1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5927 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of Queen 0ak Bay. Mr. Howard –– 5927

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

IWA-COFI negotiations. Ms. Sanford –– 5928

Mr. King

Mr. Barrett

Shutdown of Amax molybdenum mine. Mr. Passarell –– 5928

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5928

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5929

Ms. Sanford –– 5929

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5929

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 1), 1981 (Bill 24). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5930

Mr. Howard –– 5930

Mr. Hall –– 5930

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5931

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5931

Ms. Brown, Mr. Gabelmann, Mrs. Dailly, Mr. Hall

Royal assent to bills –– 5938

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5938

Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Wallace, Mr. Levi

Appendix –– 5948

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I ask all members to bid a cordial welcome to two guests in the gallery

today: Miss Sharon Jacobs from the constituency of Vancouver–Point

Grey, and Mrs. John Olson from Saltspring Island.

MR. HOWARD:

In the gallery we have with us a very highly regarded and respected

gentleman from Winnipeg. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr.

Bill Blaikie, MP for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

A group of students from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands is

visiting us today in the gallery. I wonder if the House would welcome

these young people from North Saanich middle school.

MRS. WALLACE:

Another group of students is in the precincts today. They are grade 8

students from Stanley Gordon school in Lake Cowichan. I don't believe

they are in the gallery at the moment. I would like the House to join

me in welcoming them.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the

opposition is having an epidemic, a very terrible rash of birthdays. We

thought we would kill all the birds with one stone and ask the House

to....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Now is

that a feeling of good cheer? I'd like the House to wish a very happy

birthday to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who was 16 on Sunday;

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is 21 today; and the

absent member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who is going to be

God knows what tomorrow.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd

like the House to make welcome some visitors from the constituency of

Langley. They came to enjoy lunch and question period this afternoon:

Mattie Aiken, Edith Greenwood, Madeleine Snell and Helen Northey.

Accompanying them is my executive assistant Carol Gran. I'd ask you all

to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

SALE OF QUEEN OF OAK BAY

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Inasmuch as the minister has just sold the

new Cowichan class ferry Queen of Oak Bay

to Royal Trust Co. of Toronto for $24 million and inasmuch as Royal

Trust Co. stands to earn a sizeable profit from this deal because of

the generous capital cost allowance on such sale-leaseback

arrangements, I would ask the minister if he can confirm to the House

that the British Columbia government's share of these tax losses will

exceed $3.8 million.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to

the member for Skeena, I can confirm that a deal is now being

negotiated to sell to Royal Trust the vessel Queen of Oak Bay on a

leaseback basis. I'll have to take the other part of his question as

notice.

MR. HOWARD: I take it by that answer that the minister didn't bother to find out beforehand what the tax loss would be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD:

Inasmuch as

article 4 of the draft lease agreement published by the

minister provides certain guarantees for Royal Trust Co. If that

particular tax loophole is plugged, I wonder if the minister can advise

the House why it was felt necessary to arrange such a guarantee to such

a poverty-stricken free enterprise operator as Royal Trust.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I might say to the member for Skeena, and all the members

in the House, that it is my information that no deal has been signed

yet. It was authorized by cabinet that they enter into the agreement,

but I believe that this week they're in negotiation for signing the

papers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker. that same

article —

article 4 — provides that in the event the tax loophole is plugged,

Royal Trust may increase the rent charged to the B.C. Ferry Corporation

"to such an amount as will, in the reasonable opinion" — of Royal

Trust, yield a satisfactory return. I wonder if the minister can tell

the House why he has found it necessary to give this kind of blank

cheque to Royal Trust Co. to bump the rental on the Queen of Oak Bay at Royal Trust's discretion.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I'll get the details that the member for Skeena is

concerned about. I'm pretty sure that there won't be any blank cheques

signed.

MR. HOWARD: This is a supplementary and final

question. Inasmuch as the deal has not yet actually been consummated

and signed, can the minister assure the House that those giveaway

provisions to which I referred earlier, and which were in the draft

lease agreement, will not be contained in the final agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a future action of the minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I wonder if the minister could advise

the House why this government and that minister continue to sell the

vessels of the B.C. Ferry Corporation at the expense of the taxpayers

of this province.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I

don't really think that was a question from the member for Mackenzie.

This deal that is being negotiated now will be in the best interests of

the public of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, this is a question to the minister. Would the minister agree

that this is a way of going further into debt and doing it in such a

way as to be a very costly process for us? We're selling a vessel for

$24 million

[ Page 5928 ]

that cost us $30 million, and we're going to pay $69 million to get it back.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, from the very response of the House it is obvious that the question is argumentative.

IWA-COFI NEGOTIATIONS

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The issue of

regional versus provincewide negotiating is getting in the way of a new

contract in the forest industry. I think that issue should be separate

from the one of contract renewal. I would like to ask the minister what

steps he has taken to resolve the impasse between the IWA and the COFI

regarding the scope of bargaining in the industry.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, while discussions are going on in this most important

industry I don't think it's in the interests of the parties involved

that any matters which I have discussed be made public. Otherwise, I

think it imperils the sanctity of collective bargaining and the

confidentiality of the comments which have been relayed to me.

Accordingly I will not answer that particular question in the House or

discuss those deliberations with which I've been involved.

MS. SANFORD:

I think the point the minister has missed is that negotiations are not

taking place at the moment. They have broken down because of the issue

that is interfering. I would like to know what steps the minister has

taken to ensure that collective bargaining can take place in this

province. What steps has he taken to ensure that that issue is removed

at this point so that the two sides can get down to negotiating a new

contract?

MR. KING: I have a supplementary question,

Mr. Speaker. I'm amazed at the minister's response that he will refuse

to give any information to the House. The question is: has the minister

done anything to try to resolve the impasse regarding the structure and

scope of bargaining so that the parties can get onto contract renewal

negotiations? There's a concern on this side that that road-block may

result in a work stoppage without any meaningful negotiations having

taken place. What we're simply asking from the minister is whether or

not he is prepared to get involved. If there's a technical reason why

he would be afraid of upsetting some tentative agreement, fair enough,

the House would understand that. But to suggest that he will not be

responsible or answer in any way to the House is, in my view, arrogance.

MR. BARRETT:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Is the

minister aware that both sides in the dispute are not presently meeting?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I am aware of the fact that there are some difficulties being

experienced in the forest industry, particularly in the production

area. I am also aware of other matters which I am not at liberty to

discuss. What confidence would those with whom I deal have if I were to

make public some of those discussions?

MR. BARRETT: The question to the minister is this: is the minister aware that both sides are not meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister has the question.

MR. BARRETT:

Since he wants to sit in silence on that, given the fact that both

sides are not meeting, without the minister telling us how he is

involved, can he assure this House that he is involved in a plan to get

them back to the bargaining table?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'm going to, repeat as often as the question is asked: I have no

intention whatsoever of discussing matters of collective bargaining,

negotiations, posturing and the strategy of the various parties. That's

a matter of bargaining, and that's where it will remain.

MR. BARRETT:

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Everybody in the House

applauded that statement from the minister. Now the next question. Is

the minister involved? Without telling us any of the details, can he

assure the public of British Columbia that he is involved and has a

plan, the details of which we do not wish to know, that will bring both

sides back to the bargaining table before they drift into a strike?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I think it's accepted practice in this House, and has

been since question period has been instituted, that questions can be

asked. However, answers cannot be insisted upon. That is not to deviate

from the regular practice of the House.

MR. KING: I

have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's comments seem to imply that he is in discussion with the

parties regarding their problems in contract renewal this year. He said

that he did not wish to compromise. Has the minister been in touch and

had any discussion with the parties — that is COFI and the IWA — with

respect to the impasse? We don't wish to know any of the details. Has

he a plan to bring them back to the bargaining table?

SHUTDOWN OF AMAX MOLYBDENUM MINE

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Last week, Mr. Wayne

Lenton, vice-president of Amax, finally admitted that inland tailing

ponds are a feasible solution to the problem of toxic waste disposal at

Alice Arm. Has the minister decided to spare the Nishga further harm

and immediately order the installation of an inland disposal system at

Alice Arm?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES:

I have a question to the Minister of Labour.

section 2(

l) of the Human

Rights Code makes it an offence to cause to be published or displayed

before the public a notice, sign, symbol or emblem indicating

discrimination or intention to discriminate. Has the Minister of Labour

decided to initiate proceedings under this

section against the Ku Klux

Klan for its public cross-burnings?

[ Page 5929 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I believe the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) advised two days ago

that an investigation was being conducted. Prior to proceeding with

that particular incident, I thought it would be in the interests of the

issues before us to wait receipt of the Attorney-General's report.

MR. BARNES:

A submission to lawyer John McAlpine prepared by staff of the human

rights branch argues that the Human Rights Code could be used

effectively to combat KKK hate literature. Will the minister tell us

why he is refusing to act on the recommendation of his own human rights

branch to initiate proceedings against the Ku Klux Klan?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

It seems to me that question was asked some weeks ago. It's become

quite evident that the Code as it is presently drafted would not serve

any purpose, or we wouldn't meet with any success. That was the reason

I had that report initiated. I suppose there might have been some

benefit in appointing a board of inquiry and allowing those interested

to have a venue to express views on some of the detestable events which

have taken place. But I think the object is really to meet with some

success. That's the purpose of the report and its recommendations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. members, the bell terminates the question period, and there is another question period tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'm pleased to introduce this gas safety act for second reading. This

legislation follows the two previous bills and is similar both because

it sets up an appeal process and updates the legislation so that it

will....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if conferences

are necessary, perhaps we could return to whispering, or those

conferences could take place in the corridors. Mr. Minister, please

proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As I was saying, Mr.

Speaker, this is the third of three companion bills, The first is the

Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act, the second

is the Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981, and the third

and final bill from the Ministry of Labour is the Gas Amendment Act,

1981. It also contains within the bill some modernization so as to

coincide with present technology. It also provides for an appeal

process, and I might say that it has been in the chute for some years.

It has been essentially unchanged since 1954, but the changes found in

the bill are really those requested by industry and labour.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Again,

there was a committee which was primarily responsible for the bill. A

number of people and professional engineers from B.C. Hydro, Inland

Natural Gas, the Mechanical Contractors Association, the Ministry of

Labour, Pacific Northern Gas, the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning

Contractors' Association, United Association of Journeymen and

Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting and the gas safety branch.

This particular bill. like the others, after being introduced in the

House was circulated to the committee. The information passed back to

me was that all members of the committee expressed complete agreement

with the bill as well as a full endorsation. I also have a letter from

the Gas Safety Review Committee under the signature of T.A. Maranda, a

professional engineer, advising that the committee had reviewed Bill 19

and a motion was passed unanimously endorsing the proposed legislation.

