time attention, then I think they

have a responsibility to establish a full-time Ministry of

Indian Affairs in British Columbia.

I remember many, many times when the Minister used to stand

in his place here and plead the plight of the native people in

the north. He used to tell us about the great difficulties the

native people had with the unions, that the unions wouldn't

admit them because of closed shops and the hiring halls. That

wasn't too long ago; it was about three years ago, if I

remember correctly. He used to condemn the unions for their

attitude towards native people in this country and in this

province.

In fact, that Minister has stated on the floor of this House

that he was seriously castigated by one Ray Haynes because of

his statements relative to the unions' attitude and treatment

of the native people of this province. In fact, he went so far

as to say that Ray Haynes was instrumental and responsible for

his campaign funds being chopped off because he was fighting

for the native people on the floor of this House. That's the

type of treatment he gets from Mr. Haynes and his cohorts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. CHABOT: You mean Commissioner Haynes? So now that you're

in that cosy office in the Douglas Building, Mr. Minister, I

hope that you'll continue your fight for the native people of

this province. You used to stand up and say what was wrong with

our society and the mistreatment of the native people. I hope

that you're trying to correct some of the injustices that exist

in this province and in this country.

You people have indicated — it was part of your manifesto in

the last election: "An NDP Government will work to ensure the

repeal of the Indian Act in accordance with the needs

and the desires of the Indian people." I'm wondering what the

Minister has done to ensure the repeal of the Indian Act

so that it would reflect the needs and the desires of the

native people of this province.

"Press the federal government to ensure that Indians enjoy

the full benefits of the Bill of Rights." I'm wondering what action the Minister has taken relative to

that policy statement.

"Support the creation of a government-financed Indian court

of claims for the hearing of disputes over Indian lands or

trusts." I don't know, the Minister is far more familiar with

this particular issue than I am. I know he's fighting a case. I

don't know whether it's on a personal basis or whether with

government responsibilities that he's fighting this case for

the Nishkas. But I'm sure there must be other land injustices

in the country. I'm wondering what the Minister is doing

relative to that.

"An NDP Government will also, as requested by the native

people, press the federal government to renegotiate its

agreements with the Indians and institute new agreements where

desired."

There was also another programme put out when the promises

were running pretty loose and free. One of the programmes for

non-status Indians was that there be low-interest loans to

native Indians for economic development. I'm wondering how many

low-interest loans have been made to upgrade the economic

affairs of the native people of this province since you've

become Minister.

"Assistance in obtaining land for housing." What kind of

assistance has been given to help native people obtain land for

housing projects?

"Educational programmes designed for native needs." There is

no elaboration on the educational programmes for native needs.

But I would assume that that statement really means that in

certain parts of the province there are native people who do

native language be taught in certain schools. I'm wondering

whether there's any consideration that this

[ Page 2185 ]

take place in some of the more remote areas of the

province.

"Needy children from broken homes to be placed with native,

non-white, foster parents." I am wondering what the situation

is today, relative to this policy statement.

"Strengthening of the Human Rights Act to protect the

rights of natives." I wonder if the Minister would care to

elaborate as to what further additions or deletions should be

made to the Human Rights Act relative to further

protection for the native people.

"Involvement of natives to a greater degree in matters

affecting them, accompanied by measures to encourage native

staff members in all government departments." I am wondering if

the Minister would care to tell us just how many native people

have been hired by the provincial government in meaningful jobs

since you have become Minister. What departments and what

roles?

There has been an expansion in your estimates. There has

been an increase of $10,000, from $53,000 to $63,000 — three

Ministers before, one Minister now. There has been a

substantial increase in the salary of Ministers without

Portfolio in the province. The salary used to be $6,500 and it

is now $21,000. If you add two indemnities of $12,000 a year,

that makes a salary of $46,000 a year. With a travelling expense

of $7,000, that means that the Minister's income is up to

$53,000 a year, Certainly, Mr. Minister, we and the people of

British Columbia, primarily the native people of this province,

expect action to justify the tremendous salary which you have

at your disposition.

There has been additional staff in your department — there

is an executive assistant which wasn't there before, and there

is a research assistant. I am wondering if the Minister would

care to say what kind of meaningful role they are playing in

the function he has.

I am wondering if the Minister would outline to the House as

well what his function really is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister without

Portfolio.