There

may be one minor amendment with respect to an expression that really is

not of any significance whatsoever. I really don't think there is much

more to be said other than going into the technicalities of the bill.

Whether or not there will be any benefit gathered by so doing.... I

think probably the members opposite had an opportunity to review it.

It's very similar to the others. I think I will just sit down and allow

them to pass comments at this time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to belabour the same point that we raised this

morning, but I do have to reiterate our concern about the trend of

putting all of the important aspects of legislation into regulations so

that cabinet can make changes which are never discussed in this

Legislature, which have no public scrutiny and which are not reported

on, except after the fact. I just want to go on the record to make sure

that that is included in Hansard

as being part of the concern that we express on this bill as well. It's

a continuing trend with this government, Mr. Speaker, and we are

concerned about it.

Most of the material I wish to raise

under this bill is better done in committee, because it's fairly

detailed and refers to various sections. But I do have a general

question with respect to the appeal procedure. I'm not quite sure why

the appeal procedure has been set up in this way. First of all we have

appeals to the director, and then that appeal may go to the special

appeal board that's being established under this legislation. But in

addition there is provision for appeals in cases relating to

construction, to go under the new legislation we will be discussing

later on this afternoon, I assume, or tomorrow, brought in by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), with respect to

building standards. I don't understand why the Buildings Code Appeal

Board would have a greater knowledge about the provisions in this Gas

Amendment Act than either the director of the branch or the appeal

board which is established under this act. I'm somewhat confused and

concerned about the other appeal provision to the Building Safety

Standards Board that's going to be established under Bill 20, brought

in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If the minister would address

that issue, then I think we will raise the rest of our concerns on this

legislation in committee.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If the

member looks at the marginal note on page 5 of the bill, where it

expands one particular section, you'll find in there that should any

recom-

[ Page 5930 ]

mendation

be made — this has a parallel provision in boiler and pressure, and in

electrical.... The purpose is this; I thought I might have touched on

it this morning. Where a decision of an inspector in any one of these

three areas might be such as to implement any recommendation which that

inspector orders, and may affect the structure of a building, in order

to accommodate this problem, industry — and by that I mean the full

complement of industry — was concerned about the rigidity of inspectors

and that there would be an appeal to the Building Code Appeal Board

which would consist of people who are knowledgeable in each of these

areas, depending on what the issue is. Really, what happened is that

there seemed to be a consensus among all those involved as to how best

to handle what at times can be a very irritable problem. I think the

member addresses the question particularly of who is going to be on

that board to make that decision. I think you would probably find that

those who are appointed would be somewhat knowledgeable in the specific

area under review.

The other item on here makes reference

again to regulation. But when you look at the regulations behind any of

these areas, there are literally piles of paper. I don't quite

understand how we as a government can respond quickly — within a week,

two weeks, three weeks or four weeks — if it's within legislation. By

putting it within legislation I think we really invite a problem and

detract from the very flexibility which has been not only our thrust

but that of the trades and industry.

If that particular

matter was not adequately explained, with respect to the appeal

process, when it goes to the building standards board I will make a

note of this, and perhaps it could be raised during the committee stage.

I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill

19, Gas Amendment Act, 1981, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker — I think a bill best left for debate in committee.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1981

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

I assume the Attorney-General has spoken, by the sound of things — or

you lost your chance, except to wind it up. The motion is before the

House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Attorney-General must be recognized for the motion to be made.

MR. NICOLSON: I think that we go on to the next bit of business, in that we now have a dropped order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we don't, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: There has been no motion moved.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair recognized the member for Skeena, not knowing what the member....

MR. NICOLSON: Quite rightly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, he was on his feet. He asked a question. The question has been replied to. I now recognize the hon. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena is so overwhelmingly in support of Bill 24 that I thought perhaps he would move the motion.

This

is the first of the omnibus statutes amendment provisions which will be

before the House this year. There will be at least one more. As it

covers a number of amendments to a number of separate statutes, it can

be more appropriately dealt with at the committee stage. I move second

reading.

MR. HOWARD: As the Attorney-General said, a

number of statutes are sought to be amended. A quick count on my

part

indicates that 30 statutes are sought to be changed with this one bill.

While that in itself inhibits any rational second reading debate on

principle, because there are presumably 30 principles involved in the

bill, it does lend itself, as said, to a committee stage examination.

However,

I think — from my point of view, in any event, and ours here — that

it's a most inappropriate way to deal with legislative items, to lump

together in one bill a number of acts that may have conflicting

principles, one with the other. It puts the House always in a very

awkward position of making some determination about second reading.

Members are in the position of perhaps agreeing with one

section and

not agreeing with another section, as the case may be, and finding

themselves in that anomalous position of having either to vote against

the bill in its entirety even though there are good features or to vote

for it in its entirety even though there are unacceptable features.

would seem to me that sometime perhaps the Attorney-General and the

draftsmen for government would find a different way of approaching

matters of this nature. Inasmuch as we do have it before us, the way to

deal with it obviously is at the committee stage. At some point, unless

this matter is addressed properly by government, there needs to be a

very intensive procedural argument about the propriety and the

orderliness of legislating in this fashion.

MR. HALL:

I share the concerns of the member for Skeena about this. This statute

gets longer and longer as more and more miscellaneous statutes — as

they're termed — get thrown into this omnibus bill. However, I suppose

it's in front of us and we'll have to deal with it as best we can.

would like the Attorney-General to assure the House that when committee

stage is called — and I don't suppose we'll get any more than the usual

three minutes' notice of committee stages being called; no matter what

the House Leader may privately tell his children he's doing for the

good of the Legislature, that's about what we get — he'll make sure

that the ten ministers who are in Bill 24 will be on the floor of the

House to answer questions on the various sections. That way we'll not

have to have the usual wrangle as the Attorney-General tries to explain

pieces of legislation he knows nothing about.

[ Page 5931 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's never happened yet.

MR. HALL:

Yes, it happened last year. We got into a very bad situation when this

side of the House was trying to find out what was going on, and you and

the Attorney-General couldn't answer the questions and the minister

responsible for that particular piece of legislation wasn't in the

House at the time. All I'm saying is: if you want cooperation on one

side of the House, Mr. Speaker, let's get it on the other side of the

House as well. Therefore I suggest that when we go through committee it

will be the Chairman's duty to make sure that ministers are on the

other side of the House when committee stage is undertaken.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The problem raised by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is one of

which we are very much aware. We have been attempting to design the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act to restrict its use to those

amendments which are, in a sense, single-section amendments largely for

correcting language or errors in expression, so we don't have a number

of provisions for amendment under a particular statute being dealt with

in this way. We have attempted, with the assistance of legislative

counsel, to accommodate that in this bill. If we have not been

successful to the satisfaction of the opposition, I extend my apologies.

the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who was so interested in

raising the issue that he has seen fit to leave the House before he

gets his answer, may I say that while the bill stands in the name of

the Attorney-General for purposes of carriage in the House, it is

required that each of the several ministers whose statutes are being

dealt with in this way be present and available for debate at the

committee stage. To the extent that some circumstance may arise so that

this is not possible, then it will be incumbent upon the

Attorney-General to be able to respond to questions that may be posed

with regard to any particular amendment.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1981, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling the vote,

I'd like to draw to the attention of all hon. members that His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor will be approaching the premises about 4

o'clock this afternoon for royal assent to some legislation that the

Legislature has passed in this session.

On vote 117: minister's office, $233,936.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, as we left this vote yesterday in committee, there were

some questions raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Levi) regarding what he termed the underspending in family and

children's services. I'd like to address my remarks to that charge

today. There is a very simple explanation for the figures he raised,

which I did not have handy yesterday. But I'd be pleased to respond to

that charge he gave to us on the floor of the House yesterday.

The

suggestion was that the family and children's services part of the

ministry's vote was underspent in 1979-80 by $8.5 million. I think the

intimation was that we were denying services because of the diminution

of that vote, and because it was underspent. First of all, let me

explain to you that $5.3 million of the $8.5 million was placed in the

budget to include plans for new development, which in some cases was

delayed due to municipal requirements and local problems. I think

everyone in this House probably is quite aware of what those local

problems sometimes are. We plan to put a group home in a community and

the community will not accept it. There's a lot of negotiation between

the municipal government and the residents surrounding a group home

about whatever the problems are. It takes a tremendous amount of

communication.

Sometimes some of the desires of the ministry

to place a group home or a facility in a particular area are not met

with the greatest or the quickest success because of the problems we

have. In this regard there are local problems and municipal

requirements, A good example of this was in the community of Surrey,

and both members for Surrey will be quite cognizant of that. So that

which we expect to expend in a given year is placed in the budget in

advance and is not spent in that particular year. The fact that the

service comes on stream in the following few months of the next budget

year was not mentioned by the member who raised this question, but in

effect that is what happens.

So $5.3 million is involved in

that kind of effort. Also, the budget is based on a full 12-month

operation in all resources. Some are closed — and that's not cutting a

service out — because of the fact that a parent group will perhaps

leave the province or decide that they don't want to take any new

people in and close down a facility. New ones are opened and old ones

are closed. The budgeting system is changed to reflect opening and

closing of resources more accurately in this year. So we think we can

be a little more accurate in this particular vote in the coming years

because we are just at this present time changing the budget system to

reflect that fluctuation.

That takes care of $5.3 million of

the $8.5 million. Then the member made reference to homemakers. There

was underexpenditure resulting in the transfer of some responsibilities

because 1979-1980 was the time when there was the transfer of reference

from homemakers from Human Resources into the Ministry of Health. We

set up $1.1 million too much in the transfer, but it was better to do

so than to be underfinanced for that particular service. But again, let

me just say that there was no service denied. The fact that we

overestimated $1.1 million does not mean that anyone out there could

have had a service and did not simply because it wasn't spent. We

weren't as close in our figuring in that regard. We were, as I say,

over $1.1 million.

Our ministry felt that in that year the

day-care facilities which we subsidize — day-care for people who wish

to take advantage of it and who need a partial subsidy or a full

subsidy.... They overestimated the demand for service. It was lower

than anticipated. Not one parent was denied daycare, because the full

amount of day-care was not spent. I wish to reiterate that, because the

inference was left yesterday that there was some money underexpended,

and therefore that the service wasn't given.

[ Page 5932 ]

Also,

in that same vote, the special services for children was underspent by

$700,000. Again, the demand for this type of service was lower than

anticipated. The reason for that was that prior to this particular

financial year we did not have the number of family support workers who

take a lot of that work on. That particular vote was underexpended

because of the initiation of more family support workers in that area.

out of the total of $8.5 million, those are the reasons why they were

underspent. May I also refer to a couple of things that were left

hanging yesterday? I think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

was concerned about community grants. In effect, what we used to call

community grants and the service for community grants — and I notice

the member is not in the House — has been increased by 12.8 percent.

Year after year it has had an increase. I hope all members of the House

will understand that we have a really decentralized approach to

financing, and this is done on a regional basis. Please try to remember

that these community grants and community services — all services, even

the family and children's services that I've just mentioned again — are

expenditures on a regional level. They have their own budgets to adhere

to. The decision as to what service and what services will be enhanced,

what services will be doubled, or whatever, is really in the hands of

the local authorities — the regional manager and the region itself —

because they are the ones who know best what the approach should be in

each and every area.

There was some reference from the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to the ombudsman's report. She

was concerned about the discrimination which was brought forward by

DERA and reported, I believe, in the ombudsman's report. I'd just like

to say that there's always been discrimination in terms of payments.

The member is a part of the socialist party which had the opportunity

to be government for 38 months, and they discriminated at that time.

Those who were 60 years of age got a higher rate. Remember? They

changed it from those who were getting it at 65 years of age, and they

lowered it to 60 years of age. When our government came in, we reduced

that level to 55 years of age. In the last couple of years our ministry

has reduced it even further to 31 years of age. We have been moving it

down all of this time.

MS. BROWN: I don't believe this.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

You can laugh if you will. But I want to refer you to the fact that in

just about everything that Human Resources or Health or anyone who is

giving a service to the public does, there is some form of

discrimination in terms of ability to pay.

In our letter to

the ombudsman I do believe that we were quite clear in our assessment

of the complaint. As you know — and I don't think it was mentioned when

you brought it up yesterday — the complaint was regarding lower benefit

levels paid to single persons and couples under the age of 31 who are

without children. As we have outlined in our submission to the

ombudsman, we believe that young people are more able to work. I want

you to know that these are the people whom DERA was trying to represent

when they gave their complaint to the ombudsman. We believe that some

of them require income assistance for short periods of time, but it's

clear from the benefits-paid statistics pattern that cases under 31

years of age come and go off the income assistance rolls significantly

faster than others. There's no question of that.

Even our

own statistics say that those under 31 go off income assistance at an

average rate of 24.5 percent per month, while those 31 and over leave

at the rate of 10 percent per month. The unquestionably dramatic

difference in those two is due to the fact that those who are single

are able to be mobile, can go and seek the jobs and can go out of the

province or to a different part of the province. They can seek

independence without the problems that older people who have families

and dependents have to contend with, seeking shelter and jobs and so

on. They are far more restricted. Their ability to readily move to seek

alternative employment, I believe, supports our suggestion that those

who are 31 and younger are more mobile.

There was reference

to the ombudsman's report. I really would like to take a little bit of

exception to the remarks that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds made when

she said that there were complaints from personnel to the ombudsman. If

one looks on page 41 of the ombudsman's report — and I have it before

me — there is one statement that refers to this. It says: "Staff

complaining re working conditions." In 1979-80 the ombudsman received

24 complaints from public servants from all ministries — not the

Ministry of Human Resources. The only reference to the Ministry of

Human Resources is again on page 41, where it says: "... staff

complaining about their working conditions." In the whole year there

were 24 complaints from public servants, which is .06 percent of the

total complaints given to the ombudsman. It's interesting to note that

in the complaints that are, I would say, vaguely referred to in the

report of the ombudsman in reference to the staff of the Ministry of

Human Resources, there is staff from the former Vancouver Resources

Board, which, of course, was not within the realm of the ombudsman, and

the ombudsman so informed that complainant.

I also want to

share with the House the fact that our ministry does have a procedure

for complaints. I would like to refer to you a letter that was received

from Dr. Friedmann: "I have advised Mr...." — and I won't name the

person — "that should he be dissatisfied with the finding or should he

have in future any other problems relating to his employment, these

complaints should be addressed to his union." And I have a sample

letter which is sent to those in our ministry, we are informed, as a

matter of fact: "Existing grievance procedures provide a remedy

adequate in the circumstances for the person aggrieved, and I have

decided not to investigate the complaint." That's from Dr. Friedmann

once again.

One of the things that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds did not share with the House I'm rather pleased to

share with the House because I'm rather proud of the fact that our

ministry has had a very good working relationship with the new

ombudsman's office. I would like to ask you all to take a took at the

Ministry of Human Resources which takes up something like four pages of

the ombudsman's report, which in total is about 100 pages, and in those

four pages there are a few paragraphs here which refer to specific

investigations which he has undertaken. I have had the opportunity to

read these complaints, and I want to tell you that there are very many

of those that had come to the ombudsman that could well have been taken

care of by any one of the members of this House, because almost in

every case in this ombudsman's report there has been an avenue for

resolution. We've all done that in our own offices and communities, and

we have found those.

[ Page 5933 ]

Let

me just refer you to page 41, under personnel, the very thing that the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds brought up. " It is worth noting that the

ministry — both executive and line staff — have been very cooperative,

and this has facilitated complaint resolution." And then move along to

the one-stop total bureaucracy care, and then you'll find that the

ending paragraph of that says: "The complaint was thus resolved through

the ministry's actions and no recommendation was required." Let me

refer you also to the "battling bureaucracy can be like pulling teeth"

paragraph on page 42. This very case was reiterated on page 42

regarding a man who wanted to have special dental treatment through the

GAIN program. Strangely enough, I have resolved many of those cases

personally without any problems of taking them any further, and so have

people on my line staff and so have people in this House. But let me

give you the last paragraph of that, and I quote from the ombudsman's

report: "My staff followed up a few weeks later, and the complainant

was in a much happier frame of mind. His teeth had been fixed, his

other problems had been attended to and, most important to him, he felt

that the ministry treated him like a human being."

I also

quote page 44, the paragraph titled "Steering recipients of assistance

through the bureaucracy": "This case represents a good example of the

concern which this ministry has shown in ensuring that the concept of

administrative fairness is applied as fully as possible to recipients

of income assistance." The very last paragraph in reference to the

Ministry of Human Resources is on page 45. It is at the end of a

paragraph in regard to reuniting a mother and daughter who had been on

income assistance: "The cooperation of the ministry in making the

reunion possible was greatly appreciated by the complainant and my

staff."

I'm pleased that we've had such a good association,

and I am pleased to respond to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I think

those were the only questions left, and I look forward to the

discussion of my ministry this afternoon.

MS. BROWN:

Yesterday I dealt specifically with the advocacy role of the minister,

and I expressed my disappointment with the way in which she had

discharged her responsibilities in this area. I suggested that in fact

she had failed to discharge her responsibilities.

The other

area I would like to deal with today has to do with services. Of course

all my colleagues would like to participate in that debate, and so this

afternoon I am going to allow my colleagues to raise specific issues

with the minister rather than doing it myself. I can wait and do that

at some other time.

Before passing on, however, I just want

to bring to the attention of the House that in the ombudsman's report,

on page 15, there was a special section,

section D, which said:

"Specific issues for the attention of the Legislative Assembly." That

entire

section deals with the Ministry of Human Resources. I wouldn't

want the House to be misled or left with the impression that the only

things the ombudsman had to say about the ministry were in the four

pages the minister brought to our attention. The actions of the

ministry receive special attention in this particular section. The

ombudsman said the ministry would not implement his recommendations

dealing with age discrimination, and so it had a special

section all of

its own, on pages 15 and 16 for anyone who is interested.

The

reasons the minister gave to the House are, of course, not the same as

the ones she gave to the ombudsman, because in the ombudsman's report

the reason she gave for people under 30 receiving less was that the

public believes they should receive less. She also said her ministry

would have to take it before Treasury Board, because to change this

particular type of discrimination would involve significant

expenditure. I think it's only fair that the House should know that

those really are the two reasons why people under the age of 30 are

discriminated against by the Ministry of Human Resources.

closing these comments I just want to say that I'm really surprised to

have learned today that GAIN for seniors starts at age 31 in this

province. This is the first time it's been brought to my attention.

GAIN for seniors, which was at age 65, was lowered to age 60 under the

NDP. It was lowered to age 55 under the present government, and today

we were told it has now been lowered to age 31. I hope all of us senior

citizens over the age of 31 will be getting our bus passes and

Pharmacare cards before the day is out.

MR. GABELMANN:

Both the minister and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) raised

their eyebrows when the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) made

those comments about the age of senior citizenship being reduced to 31.

That's precisely what the minister said. I heard her too: the reason

there was discrimination at age 31 was that that was just a

continuation of a policy that had been developing in British Columbia

over the last few years: 65 to 60 to 55 and now down to 31, Obviously

she couldn't have meant that, but that's what she said, and the House

should be clear about that.

This afternoon I want to talk about one specific issue. The issue is shelter allowances.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll ask the committee to come to order, please.

MR. GABELMANN:

Before dealing specifically with some of the numbers involved that I

want to relate to the House this afternoon concerning the shelter

allowance portion of social assistance, I want to describe, in

composite form, the situation that three or four of my constituents

have faced in the last six to eight weeks.

It goes as

follows. The phone rings in my constituency office or in my office here

in the buildings and a woman says: "I've been evicted from my home or

my apartment and there's nothing the rentalsman can do, because it's a

proper eviction under the rules. I'm on social assistance. I'm alone,

with one child. The housing allowance is $300 since April 1. There is

no accommodation. whatsoever, available. There is a house that would be

suitable for...." Then the figure ranges between $600, $700 and $800 a

month. Then I phone the social worker and I say: "What are we going to

do?" The social worker says to me: "Well, what do you want me to do?" I

say to the social worker: "Well, I think together, as advocates for

people in this position in this community, we should try to do

something to help this person and her child or children find

accommodation." The social worker, quite properly under the existing

rules, says to me: "We are not mandated to assist our clients in

finding housing. It is our job to pay the bill that they present to

us." So I say to the social worker: "There is no housing, certainly

within the affordable levels. What would you say if I recommend to this

client of yours that she and her child go to live in a motel in town at

a cost to the government of $1,000 or $1,200 a month?"

[ Page 5934 ]

Human

Resources then pays that if that happens. The worker says: "Well, I

can't comment on that. It's not part of my job to assist in finding my

clients accommodation."