HON. F.A. CALDER (Minister without Portfolio): I think I had

better start off with the terms of reference. I think you were

in the House when I spoke during the budget debate, in which I

thoroughly outlined the terms of reference. As a matter of

fact, this is not an attempt to slough off your question with

respect to terms of reference — I really mean that. I would

suggest to all the Members, since they may be asking out in the

field after the progrogation, "Just what is that guy doing down

there, anyway?" Take a copy of that Hansard in which I

outlined the terms of reference. I think this will be of

assistance to every Member in the House.

I more or less anticipated that question, Mr. Member, and

this is the main reason why we outlined — as a matter of fact I

read it out word for word. For anyone's benefit, if they so

wish, we can write it out in a briefer form to carry in your

Indian files.

To answer your question at this time: my function is to give

remedy to mistreatment. For years we have heard about the

"second-class Indian." To me and my staff, this has come about

because of discrimination in public services. The native

Indians do not receive all public services, as you know,

because reserves come under the jurisdiction of the federal

government.

My portfolio is merely to investigate, and recommend

wherever possible, provincial public services to Indian

reserves. Wherever we find it is constitutionally impossible,

we would approach the federal government and we have done this

already, to create this cooperation, so that amendments can be

made by the federal House by which an avenue may be created for

us to serve the reserves. Take second mortgages, for instance.

We can't touch this because the Indian Act says "no."

There was nothing to stop us, for instance, extending Bill 149

by making amendments so that the grants on housing could be

secured by native Indians for Indian reserves and so forth.

Highways: we are right in the midst of setting up a

two-level meeting of governments so that we can establish the

right of the province to build bridges and roads aboard the

Indian villages unconditionally. It is on this very point that

we are going to do a lot of travelling. You just mentioned my

expenses of $7,500 — by fall, I'm going to be demanding another

$7,500, because we intend to go through every province in

Canada and find out what these other provinces are doing. We

intend to see all the capitals. As a matter of fact I applied

for $15,000 and never got it from the Treasury Board. We are

going to sincerely approach the Treasury Board and I am quite

sure that before the end of September we are going to be in

need of further funds.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CALDER: Right. In the brief six months, for

instance, that we have been in office, we have on public

services alone received all this mail and documents from the

other governments. This is outside the Province of British

Columbia. By the way, these books are open to any Member of the

House for your review. If you want copies we are only too

pleased to let you have them.

As far as the pay is concerned — don't worry, we are going

to be so darned active, my friend, that I might be demanding

that my pay comes level with the rest of the boys here. Don't

you forget that for years when I sat on the other side I was

the only little

[ Page 2186 ]

voice that kept demanding that the indemnities go up. I'm

not going to stop. If I know that I earn it, I'm going to

request equality in pay in this cabinet, so help me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Equal work, equal pay.

HON. MR. CALDER: You mentioned the Indian Affairs Branch. I

don't know whether it is a coincidence that I was appointed

Minister without Portfolio. It just might have been a mere

coincidence, because with the assignment that I was given to

study the possibility of public services, I accepted the

Ministry without Portfolio because I am one Member who will

absolutely refuse the establishment of another Indian Affairs

Branch in this country. We have one bureaucracy which to me has

been a failure all these years and I don't want to see another

one set up under the provincial jurisdiction. It will be over

my dead body. I have said this many times — you'll not see

another Indian Affairs Branch.

Look at it this way — our people have been denied public

services. We extended the franchise to the native people and

they have been faithful voters. I said this in my remarks

during the throne debate. They are heavy taxpayers, my friend,

and they are faithful supporters of every party — this is

repeating what I said during my contribution to the throne

debate. But I, and I think the rest of you, felt very

embarrassed the day after the election — what can we give them,

aboard the reserve? Hardly anything. Because we are fortunate

in having surplus money and we know that these people — our

people — are entitled to these public services, your new

Government is determined that we are going to extend the

services to them.

We can't give you an answer in six months and I can tell

you, rather than make….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CALDER: We are representing fair treatment, my

friend.

That's on Indian Affairs — we would rather pinpoint our

efforts upon the extension of public services on the reserves.

Our people are entitled to those services. As I say, we are

going to run into many difficulties, mainly with existing laws

under the federal government. We have already — it's not in

writing — talked to the top people in the federal field and

they have agreed that their books will be open to us and vice

versa. We are going to work on a very cooperative basis. Our

first stop after prorogration will be Ottawa. We expect to be

there for at least a week to set this cooperation on a sound

basis and then create such things with the other provinces.