I'm saying to the minister now that

I intend, in the future, to continue to recommend to these people that

they do not spend 10 and 12 hours every day searching for accommodation

that doesn't exist in the first place. I'm going to suggest to them

that they go to the nearest motel, check in and send the bill to MHR,

because that's the only solution available. It's just not good enough.

appreciate that a lot of this discussion has to go on in the estimates

of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I can

assure the House that those comments will be made then. But why is it

that a government who is so conscious, publicly at least, about public

funds is quite prepared to say to its staff: "Don't help the clients

find a place to live, but we'll pay $1,000 or $1,200 a month?"

I quote a headline in the Vancouver Province :

"Homeless Clog Motel Strip." The sub-head and body says: "Aid to a

Welfare Family Can Top $1,000 a Month. Motel row on Kingsway in east

Vancouver has become a cramped waiting room for welfare recipients

subsidized by up to $1,200 a month per family by the provincial

Ministry of Human Resources." What kind of program is this? Why are we

spending that kind of money instead of putting money into affordable

housing for people on social assistance? I suspect it's a question that

has no answer.

This afternoon I briefly want to bring to the

attention of members in this House, to all those people in the gallery

and to those people who read Hansard

just what the shelter allowance portion is today. This is after what

the minister calls "substantial increases effective April 1" On March

13 she said: "During the 11 months since the last GAIN rate increase,

the cost of living in British Columbia has risen significantly. These

new rates will help our clients keep up with these costs." We're

talking about the housing component of those costs.

If you

are a single person on welfare, you are eligible up to $170 a month for

your rental portion. I'm going to give you all the figures up to the

unit of four. If there are two of you, it's $300; for three of you,

it's $360; and for four of you, it's $400. That's not just rent. That

includes utilities such as power, heat and other utilities that all of

us need in this day and age.

Now let's look at what housing costs are for these people. Let me remind

the House that, overwhelmingly, most of these people are women with children.

One person in Vancouver — $170 allowed. What's the studio-apartment rent

in Vancouver? I'm quoting government statistics from the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing. A studio apartment is $415 a month. A bachelor is $275 a

month, and a one bedroom is $450 a month. A one-bedroom in Burnaby is $460 a

month. And you get $170 towards your rental. So the difference between the $460

and the $170 is $290, which comes out of your food portion, except that it's

not that high. You don't get that much money for food. So you spend more

on this average one-bedroom apartment than you get in your total welfare cheque.

You might be able to do it in Surrey, because rents there are only $300 for

a one-bedroom. You'd only be taking $130 of your food money every month

to pay for your accommodation in Surrey, on average. In New Westminster you

have to take $230 out of your food money. And so it goes. And it's not just

in the lower mainland. In my constituency, a one-bedroom in Campbell River is

now averaging about $270 a month. So you only have to take $100 out of the food

you need to eat every month to pay your rent.

But

let's not talk about singles, because there seems to be a public bias

against single people on welfare. There certainly is a government bias

against them, as demonstrated by the minister's comments about

under-31s in her reaction to the ombudsman. So let's talk about kids,

for whom we can all have some emotional compassion, since we don't seem

to be able to have any for other individuals in our society. Let's talk

about situations where there are one or two children. Let me remind you

that if there's one child and a parent, you get $300. Take the

Vancouver figures: two-bedrooms in Surrey, $350, two-bedrooms in

Coquitlam, $600; there are some three-bedrooms for $650, $500, $575,

$650, $500. They are all in that kind of range. And what's the housing

allowance? For four people it's $400.

I can go through these

figures endlessly to demonstrate that there is a considerable shortfall

between the shelter allowance and the amount that it actually costs

these people to live in accommodation — if they can find it in the

first place. What's the minister's response to that? To marginally

increase the rates April 1, which doesn't even begin to deal with the

crisis that faces people out there.

Let me talk, first of

all, about some figures produced by the YWCA — not your average radical

organization that the government may not want to listen to. It's not

even Red Door, which I'm sure the government will never listen to.

These are the YWCA figures in Vancouver. They have over a thousand

people a month coming into their office looking for assistance in

finding a place to live. It's the only agency in downtown Vancouver.

Seventy-five percent of those people who come into that office are

women; two-thirds are single women and single parents. A majority are

well over 35. Most of them are from British Columbia; it's not an

influx from some other part of the country. Eighty-one percent of them

are from British Columbia,

In March 21 percent or 210 of

those thousand people were on social assistance. There were actually 1,

217 people in March. I said over a thousand, but it was actually 1,217.

In March the YW was actually able to find 128 places out of this

demonstrated need for 1,217. Out of this 1,217, 21 percent were people

who are the responsibility of that minister.

For those

single women the housing allowance is $170. Seventy-seven percent of

single women in the lower mainland are paying more than $200 a month in

rent. Many are paying considerably more. This means, whether it's a

single woman, or man, or whether it's a family with a single-parent

head or, in some cases, two parents that in almost every case people

are using money they need for food and clothing for rent. It means that

our health care costs go up, because nutrition goes down when you don't

eat properly. It means that levels of education for these kids go down,

because you don't study well when you're hungry and poor. What has that

ministry done about it? Nothing at all, Mr. Chairman.

The

anti-poverty association in this province suggests that there are some

people spending 75 percent of their social assistance income on rent.

What measly amount is left for the essentials of life beyond shelter;

for clothing and food? Are not food, clothing and shelter the three

basic rights for all citizens in this society? Why are they not being

provided for?

I quote from the Skeena Terrace Committee on

Welfare Rights. "The shelter component of the welfare cheque is not in

line with the actual market rents. Because most of us cannot find

accommodation in existing public housing, we

[ Page 5935 ]

are

forced to rely on our support money to pay the rent. This problem has

become worse since rent overages were eliminated in 1979."

Here's

a report from the United Way — not your average radical, red group, as

the government would so like to label many of the activists in the

community on this issue. It's a pretty respected organization. It's an

organization that a lot of us on both sides of the House have had

something to do with. I quote as follows: "Many low-income people are

going hungry in Vancouver because of the high cost of housing, the

United Way said Thursday. Research shows that 56 percent of a sample of

welfare recipients have housing costs that exceed the government's

maximum shelter allowance," This is last year, before the present

crisis descended.

Dr. Henry Hightower, who is chairman of

the social policy and research committee, said: "It means that people

are going hungry. I don't mean this in the sense that people are not

having one meal a day, but many people have a diet that is not

nutritional because it contains a lot of starch. Some people really are

hungry, because they are having to take large amounts out of their

monthly food budgets to pay for shelter." It goes on and on.

know from personal experience that a lot of parents in this situation

are going hungry because they use whatever money is left over to

attempt to feed their kids. They make a decision that their own lives

may be lost in many respects, but that they're not going to allow their

kids to have that future. So many of these kids do have that future.

It's because of the neglect of this government to provide adequate

shelter allowances and their absolute failure in providing housing for

these kinds of people, apart from anybody else in our society who is

facing the housing crisis.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like

to discuss the area of day care with the minister this afternoon. I,

along with my colleagues and many other people in the province of

British Columbia, am becoming increasingly concerned with the problems

that face parents today who need day care. My concern is primarily

based on the fact that the present government still does not seem to

comprehend the true importance of day care. I say that because of their

policies, the lack of provision for day-care centres in this province

and the whole subsidy system which is inadequate, despite some recent

improvements. The main concern is that the whole idea of the Social

Credit government seems to still be that day care is basically a

child-minding service for those who are in need.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to — with your indulgence — read a few sentences

from the United Way brief on day care to the government. Then I want to compare

their definition with the definition I find in the Human Resources manuals.

The United Way — I completely endorse this — says:

"Day care should no longer be viewed as a childminding service,

provided primarily for parents who must be away from the home during the day.

This traditional concept is giving way to the recognition that good quality

day care should be available, on a universal basis, to those parents requiring

it on a short- or long-term basis, or to meet crisis situations. In addition,

there is concern to ensure that day care today embraces an integration of education,

health and welfare philosophies and skills."

That is the general acceptance of the objectives of day care by most people

today. Then I turn to this statement from the Ministry of Human Resources listed

under the GAIN regulations in which it is stated: "The purpose of the day-care

services must be to prevent, overcome or alleviate the causes and effects of

poverty or child neglect." I consider that a very, very narrow objective

of any government in 1981 when it relates to day care. My first question to

the minister this afternoon is: could she assure not only the members on this

side of the House but the many citizens out there who are concerned about this

narrow-minded outlook on day care that she and her ministry are giving consideration

to adopting a far more understanding, broad-minded and intelligent approach to

day care?

What

concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that I can't help comparing the record of

the Social Credit government to the NDP government in day care. I'd

like to bring to the attention of the House the difference, which shows

either commitment or non-commitment. In 1971, the year before the New

Democratic Party took government, there were 67 licensed group day-care

centres in the province of British Columbia. And one year under the NDP

administration that rose from 67 to 152. In 1973 it jumped from 152 to

250. In 1974 it reached 280. Over 6,000 spaces were now available. and

over 12, 090 children in B.C. were receiving a subsidy compared to

2,600 when the NDP took office. Then we look at the record once again

when Social Credit returned. In 1975 there were 286; in 1976 there were

283 — it actually dropped. The latest figures I have take me up to

1979, when there were 307. Perhaps the minister will have more

up-to-date figures that can show us that there has been a major

upsurge. But my concern is that I cannot believe there has been, and I

know there isn't.

There isn't a place you go in the province

of British Columbia where women are not saying: "I need day-care help

and day-care spaces for my child." In my own riding I know that that is

something that I deal with very often. My colleague the critic for

Human Resources also deals with this in Burnaby. It's very frustrating

for those women who need day care, and the facilities are simply not

there.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the

reasons the NDP was so successful in moving and creating more spaces is

that the NDP realizes that the starting up of a day-care centre takes a

tremendous amount of work and a considerable amount of financing.

Therefore under the NDP administration we actually did assist in

capital, financing. But under the Social Credit the assistance for

capital financing seems to have disappeared. I've met many young

mothers who say: "We want to get one going, and we're ready to put in

volunteer help and some of our own money. But can you not see if the

government will not contribute to get us going?" They're not asking for

complete government help; they're asking for some. So my next question

to the minister is: is she reconsidering the present policy, which does

not allow for capital assistance?

When we're talking about

being positive and negative, I don't think there's a better example of

a government that has a negative approach to the development of

children than the Social Credit, as has been shown by their policy on

day care. They seem to fail to understand that what happens to a child

from the time of birth through the beginning years — up to the age of

seven — often has a tremendous impact on what that child is going to

become in later life. The Human Resources portfolio might not need so

much money to look after the children at the other end of the scale who

may become educational accidents or social accidents — not

[ Page 5936 ]

because

of their own fault, but because their early years were simply not taken

care of as they should have been.... We cannot place blame entirely on

government for that lack of care. Certainly families have a great

responsibility. But the average working mother today simply must have

good day care provided for her, so that when she goes to work she knows

her children are being properly taken care of. The child who is left

with a very poor babysitter who just sits it in front of a TV

screen.... We've seen this happen with little children from two on,

because the mother cannot find proper day care. Those children who are

left with inadequate social backgrounds in those early years inevitably

have many counts against them when they enter school.

can't express more sincerely to the minister and to the government that

moneys put into day care will prevent moneys being spent at the other

end of the scale when these people become young adults. When I referred

to the earlier statistics on the comparison between the NDP and Social

Credit when it comes to commitment in helping to establish day care....

The critic for Human Resources has handed me the figures up to 1980. It

shows that those receiving subsidies in 1980 totalled 7,986. That is a

drop. I say shame on any government today that can spend money on Pier

B-C, convention centres, B.C. Place and yet fail to see that one of the

most important jobs any government has to do is look after the children

of the province. Instead of putting their money into people and

children, they are putting them into edifices.

I hope the

minister has taken the time to read the United Way report. I know they

have made recommendations to her, and I must say there is one

recommendation in the report that I really can't endorse. That is where

they suggest another big study be made of day care. The days for the

studies on day care are long past. Most people today know the value of

day care. What I'm concerned about is: does this government not

appreciate the importance of putting money into day care? Those are the

questions I have for the minister at this time.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would indicate if she is going

to answer some of the questions today or.... Do you want to answer now?

There

are a number of questions I would like to raise with the minister. She

and I came into the House at the same time, in 1966. I know and she

knows that I represent an area which has had as tough a time as any in

terms of dealing with the problems that are represented by her

ministry. I do want to say right off the bat that I think there has

been a great deal of improvement over 15 years in the Surrey area.

That's due to a constant raising of awareness in the community, and at

all levels of government, about the kinds of problems there are in that

area. To that end, I think it can be fairly said that a lot of people

have been bending their efforts towards heightening that awareness.

There has been an improvement in attitude by a lot of the staff in

Surrey, compared to the staff that was there in 1966. There has been a

great deal of voluntary effort going in to match systemized and

professional effort.

Having said all that, it's still true to say that Surrey does represent

one of the greatest areas for the wide range of problems in the lower mainland.

On a per capita basis, I'm sure that I'm right in saying that we probably

have more single-parent families. We have the unfortunate fact that, while some

of the building chances over the last ten years have offered some opportunities

for cheaper accommodation in Surrey — that was mentioned earlier by my colleague

from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — they are now being closed out and there

are not those opportunities any more.

What

we have had, however, is a continuation of erratic rulings, if one

compares the kinds of rulings one gets in one district with the rulings

one gets in a neighbouring district. That's what I want to draw to the

minister's attention. I hope that kind of local variance can be

smoothed out. I don't lay fault to anybody on this; these things

happen, and it's something that has to be straightened out. People in

the community that are assisting recipients of social allowances know

there's a different kind of ruling in one district than there is in

another.

I want to give a couple of instances of the kinds

of things that have happened in Surrey. There is a case here where the

father of a child didn't pay the $150 a month support that was ordered

under the CPSA three-party agreement. The mother waited for her worker

to obtain a statement of arrears from the superintendent of child

welfare so that an enforcement order could be made before family court.

She contacted me for advice and assistance after having had some

difficulty in getting that information. She finally made application to

the court on the advice of a family court enforcement officer. The MHR

worker seemed unclear as to the MHR's responsibility in bringing it to

court. That seems to me to be nothing more or less than a question of

training.

Finally the father paid a lump sum of $900. The

income assistance cheque of $533 was then completely deducted from the

social assistance allowances. She was asked to return that cheque, and

did so. If the support that I referred to originally had been paid

monthly the mother could have kept $100 per month as earned income; for

six months it could have been $600. Because payment was made in a lump

sum she could only keep $367. The Ministry of Human Resources deducted

$533. I advised her to appeal that decision. Allowing that loophole

means that mothers with such agreements who are on income assistance

have no way to prevent fathers from paying lump sums, which effectively

reduces the amount of support which could be received for the child's

benefit.

That happens in one office, and the point is that

in other offices there are quicker and tougher — obviously a judgmental

word-workers who get on the job faster and give the mothers slightly

differing advice so that the whole process is speeded up. Those are the

kinds of areas that I think we have to apply ourselves to. Goodness

alone knows, if you're the head of a family and the only parent, it's a

big enough job without having to fight what is obviously, in your mind,

an injustice. I ask the minister to really have a look at the manual as

far as that's concerned.

There's, a question of indigent

burials. Oftentimes I feel there's lack of sympathy on the part of some

offices and hospital social workers who simply don't follow up at the

times of bereavement, stress and unhappiness, and who only work.... I

don't want to make it a blanket condemnation, because I know many

social workers who work all sorts of hours. I see many of them at

conferences who've been working all the previous evening. Nevertheless

there should be some rules laid down in terms of bereavement so that

advice is given. For instance, this particular lady received bad advice

from caseworkers and her husband lay in the morgue for over a month

while arrangements were being made. Again it's a question of

administration. Those are the problems I'm raising with the minister.

[ Page 5937 ]

Lest

the minister asks why I'm raising them here and why haven't I come to

her office, let me assure the minister that I worked in the field in

Surrey and we've got some of these already being looked at. This is an

active file; it's a file that has already been looked at. These notes I

read from are extracts from files which have been looked at and worked

on by my office and myself and which have come to a happy conclusion.

They are only symptomatic of some of the things that have happened over

the last 12 months, since last I had an opportunity to discuss these

things with her. I think they are fair comments on some of the things

that, are going on.

One of the things that's happening in

Surrey, and I don't think it's unfair of me to refer, as I did during

the estimates on transportation.... When you write to some people in

the ministry, they say: "Well, we've got an office." You and I, Mr.

Chairman, have written to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

and were told they have an office in Cloverdale. You and I know that is

of no value whatsoever for over 60,000 or 70,000 people who are living

in the north end of north Delta or the north end of Surrey or Whalley

or Guildford and round about there. I would like to ask the minister if

she could tell me what the latest situation now is in reverse —

although we've got an office in north Surrey, we don't appear to have a

district office in Cloverdale, The last information I have was that

there was a lot of overcrowding in Guildford, and Cloverdale clients

had to travel to Guildford for appointments, for cheques, etc. The

situation is inadequate for both staff and clients. It created a great

deal of difficulty, especially with a completely inadequate bus

service. The new office has been postponed again, and I wonder if the

minister could now tell me what the latest is on her file regarding a

district office in Guildford.

I'm happy to hear from the

B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. It was my pleasure to meet

with them on a Saturday just two weekends ago in the Hazelmere Valley

in south Surrey and, with them, I went over their brief and

correspondence with the minister. It's a sad story that the Association

for the Mentally Retarded have to give to the members of the House. I

don't know whether the members have dealt with it in the last two days,

but I want to say that I was horrified to realize that the grand

promise made by my colleague the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) has not been fulfilled, and that what he said two years

ago, that the institutions of B.C. were in effect a thing of the past,

has not been carried out. We have, indeed, seen no real reduction in

our institutionalizing habits; we're still warehousing our mentally

disturbed people; we're not responding to that grandiose plan announced

with a lot of public relations hype by the then Human Resources

minister. In 1977 the then Human Resources minister identified 200

persons as being ready for immediate release from Woodlands into the

community. In 1977 the resident population of Woodlands was 906; in

1980 the population was 842 — a reduction that is hardly in keeping

with the tone of the release in 1977. At that rate, Mr. Chairman, it's

going to be way past the year 2000 before our institutions are

depopulated.

The questions one has are, of course, these.

Why has the government not come through with its promise and

commitment? Where are the examples of expansion of community-based

services? How many group homes for mentally handicapped persons will

the ministry fund this year? I know that the minister has sent a letter

to the association and that they sent an open letter back to the

minister. When I attended this meeting and saw the brief that was

presented to the social services committee of cabinet, I wondered why

on earth we still are in the business of warehousing people the way we

are in our institutions, and why we allowed that public-relations

statement to take place, as we did way back in 1977 when my colleague

the first member for Surrey introduced the LIFE program — Living

Independently for Equality. I see, for instance, that now in 1981 a Times

lead editorial pointed out that that project was an empty promise. I

think many of you have seen that lead editorial — how the B.C.

Association for the Mentally Retarded released a devastating report on

the status of the mentally disabled in the province. The scathing

indictment charges that government policy forces hundreds of mentally

handicapped citizens to remain in institutions against their wishes and

the wishes of their families. Particularly disheartening is the

report's underscoring of the failure of the ministry to provide

promised improvements, specifically those outlined by my colleague away

back in 1977 — Living Independent for Equality. That report promised

that the Human Resources ministry would be launching a major effort to

de-institutionalize services, "The day of the massive institution is

over." was proudly proclaimed.

The questions they ask — the

minister has a copy of them.... I don't want to thrash this point over

and over again. It's time for some plain talking and simple answers.

Where is the program? What are your answers, Madam Minister, to the

questions and requests of the B.C. Association for the Mentally

Retarded? If you look at that report dated May 1, 1981, which has some

20 requests, what are your responses to those 20 requests? What can we

say, as members of this Legislature, to all of the district

associations who haven taken the time and the trouble to come and see

us, and all of whom represent hundreds of volunteers and thousands of

volunteer hours in this association and similar associations,

particularly in this year — the International Year of Disabled Persons

— and particularly in view of the thousands upon thousands of dollars

that are being spent trying to lull the public into believing that all

sorts of exciting programs are taking place'? Thousands of dollars are

being spent both federally and provincially trying to tell the public

there are all sorts of things taking place for the disabled people in

our province. Here's one of our first duties and first responsibilities

— to simply make sure that those people who shouldn't be in

institutions are returned to the community.

As I said, last

Friday morning when I opened a conference on education for the disabled

and the mentally retarded, I was impressed by the way the answers to

some of these problems — and the solutions — may be found in the

efforts of the people themselves. Certainly you're never going to get

from mentally retarded people the effort, the help, the assistance, the

ideas, the creativity and the imagination to solve their own problems

harnassed, channelled and used, by having them in institutions. That is

the greatest waste I've seen since I came into public life in this

province: I was horrified and shocked to the very core of my being when

I first went into Coquitlam and New Westminster and saw those

institutions. I remember travelling with the then member for

Vancouver-Burrard, Dr. Parkinson, and with the member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly). I've never forgotten that day and what a criminal waste

— I use the word in a clinical sense — we saw of a chance for people to

take

part in solving their own problems and creating their own freedom,

in the sense of breaking loose from some of the disabling features that

we are forcing on them by institutionalizing them.