Again I repeat that we hope that before our four year term

is up that we will have established a model which we hope other

provinces may be able to follow. This is my way of answering

your first remark about the Indian affairs, and perhaps this

Without Portfolio.

It's quite an exciting assignment. But, we are going to take

our time about it. We're going to learn a lot. I'm certainly

hoping that you'll make a contribution. There are a lot of the

Members here who understand the Indian question and we're

asking you to load our office.

I have here all our files — as I say, belonging to the

federal government and our own government and departments, and

a whole volume of what we are recommending, and another volume

on what's pending. My boss and your boss indicated at the time

of my appointment that it may take a year. I'm quite sure that

this will be a continual thing, and this is the reason why I

and my assistant have decided that we're not going to enter a

report that is going to be final. We're going to get away from

that idea. We're going to have an annual report like any other

department. This way, we'll keep you up to date. I think it's

better way of handling it.

Indian membership: you were talking about my criticism in

years back. I would just like to say, and very truthfully, that

wherever I go today, the local unions up north, the Indian

Affairs Branch, the public are very thankful, and particularly

the native Indian people, because now they're with the unions — they're joining, and they're quite happy with the way that

things have resulted from my little burst.

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CALDER: I spoke on the public services.

Repeal of the Indian Act: I think those of you who

have studied the Indian policy that was presented by the

federal government years back — it was known as the White

Paper. Among other things, it requested the repeal of the

Indian Act. Among other things it requested provincial

jurisdiction on Indian affairs. Yours truly became quite

unpopular because I and my own tribe were the only ones in the

whole of Canada who accepted the White Paper. We became most

unpopular throughout the country. This is the Nishka tribe — we

were the only ones that accepted it.

I'll tell you why, and I still stand on the position that we were right in

supporting it. It is a mere general statement in our view, and by accepting

it, we believe that we would have seen the details — the actual legislation

that was going to be amended. We wanted to know all the details. If some of

the details we believed may be detrimental to the Indian cause, then object

to certain of those discrepancies.

[ Page

2187 ]

But as it was, the Indians throughout the country objected

to the White Paper after about four years consultation and so

it was thrown out the window. I just mentioned this because you

mentioned about the repeal of the Indian Act. Certainly,

that Act needs a revision. It's obsolete in my view. I don't

hesitate in making these remarks at all.

About the Indian land settlement: I don't believe that I'm

in a position to even mention about this. What I know is what

you also read in the papers about the case which I represented,

I and my tribe. It's in the hands, according to the papers, of

the federal government. What they do, that's their business. If

they want to approach any other government, that's their

business. It's the least of my worries, or the Indian's

worries.

You could treat that case as a test case — look at it the

way you please. The only thing is that when they are good and

ready, they'll have to go to that tribe and say, "Look, we're

ready to talk terms." I suppose that the tribe will say, "Yes,

only on equal basis, on mutual grounds and we'll talk terms."

This is my assumption.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CALDER: I can't say. I'm not involved actually.

You were talking about loans. You were talking about loans

and grants and everything. We have the revolving loans in the

federal field. We are extended one grant. We hope that any

other grants we can look at as a public service and avenues

available, we can further recommend from my portfolio to the

Treasury Board to extend such grants.

Loans at the moment are mostly federal, and on the economic

development basis. I'm quite sure that our native people are

applying for such loans, and no doubt some of them are

successfully doing so. Some of them, business minded people —

they do go through the banks. I know several who have made a

success of their loans. And with the Industrial Development

Bank, they cry the equality bit — let them go as far as that —

take their own initiative and secure money just the way you

secure it.

About employment: it's not on a sound basis yet, but don't

ridicule my reply to this. One that I know was announced by the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) not to long ago in

which they've appointed a director of Indian education. I do

know that several organizations are laying out plans and

presenting it to the government on how to create

employment.

We have Indian villages now who wish to apply for their own timber — the reserve

timber, or any adjacent timber and operate the forestry themselves. I suppose

that if this government was to agree and lay out the plans by which that operation

can get off the ground — in this way certainly, we'd

assist in creation of employment.

Fire fighting: we have people now requesting such

things.

This is sort of an inopportune time for me to answer

questions because we are just starting to receive word from the

federal government agreeing that they're going to meet — and

this is news for the House — meet for the first time. And I'll

tell you that the federal government is very pleased over this,

that they're able to meet.

For instance, in a few weeks the federal government, for the

first time, is going to meet with the Highways department to

talk about the very thing I was telling you about. It's already

operating in Ontario for roads and bridges on reserves, and

they're delighted that this meeting is coming about. Our

portfolio recommended this, likewise with the previous

portfolio that we just got through.