[ Page 5938 ]

Madam

Member, to finish up my questions to you, I feel very strongly, having

spent some time talking to the associations in Surrey. What are your

answers to these requests of the B.C. Association for the Mentally

Retarded?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wonder if I could

just respond first of all to the member for Surrey, who has just taken

his place. He mentioned several things which I think we both have a

keen interest in. I'll start with the B.C. Association for the Mentally

Retarded. First of all, you talk about a promise not being fulfilled.

Our colleague in the House, the former Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), when he had this responsibility, did make a

commitment. That commitment is being upheld and fulfilled. That

commitment was that this government would, in every way possible, be

able to move as many people as possible who were in institutions into

the community. The Community Living Board, which was initiated by the

former minister, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has

seen its budget almost triple just last year from $300,000 to $850,000,

which I suggest is a commitment to doing just what the Community Living

Board was set up to do. Remember, the Community Living Board is unique

in Canada. It was the first. Even though the B.C. Association for the

Mentally Retarded in your recent meeting with them perhaps did not give

credit to this government, over many meetings I have attended with them

they have certainly given credit to this government for leading the

nation in that regard.

Just in this budget that we're

discussing and in reference to the budget for this next year, we have

increased infant development, achievement centres — both capital and

operating — and transportation allowances for the retarded to attend

achievement centres in our program. We have in place, semi-independent

living homes, non-profit residences for the retarded, child-care

resources for the mentally retarded, specialized day care for the

mentally retarded and community-based life-skills training for retarded

adults.

The member claims that since 1977 there has been no

appreciable decrease in the residency in institutions. That's not true

at all. Community-based services have increased by $3.8 million. This

year the increase will be $4 million. In 1977 the population of

Woodlands, the institution that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall)

has referred to, was 906. There were 110 discharges in that one year

alone. In 1978 the population was 880 and there were 81 discharges. In

1979 the population was 856 and there were 42 discharges. In 1980 the

population is 842, with discharges totalling 46. That's a total of 279

residents. That's depopulation of the residence called Woodlands.

Others

come in as those retarded adults or children are placed in the

community. I'm going to say immediately to the member that I have also

been at Woodlands. There are some residents who can never come out of

that institution. There are residents in the Tranquille facility in

Kamloops and in Glendale on lower Vancouver Island who will never be

able to move out of the residence. But in those institutions where we

have those who can move out, it is the commitment of this government.

It has been fulfilled, not totally, but partially. Remember, it can't

be fulfilled totally until we can ease those young people into the

community, so when they get into the community there are resources,

support and public and community understanding for them. Let's remember

that. I want to refer back to this subject, if I may, whenever we

reconvene.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct and is preparing to enter the chamber..

The House took recess at 4:07 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:12 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieu tenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981

Company Amendment

Act, 1981

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981

Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance

Grant Act Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1981

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 2), 1981

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 117: minister's office, $233,936.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In answer to the questions raised before this break, I would like to

begin my comments by saying that there was a misquote referred to by

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). She was referring to those

over 65 and I was referring to those under 65. I just put that on the

record for clarification. I'm sure she understood that when she was

playing around with the words earlier today.

Could I return

to the comments I was making regarding the B.C. Association for the

Mentally Retarded, and also to other comments made by the second member

for Surrey (Mr.

[ Page 5939 ]

Hall)?

I'm sorry that he's not in the House at the present time, but I'm sure

he will be back in a short while. I just want to mention the meetings

that have been held, particularly the one held by our ministry with the

B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. Members of the social

services committee of cabinet met with them and received the brief

which was referred to by the second member for Surrey. The brief set

out what the B.C. association would like to see happen during the rest

of the eighties. It was very ambitious and, I would say, a very good

reflection of what the association wants — their aims and objectives

for this decade. The social services ministers then referred it to a

group of their deputy ministers. That brief has been under study; there

has been some active work done on it. It's unfortunate that we cannot

meet the timetable that the B.C. association would like. We are

certainly trying. I think that within a very few weeks we will have an

excellent report in answer to that brief. I'm sure that all members of

the House will be appreciative of that. We're moving it along as

quickly as we possibly can. The commitment of the government and the

commitment we made before is not just a verbal commitment that perhaps

one could not keep in all cases. This one has certainly been kept.

take exception to the second member for Surrey saying that our

colleague, the other member for Surrey, did not fulfil.... He certainly

more than fulfilled his objectives and commitments to the B.C.

Association for the Mentally Retarded and to all parents of retarded

children in this province. He started the very first community-living

society in this country. Rather than being critical of our member, I

think that the second member for Surrey, who took his place just prior

to the Lieutenant-Governor's visit, should be giving accolades to our

member for having done such a wonderful job in terms of looking after

the mentally handicapped in this province. I'm pleased and honoured

that I have been able to carry on that commitment, because I believe in

it just as much as he does. I am pleased that I have had that

opportunity.

The second member for Surrey also talked about

a difficulty with staff. Let me assure him that the Cloverdale office

he spoke of — I know he wants an answer for his particular constituency

— is number nine on the priority list for 1981-82. We hope to have that

established. It's a pretty high priority for us as well.

Administration.

We have 5,000 staff in the Ministry of Human Resources. We have

regional training coordinators and regionalized budgets for such

training. I was a little disappointed.... I think it has to be said, I

guess, if you find these problems; but I wish that members would really

and truly feel free, when they have a problem.... Some members on the

other side of the House and some members on this side of the House do

share with me their individual concerns. I was particularly concerned

about the reference to a bereavement. Someone in a family had been, as

the second member for Surrey put it, in a morgue for a month, waiting

for some kind of clearance from our ministry. I have not had that

brought to my attention. If he had brought it to my attention, I can

tell you that it would have been attended to immediately. I know that

it doesn't have to happen in this province. I want to find out about

it. I can tell you that there would be no reason for that to happen. He

did not share the details with us, Mr. Chairman. Please, may I just

make that the example for all members. If you have a problem that comes

to your attention, would you please give me a phone call? I certainly

want to look into that particular case. I know that people in our

ministry would not tolerate that kind of treatment of our fellow

citizens. Therefore I really would like to know more about that.

also talked about other cases he feels need to be addressed by the

ministry. Again, I think the very best answer for helping to get around

the bureaucracy where.... As he mentioned. each member of our ministry

telling the same story, referring to the same manual. etc.... All of us

would agree that unless the member has some specifics and brings them

to my attention or to the attention of my deputy minister.... If there

are some people in our ministry who are not carrying that out. then

they cannot be corrected. So, please, all members of the House, share

those things with us.

He talked about the prorating of the

enforcement of maintenance orders. This has been a very difficult one

for us to handle. I have shared with all members of the House who have

brought this to my attention that we are certainly addressing ourselves

to it. We maintain approximately 22,000 single parents on income

assistance in the province. A very small fraction of those receive some

maintenance from their spouses. A very small fraction of those are in

the position that the member for Surrey has talked about. But I think

all members of the House would understand that it poses the problem

that we are there to provide in time of need on the basis of need.

Unfortunately, when these spouses get caught up to, the time of need is

no longer there and, as the member has well portrayed, some of them

have had their income assistance deducted.

May I say to you,

though, that the whole problem of the enforcement of maintenance orders

has taken a tremendous amount of our time in the past few months. We

hope to have the real answer for that within the enforcement of

maintenance orders in the province of British Columbia.

want to move on now to answers to two other members of the House. The

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was very concerned about day

care. I guess her first question was for an explanation of our

government's position on day care. It's very clear. Our response to

whether or not we believe in universal day care is no, we do not. We

believe that universal day care takes away from the family taking its

responsibility. We have an excellent day care program in this province.

The enrolment, which is subsidized by the Ministry of Human Resources,

is approximately 11,500 children involved in day care at the present

time.

There has been an increase for special-needs children

for full day care. We have raised the income test level as of April 1.

Our budget has gone from $11,114,000 in 1977 to $22,747,000 this year.

We're talking about a lot of dollars for day care. We're investing a

lot in it. We believe that the family initiating responsibility is the

way to go with day care.

I would like to share with you all

the types of care that we have. We have licensed family day care;

unlicensed family day care, which is the provision of day care in a

private home other than the child's own home; and group day care or

in-own-home care for children in their own home under the care and

supervision of a person who has been selected by the parents for shift

work and that sort of thing. There is quite a range of services, but in

this particular area there have been tremendous increases this year for

day care subsidies. When the member was on her feet, I think she

mentioned a mother with two children. A mother with two children in

1981 has had an increase of 12 percent in her day care allowable level.

Her allowable income, you have to remember, is net income. It's after

deductions and does not include family allowance payments.

[ Page 5940 ]

There

are additional exemptions for employment earnings and an exemption of

$125 as of April 1 where there is a disabled person in the family unit.

All of those things accrue to that person's level of allowability for

receiving day care. If that mother and two children, a family unit of

three, had a net income of $810 a month, they would be eligible for the

full day-care support. I would like to say it increases as there are

more children to be looked after, and allowable incomes have been

increased to almost $1,200 a month net.

You mentioned

capital grants and operating grants. We do have startup grants for

equipment. As you know, day care is under the licensing of the Ministry

of Health, but I don't see that that's any problem. I think the United

Way report made a very big issue of more than one ministry having

reference to day care. The only reference that the Ministry of Health

has is in the licensing, and I rather agree with that. In terms of

service to children, the member for Burnaby North mentioned that it was

tremendously important to have the very best of care. I feel that the

involvement of the Ministry of Health in this regard is very necessary,

and I think it has worked extremely well.

I was interested

in the remarks from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann).

There's no question that there is a real problem. He started by making

references to his particular constituency and then quickly moved onto

the the very difficult and real problem which is probably the most

acute in the province, and that is in the city of Vancouver. To my

absolute amazement — frankly, I find it quite irresponsible — he

suggested in his remarks that he will be counselling people to incur

debts and to exceed their income. I think that is quite irresponsible,

because he's putting people in jeopardy when he does that. He said in

his comments to us earlier in the day that they'll be able to incur

debts, and he will encourage them to incur debts that they won't be

able to meet.

I would just like to say that unquestionably

we have a problem in this province because there are so many thousands

of people moving into the province. It's a question of supply of

housing; it is not a question of us not having sufficient dollars in

Human Resources to meet the demands. That particular burden has

certainly been on those who have had to search for shelter in a very

difficult area, particularly in the city of Vancouver, as was mentioned

by the member for North Island. Let me share this with you: in this

past April we raised the level. He made some comments about a single

woman under 31. That same single woman under 31 has had a 20.3 percent

increase in income assistance in this past year. That's a pretty

dramatic increase. Also, in reference to the single people mentioned by

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), it was single people on

income assistance who had the most dramatic increase in income

assistance in April, in order to address the very real needs that they

had to meet.

I'll give you the example of a mother with two children. I believe

that was the same reference that was made by the member for North

Island. Assuming full shelter and basic income assistance, that mother

with two children would have $8,520 annually from income assistance.

Remember, not counted in that, but received by her, are additional

amounts of money. There's the family allowance of $574, the child tax

credit of $476, an averaging Pharmacare of $66.73, the school startup

allowance of $60, the Christmas bonus of $50, Rent aid of $150 and a

provincial tax credit of $212, giving a possible total of $10,109.

There would be a possible maintenance order, at the very minimum.... I

say "minimum" because, tragic as it is, the average maintenance order

awarded for a single parent raising two children — it seems almost

consistent — is only $100 a month. That would bring it up to $11,309.

Not included are medical and dental benefits, crisis grants, incentive

allowances, educational training costs and camp fees for children, and

all of this is tax free.

appreciate the problems these single mothers have in finding

accommodation in the city of Vancouver. That was the point that the

member for North Island would make. I would also like the member for

North Island to understand that at the current minimum wage of $3.65

per hour, using the 40-hour week and the 52-week year, an annual income

for that same person would be $7,592. Those are low-income earners.

They are not able to have some of the other support that we are able to

give. That's the conundrum that income assistance always finds itself

in: are you going to give to people who come for assistance more money

than they can...? We're talking about those people who are able to be

employed: unemployed employables. The majority of employables on income

assistance are on for less than six months and are, presumably, earning

for the rest of the year. Again, the members who have spoken on income

assistance have not addressed themselves to the person who is partially

on income assistance. They may be involved in seasonal employment,

summer employment or whatever. Income assistance payments are not

taxable, so the person who is on income assistance for part of the year

may end up paying less taxes than his neighbour who has the same total

annual income but who works for 12 months of the year.

think I have addressed just about everything from before the visit for

the passing of the bills. I'd be pleased to take other questions.

MR. COCKE:

It always gives me a great delight to listen to the Minister of Human

Resources. The delight is the delight in the distortion. Just listening

to the last remarks of the minister, did you note the comparison of

that person receiving maintenance and a person receiving minimum wage,

and what each would get? You'll note that the person with two children,

receiving minimum wage, doesn't get the family allowance or the other

benefits that the minister was outlining the person with maintenance

gets, etc. It's a masterful job. I'm not going to deal with that,

because I'm sure my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds will be

dealing with it in much more detail.

Another thing is that

she notes that $3.65 is the minimum wage, as if that's what it should

be, for heaven's sake. There's an easy way to solve that situation. The

fact that one person is starving doesn't give us any excuse to have

anybody in our rich province starving.

Another thing: when this massive increase came in, it all went to rent; all

but a paltry buck or two. In our province, where rents are so exorbitant, it's

just not there. The minister can stand up and smile and say everything's

fine in B.C. I suggest to you that it isn't.

I'd

like to go over one more bit of distortion. The second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall) was accused of accusing the first member for Surrey

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) of not honouring a commitment. That's not what

the second member for Surrey was talking about at all. He said that the

first member for Surrey brought in a plan called LIFE, and that this

member, the now minister, has not lived up to the commitment. That's

all. He complimented the Minister of Municipal Affairs for bringing in

the program. He said that this

[ Page 5941 ]

minister hasn't kept up to the commitment. He didn't make the charge against the Minister of Municipal Affairs at all.

I've

got two areas that I'd like to cover. The first one, since I'm on it

now, is this whole question of the depopulation of our institutions.

Let me give you a little bit of history on this whole question. In the

first place, when we took over government in 1972, we found the medical

model at Woodlands, Tranquille, etc., for the care of those people in

our community who are called — dubbed, named or whatever, retarded. We

felt that the best thing possible would be to transfer it to a more

appropriate ministry. The medical model wasn't working and wouldn't

work, in our view, so it was transferred to the Ministry of Human

Resources. I believe that, unfortunately, the solution has not come out

of that transfer, because the model has not changed.

suggest to you very strongly that we believe the people in those

institutions are human beings entitled to all the human rights

available to anybody in this chamber, anybody walking the streets or

anybody out there in our province. Traditionally this has not been

available, and particularly it's unavailable when one is

institutionalized. The association has suggested to the minister that

they will pay her expenses to go to jurisdictions in North America.

They ask the question: "Would Mrs. McCarthy be willing, at BCAMR

expense, to visit jurisdictions in North America that we suggest are

successfully phasing out their institutions in a planned orderly manner

and going to community-based alternatives?" It has been slow — to the

point that it's a snail's pace. At our present rate of depopulation it

will take until 2014 to do the job.

I notice the minister

suggesting that there are a number of people that cannot be removed and

cannot leave that institution. There isn't one person in there that

can't. Those institutions are something of the past. I suggest that

even for those people who are bedridden there are more appropriate

facilities than what we find in Woodlands, Tranquille, etc. Those are

massive institutions that dehumanize people. The cases we have studied

and followed that have been put into the community have been a success.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

You

don't have a person with an IQ of something under 70 or whatever able

to cope in the same way as someone with an IQ of over 100, 120 or 140,

but there is a place for them in our community. I'll never forget one

time talking to a very highly intelligent medical person from a Third

World country. We were discussing, generally speaking, health care of

one country vis-à-vis the other. I said: "What do you think of what you

see here?" He said: "The one thing that occurs to me in your country is

I wonder where to find your lame and your halt. Or do you have them?" I

charge that we hide what is an embarrassment to us, but what should not

be an embarrassment to us. We should not be hiding those who are less

fortunate through a disability of any sort. We should be moving heaven

and earth to put before them as appropriate and free a life imbued with

human rights as we possibly can, and we're not.

I will

congratulate the former minister for having begun the program LIFE. It

was a responsible move in the right direction, but it has not been

followed up to the extend it should have been. The minister looks at me

with the scathing glance, I have met with group after responsible group

— the BCAMR, parent groups and other groups that are interested in this

subject. I've met with a lot of them, because I've made it my business

to find out what they're saying. To a person, they're critical of the

snail's pace. So the minister can take her scathing looks and use her

energy for something a little bit more appropriate, and do something

for these people who need her help.

This speech should not

be made next year. There should be some serious discussion immediately

and some implementation immediately thereafter. The BCAMR gave a

timetable. The minister says: "Well, we can’t live with a timetable."

What timetable can the minister live with? I read her answers to all

the questions that were asked by the BCAMR and I don't really think

that she was thinking about her answers.

Mr. Chairman, let me advise the minister of this one thing: bureaucracies build

around programs, and those programs are the security blanket that the bureaucracy

wraps itself in. Now if, in fact, the bureaucracy is bucking to keep the status

quo, then my suggestion is that the minister and her officials have to be all

that much more firm in their determination to do what was originally set out.

I was tempted to suggest that the original program was a PR proposition, but

I don't think it was. But if something doesn't happen very quickly,

because we're talking about four years later and very little to show for

it.... Don't forget, Mr. Chairman, that I live in the community in which

we find the Woodlands facility. Don't ask me whether I'm familiar with

that facility; I'm very familiar with that facility. I've been through

it many times and had a myriad of discussions there. It is inappropriate that

we deal with our fellow person the way we are, and I suggest that we'd better

start living up to that commitment. We'd better start living up to it quickly.

Like

the member for Surrey, I'm not going to go through all the questions

and answers. Give the minister an opportunity to take a second

responsible look at this whole problem, Right now she's taking a very

responsible look at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman), listening to what he's talking to her about. Does

she really care about what's going on in her own ministry, or is she

advising him how to run his? If that's the case, then I advise the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be very careful with the

advice that she might proffer.

I have one other item, Mr.

Chairman, and that's the question of people with a disabled pensioner's

income. A basic income on disability pension — and that's from the

Canada Pension Plan, the steelworker's plan or whatever — is usually

marginally less than what a senior citizen's pension would be.

Incidentally, they are few in number. They are not eligible for

Pharmacare, reduced fares on buses or some of the other privileges that

are available to those other people.

Mr. Chairman, I don't

know whether the minister answers her mail, but if she does, I wish

that she would also send a copy to those people who are copied in on

the original letter. Last December 18, the Vancouver steelworkers'

pension plan sent the minister a critique in this area, and they wound

up by asking for a reply as to how she would feel about the whole

question. They also went on to enlarge upon the fact that the people in

this particular category are few in number but highly deserving, and

asked if the minister would consider them as people who should be

receiving the reduced rates, Pharmacare and so on. Well, if she

answered them, she didn't send a copy to those who were copied in. So I

have no idea, other than the fact that we have to rely on her to answer

here or rely on the person who originally requested this information to

find out just how things are going.

[ Page 5942 ]

Just

to review for a second, the whole question of LIFE is a first-class

proposition. But what we have seen to date, after four full years, has

been a very unsatisfactory implementation of what could otherwise have

been a very desirable direction. Whatever the minister says....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) gets up and talks

about great jobs. He's another big-ticket minister. The only job that

he sees his colleague doing is looking after the Pier B-C project and

ignoring the people in this province. That's the good job she's doing,

and that minister knows it, but the thing is that they're in the same

nest. They love the big-ticket items. What would he know about a good

job being done on behalf of the poor, on behalf of the disabled?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

I wonder if that minister who has such a waggly tongue would just let

me complete my remarks. Mr. Heal will be contacted later this evening

and he will be told that the minister will not keep his remarks to

himself. They'll have to give him another lesson tomorrow.

would hope that the next time we meet with the BCAMR, parent groups and

others directly involved with the problem I've been talking about we

will have some news for them that will be acceptable, desirable and

humane. It's time we regarded those less fortunate and those disabled

in this Year of the Disabled as people, not charges — people not the

least bit less important than anyone here or anyone else in the

province.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have two

issues that I would like to draw to the minister's attention. The first

deals with the extra moneys allowed to people in receipt of social

assistance. First of all, the amount has been fixed for a long time at

a very limited amount. It hasn't kept pace with inflation. When you say

that a person is allowed to earn $100 a month, or in some instances if

they're single I believe it's $50, it's a very limited amount. It's

been that same amount for a long time with no increase. I would urge

the minister to think about making that a meaningful amount of money.

Perhaps base it upon the poverty level to allow a person in receipt of

social assistance to at least earn enough money to bring him up to the

poverty level without causing any deduction in the amount of assistance

which is granted.

The other thing in relation to that

particular portion of her portfolio is the way in which she draws the

distinction between earned and unearned income, one of which is just

half the other allowable. The definition of the unearned income

includes things like WCB payments and any insurance policies that have

certainly been earned income during the life of the spouse or that

individual. It seems very unfair to penalize a person because of the

source of those funds.