There's a meeting coming in within a few weeks over the

whole welfare situation. Again, this is the first time they are

actually going to sit down and talk terms, This is why I say

it's rather an inopportune time. Perhaps maybe in the fall, we

could see a better picture on this whole thing. I think this

about answers your questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: I want to compliment the Minister in the

straightforward way in which he's answered my questions. I have

to appreciate the fact that we can't expect everything to

happen in six months. This whole pattern of fitting the native

people into meaningful jobs doesn't happen very quickly. I know

that and I am most appreciative of the way you handled the

questions which I put to you, Mr. Minister. It appears to me

that the selection of yourself as the Minister to deal with

this problem was a wise one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to make a few comments on this, respectful of

what the Minister said — that he's only been at the job six

months, and we're trying to remedy many years of

misunderstanding and neglect. But I am rather fascinated by

this whole dispute or disagreement within the Indian population

itself as to the mechanics by which the Indian can receive

equal status and responsibility, and be treated equally in

every respect as any other Canadian citizen. This surely is the

goal of the Indian citizens, and it certainly would be our goal

and is our goal as a

[ Page 2188 ]

political party in this Province.

The Minister did refer, Mr. Chairman, to the White Paper

which Jean Chretien introduced in, I believe, 1969. It's

interesting to quote the very first paragraph of this White

Paper — the very first words that are spoken in the report:

"The government believes that its policies must lead to the full, free and non-discriminatory participation

of the Indian people in Canadian society.

"Such a goal requires a break with the past. It requires that the Indian people's role of dependence be

replaced by a role of equal status, opportunity and

responsibility, a role they can share with all other

Canadians."

This statement does not seem to suggest that there has to be

an either-or proposition — either a federal Indian Act

which doesn't work, or a provincial Act which would not

work.

I'm just interested to have the Minister's comments on how

he himself would see the best mechanism by which the initial

goal that I have quoted from the report could be achieved. My

personal feeling is that the Indian population should be given

the same advantages, services and responsibilities as any other

Canadian citizen. In that respect, the non-Indian citizen

doesn't have an either-or proposition, federally or

provincially. It is all legislation at all levels of government

in Canada to which each non-Indian subscribes and lives by.

That federal report went on, for example, to quote this part

that was mentioned of repealing the Indian Act: "and

take such legislative steps as be necessary to enable Indians

to control Indian lands and acquire title."

Again, it just puzzles me; I would have thought this was

something that the Indian would be very keen to achieve. While

the Minister mentioned that his band accepted the federal

proposal, he says that every other Indian band in the country

turned it down although the government expressed the goal of

returning Indian lands to the Indians and giving them title to

the land. Goodness me, we have talked enough about the

emotionalism of owning your own land in the last few weeks.

This seemed to me to leave some doubt as to what the Indian

people themselves would like, or what avenue they would follow

to reach this goal of equal status with every other Canadian

citizen.

The report also mentioned that many of the remedies for

social problems in our society are structured in the provinces.

The report admitted that the Indian population had been

non-participating members of this provincial structure. But it

also said that this would be the goal of the plan: to provide

equality and the same services under the same circumstances to

the Indian that is being provided to the non-Indian

citizen.

That is my first question really. It seems rather a simplistic one, but I really

feel from what one reads and from discussion with non-Indian citizens, that

they are equally interested in trying to bring about this very worthwhile goal

that the Indians should have — indeed must have — the same social services,

education, housing, health and welfare, and all the other advantages which we

enjoy. Although this may take time to bring about, it must be done.

What is the hang-up? Why is there this feeling that it

cannot be done through a combined federal provincial programme

of legislation such as applies to the non-Indian? That would be

my first question.

My second question really relates to the more specific

problems in our society. I read the disturbing figure of the

high percentage of Indian population in prisons, both male and

female, and I would like to know to what degree the Minister

thinks this is related to the lack of proper legal

representation of Indians who are accused of crimes. I don't

have the clipping with me, but the import of the

article was

that one of the reasons that more Indians finish up in jail

than non-Indians is that they haven't got the privileges, the

money and the access to legal defence in court. I would like

the Minister to comment on that.

The whole question of housing is a vital one to the Indian

as it is to any other citizen. I would like to ask the Minister

about the policy which the federal government was applying a

couple of years ago. I got involved in somebody else's riding,

and I may say not at my request; I wasn't interfering