MS. BROWN: Veterans' pensions.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, a veteran's pension is the same. So what I'm suggesting is that a

dollar is a dollar and that the income a person receives should not be

curtailed because of its source. If it comes from a WCB, veteran's

pension or an insurance policy, it should not be considered any

differently than if that individual actually went out and earned the

money. In addition to that, she should consider very seriously

increasing the amount allowable to encourage an individual to have some

meaningful employment, if they can possibly find that opportunity. As

it is now, there isn't that encouragement. In spite of some of the

programs she talks about, the lack of staff to implement those programs

has not made them effective programs. Certainly it hasn't been

effective in my area. There have been very few people who have actually

been able to make that step to get off assistance. It's not that they

don't want to. They do want to. The minister needs to give more support

to the kind of programs that will encourage them to work their way up

into the category of those who actually earn their entire income, and

not penalize them when they do that by cutting off the assistance that

she gives them.

The other point that I want to deal with has

to do with the shared-cost programs and the result of the federal

programs, as related to the provincial programs. This is a case which I

have previously drawn to the minister's attention. I asked her about

it. She asked for more specific information, which I sent to her. I

have had no response from the minister. I think it is worthwhile to

read into the records of this House the kind of things that are

happening. This is a government that is very prone to taking the

federal government to task for the things they do. Yet it's a

government that in many instances, certainly in the case of this

minister, rides on the back of the federal government.

The

case in point is a family where we have a senior citizen married to a

woman well under 50, and one teen-age child. At the end of 1973, the

husband received $47.89 from Canada Pension, $126.18 for veteran's

allowance, $183.99 from old-age assistance and a guaranteed income

supplement from the federal government. This totals $358.06. As of

March 1, 1981, he now receives $101.32 from Canada Pension, $290.18 for

veteran's allowance and his OAS and GIS is $405.08. This totals

$802.58. That's an increase of approximately 10 percent per year, over

that period of time. It's a total increase in all, in fact, of 123

percent. His wife — the child is also considered — is in receipt of

GAIN. She's handicapped. In 1973, when the husband was receiving

$358.06, the wife received $203 from this ministry. Do you know what

she receives today? She should receive, had that increased at the same

rate as the federal pension, which is tied to inflation, something like

$360. Instead she receives, not $203, but $178.72. That's a cutback of

something like 10 percent through a $24 reduction.

If the

federal government can see its way to tying the payments it makes to

seniors and war veterans and through the Canada Pension to the cost of

living, then certainly this ministry should at least be able to hold

the line, rather than taking advantage of those increases and reducing

the amount of money paid to another member in the family. Much better

than that, they should be following the example set by the federal

government and looking at the actual cost that people are facing.

That's why we have the situation that's been pointed out by many of my

colleagues where the shelter portion of the grant is simply not enough

to provide shelter of any kind. It's just not available at the amount

of money that this ministry provides, in spite of the increase which

came through in April. The increase, as has been pointed out, was

basically a shelter increase. Not only is that increase not meeting the

shelter needs, but it isn't doing anything for the

[ Page 5943 ]

increased

costs that families face as far as providing adequate diets, adequate

clothing or adequate educational or sports facilities, extra training

for their children and all those kinds of things. It's helping, but

it's not meeting them. When you have a mandatory requirement to meet

your rent or your mortgage payment, there is no way that you can let

that go and use those funds to make available to your family the kind

of food and clothing that is really required. So we find children in

running shoes through the winter in the rain on Vancouver Island — I've

seen it many times — because that's the cheapest foot gear that can be

bought. We find diets without the advantage of fresh fruits and

vegetables and without enough protein. As a result we see escalating

healthcare costs right across this province.

I suggest that

the minister needs to review her practices and to follow the example of

the federal government in taking into consideration the inflation that

is facing our province. Stop riding on the backs of the federal

government. Every time there is an increased grant federally, there's a

grant cut back from her office. That's happening over and over again.

Every time that federal increase comes through, we know we're going to

have a rash of people coming into the constituency office complaining

because their GAIN cheques are cut off. That's the policy of that

minister, and it's working nothing but a hardship on the people of this

province.

MR. LEVI: I want to ask the minister one

question, then she can think about it, and I want to go on to something

else. Has she finally got her staff to figure out the approximate $8.4

million underexpenditure in the family and children's services vote?

You don't need to answer now, but that was what I asked yesterday, and

you couldn't find it.

I want to deal in the first instance

with a press release that the ministry issued on May 1, 1981. This

relates to some of the remarks that the minister made earlier about the

success — as she says — of the depopulation of Woodlands and

Tranquille. There's no mention made of Glendale. The ministry put out

the release May 1. It was in response to the British Columbia

Association for the Mentally Retarded. I just want to quote two or

three passages, particularly one which deals with figures. It goes like

this, and I'm paraphrasing: "A response to a statement from the British

Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded was issued today by the

Human Resources minister. The minister addressed several statements

made by the BCAMR. In a recent release, including an allegation that

her ministry is not working towards the integration of the mentally

handicapped in the community." That's the primary thrust.

The

minister's response in respect to the statement made by the BCAMR. that

the ministry is not working towards the integration of the mentally

handicapped into the community was as follows: " 'This is simply not

true, ' said the minister, adding that the Ministry of Human Resources

is putting a great deal of effort into planning for the best ways to

meet the needs of the retarded citizens." She makes reference to LIFE,

initiated in 1977. On page 2 she talks about the resident population.

One has to try and understand what the minister had in mind when she

makes the following statement: "Resident population of all three

institutions has decreased in recent years. Resident population of

Woodlands is down one third, from 12,061 in 1969 to 842 in 1980."

I'm rather curious about why it was that she chose 1969. I think that she

probably chose 1969 because 1969 was the peak year, the year when the previous

Social Credit government was getting a great deal of flak from exactly the same

people who are giving her flak today — that's the B.C. Association for the

Mentally Retarded. At that time, gaining admission for anyone into Woodlands

was extremely difficult; there was an enormous waiting list of well over 100.

The minister in her press release would have us believe that somehow what she

has accomplished is in some way directed or reinforced by the LIFE program.

I think the minister has to be very fair about what she does and in no way confuse

the public as to the merits of the program which we've been talking about

— LIFE; that is, depopulation. So let's look at the facts. And it is important

to look at the facts in this question, because the whole issue of depopulation

starts with the numbers — and we've all heard about what you can do with

numbers.

First

of all. It might be important for the minister to look at the function

and the experience of her own government. In 1975 there were 1004

people in Woodlands, which is some 267 less than there were in 1969.

Now that's important — from 1969 to 1975 some 267 people were, as it

were, depopulated, removed from Woodlands, We don't know all of the

reasons sometimes. By the time we got to 1973, 1974 and 1975, the

program to move people into the community was in full force and a

number of people were moving from Woodlands, particularly into group

homes in the community, albeit — and the minister hasn't covered this

to any extent — going from Woodlands into a group-home situation is not

an inexpensive proposition. Nevertheless, in terms of the humanity and

equity that we have to show toward the handicapped people, we have to

be prepared to meet that kind of expense. I say to the minister that

from 1969 to 1975 some 267 people were removed from the list in

Woodlands; in 1976 it went down again to 962, in 1977 it went to 906;

and in 1978 it went to 880.

Now 1977-78 was the beginning of

the LIFE program, a program that was announced by the previous

minister. Again, let's look at the facts so that the public are not

confused. In 1979 it went down to 856 and in 1980 the population stood

at 842 — I have no up-to-date figures for 1981. If you take the years

from 1978 to 1980, you will find that the population of Woodlands was

reduced by 64 people — never mind the minister's uproariously confusing

release, in which she says that from 1969 to 1986 one-third of the

people were depopulated. That simply is not the case. What we're

attempting to look at — the thrust of the argument here — is the effect

of the LIFE program, and the effect of the LIFE program on the

population at Woodlands from 1978 to 1980 — three years was actually 64

people.

Let's go to Tranquille. I'm not going to go through

all the figures, but the net reduction in Tranquille was nine. If we go

to Glendale, the net reduction in the years 1978-80 was five. Here we

have a total of 78 people depopulated from three institutions since the

inception of the LIFE program in 1978. In giving the figures for some

reason the minister chose to ignore that during the period 1970-75 some

267 people had been moved out. hat was without a LIFE program. That was

with a program committed to the development of group homes for people

who are going from institutions to halfway houses. The figure of the

people who represent the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded is

45 to 50, They, of course, are only dealing with Woodlands. My figures

show that some 64 people have been reduced.

First of all I want to say this to the minister: every time she's asked a question about the reduction of a service she

[ Page 5944 ]

simply

says to us: "But we put more money into the program." The minister

knows as well as I do that putting more money into a program in no way

reflects that that program is at the same level or that it is in fact

increased. That's simply not possible with the kind of increases you

make. It's known that if you're looking at maintaining a program that

you have, you're looking at a 12 percent or 15 percent increment simply

to stand still. If you're talking about expanding a program, you are

talking about a great deal of money. It isn't good enough for the

minister to tell us that they've put more money into the program when

we know, because of the complaints we get from the field, that the size

of the program has not increased. We know why the costs are up;

salaries are up, the cost-of-living business is up. We know all that.

Nothing the minister has said this afternoon in any way answers the

charges made by the BCAMR. that you are, in fact, not living up to the

promises that were made by the previous minister. I don't want to make

excuses for the minister, but the previous minister was rather an

exotic speaker. He used to make some fantastic claims, and we don't

know whether, had he remained in office, his performance would have

been any better. I point out to the minister that she might well look

at how the program of depopulation operated between 1972 and 1975 and

how it's been operating between 1976 and 1980. The contrast in the

figures is that in 1972-75 there were some 267 people, and 78 in the

period of the LIFE program. Those figures in themselves really have to

put the lie to the question that is constantly answered by the minister

that we are in fact doing what we said we would do, and I'm saying to

her that that's simply not the case. There is not that commitment

there, simply because the money that is needed is not there — not the

money to maintain the program as it is, but the money to increase a

broadening of the program. That's the nature of the department.

want to raise another matter with the minister. In November 1980 the

minister wrote a letter to Professor Ann. M. Donnellan, PhD, who was in

the province in 1980 and did some work in Woodlands while visiting

institutions. Professor Donnellan wrote to the minister on November 11,

1980, and within this letter she answers many of the questions we're

trying to get the minister to address. She starts off by saying:

"I'm

astounded and saddened by your letter of October 6, 1980, which, by the

way, I received only a few days ago. I am astounded because of the

number and leve