1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9971 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Carmanah Pacific Park Act (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 9971

Oral Questions

Resignation of Social Services minister. Mr. Clark –– 9972

Truckers' dispute. Mr. Lovick –– 9973

Bowron Lake timber blowdown. Mr. Vant –– 9973

Truckers' dispute. Mr. Lovick –– 9973

Native land claims. Mr. G. Hanson –– 9973

College of New Caledonia. Mrs. Boone –– 9974

Ministerial Statement

Sechelt land title system. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9974

Mr. G. Hanson

Tabling Documents –– 9975

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9975

Ms. Cull

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Messmer

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Lovick

Presenting Reports –– 9999

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are several members of the

motorcycling fraternity who were kind enough to come over for the

second year in a row and introduce some of the members of the House to

motorcycling, giving them an insight into what makes them tick and how

they work. Rather than name anyone in particular, on your behalf and on

behalf of all the members in the House, I would like to make them most

welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, it gives

me great pleasure to introduce to the House today a number of very

distinguished members of the Sechelt Indian band council. I would ask

the House to please join me in extending a warm welcome to Chief Thomas

Paul; Councillor Gary Seschuk; Councillor Theresa Jeffries; Councillor

Benedict Pierre; Mr. Gordon Anderson, the band financial administrator;

and Mr. Graham Allan, band solicitor. These honoured guests are in

attendance today to help commemorate a historic occasion that my

colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) will introduce

presently. Please welcome them.

MR. G. HANSON : From

this side of the House, we would also like to extend our warm welcome

to the Sechelt council. I hope your deliberations with the government

are productive.

I'd also like to point out that in the

gallery are Bill Wilson, chairman of the First Nations Congress; Sophie

Pierre from the Kootenay nation in Cranbrook; and Katherine Tenise,

executive director of the First Nations Congress. Would the House give

them a warm welcome as well.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It's

indeed a pleasure to rise today and introduce a number of people, who

are in the House and in the precincts, from the British Columbia

Federation of Agriculture. They are here today to meet with several

different MLAs and ministers. Mr. Jack Brown, the president of the

federation, is leading the delegation along with several directors from

Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia. Would this assembly

please make them welcome.

MR. BARLEE : On behalf of

the members from this side of the House, we would also like to welcome

those members of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture who are

in the House and in Victoria.

MR. CASHORE : In the gallery today are Prof. Theo Schiller and his colleague

Suzanne Wieneke of the University of Marburg in West Germany. They are here

pursuing studies in policy styles in Canadian provinces. Would the House join

me in making them welcome.

MR. DE JONG :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are four friends of ours. They are

Dick and Betty Vink — Mr. Vink is also serving on the Social Credit

executive — and Henry and Alice Groothof, who are relatives of ours. I

would ask the House to give them all a cordial welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN :

In the House today from the wonderful community of Chilliwack again are

36 grade 9 students from Timothy Christian School. Among those students

is my son Darren. Would you please make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are visiting with us Howard

Jampolsky, president of the University of Victoria Alma Mater Society,

and George Pringle, a student member of the University of Victoria

senate. Would all members please welcome these two distinguished

visitors.

HON. S. HAGEN : Mr. Speaker, today in your

gallery we have a guest from Salzburg, Austria, whose name is Brian

Perszyk. He is visiting Canada and will be joined this weekend by his

wife Elfrike and son Lorenz. Would the House please join me in bidding

them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I also have some

guests in the House this afternoon. I would ask the House to join me in

welcoming Mrs. Madeleine Cranston from my riding of North Saanich and

the Islands and also her two guests, visitors from Hamilton, Ontario,

Margaret McNamara and Marian Reding.

MS. MARZARI :

The Ideal Mini School is here today, and among the students are Chris

Vance, Chris Hannis, Leah Libin, John Bentley, Malcolm Thompson, Mathew

Levenson, Minna Schendlinger and Larry Wolfson, their teacher. I ask

the House to welcome them?

HON. J. JANSEN : We have

in the gallery some representatives of the senior citizens'

organizations in British Columbia. They made a presentation today to

the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy: Mr. Ross Hunter, who is

vice-president of the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of

British Columbia; Ms. Josephine Arland, president of the B.C. Old Age

Pensioners' Organization; and Ms. Tina Hanover, president of the Senior

Citizens' Association of British Columbia. Would you please make those

people welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CARMANAH PACIFIC PARK ACT

Hon Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Carmanah Pacific Park Act.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, Bill 28 creates a 3,600-hectare class A park over the lower

[ Page 9972 ]

portion

of the Carmanah Valley on the west coast of Vancouver Island. It also

establishes the Carmanah Valley forest management area over the

remainder of the drainage, including its tributary, August Creek. The

Carmanah Valley Forest Management Advisory Committee is created to

advise the Minister of Forests on all matters pertaining to the

integrated management of forest resources within the management area.

The

bill provides a balanced resolution to a difficult and highly

contentious public issue regarding the protection of a superlative

growth of old Sitka spruce trees. The ecological integrity of the

spruce grove is maintained, while at the same time, forestry jobs and

economic stability in nearby communities are supported through careful

logging in the remainder of the drainage.

Bill 28

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RESIGNATION OF

SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTER

MR. CLARK :

A question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister had

great difficulty explaining how the former Minister of Health was not

informed of the comptroller-general's report until yesterday, even

though the contents of that report ultimately precipitated his

resignation.

Can the minister inform the House if, in the

course of that investigation, officials from his ministry interviewed

the former minister?

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

MR. CLARK :

I want to read a quote from the comptroller-general's report: "Mr.

Dubas has stated that he had offered to pay all hotel bills for the

minister and his wife on this trip, and the minister has stated that he

was under the impression that Mr. Dubas had done so."

Clearly

the former minister was interviewed about his and his deputy's expense

irregularities, and clearly the minister knew that he and his deputy

were under investigation. How is it that your government fired Mr.

Dubas as a result of the investigation, yet failed to inform the former

minister of the details of the report? Does the minister think this is

fair?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, the question

of staff relations and decisions regarding the performance of staff has

traditionally been held in confidence. It's not something that in the

normal course of events gets public discussion.

That

difficulty, of course, is exacerbated when we deal with public

servants, who in one sense are reportable to all the citizens, not

merely to their elected superiors of the moment. So it becomes a very

delicate matter for all of us to deal with.

As I said

yesterday and the day before, I believe: the report that the hon.

member refers to was a confidential document. Upon its receipt the

appropriate authorities in government dealt with it and took some

actions. Of course, those actions are a matter of public record. The

consequence of those actions should, in a fair society, allow the

affected party all of the options that are available to him not only in

law, but also in terms of professional reputation.

providing that affected individual with the liberties that are due him

in law, it becomes incumbent upon all of us to understand the

sensitivity and the potential damage that can be done to public

discussion of the specifics of an allegation.

The fact of

the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the government received certain

information. The government took action on that information, and the

affected individual must, in the interests of justice, be provided

every single opportunity to protect not only a personal reputation, but

also legal and financial rights.

[2:15]

Therefore in my judgment, as I have said in previous answers, it is

absolutely imperative that all of the members opposite who think they

may have a political issue of the moment weigh carefully the impact

their continued attention on this very narrowly focused issue will have

on their own reputation and credibility among the citizens of this

province.

MR. CLARK : The former minister was

interviewed on this matter, and it is clear that he knew some time ago

that there was an investigation. It would help to resolve this issue to

know exactly what the former minister knew and when he knew it.

question to the minister is simply this: does he not think it would

help to resolve the matter if he tabled the comptroller-general's

report in this House, as was done when the former Minister of Tourism

resigned due to a similar abuse of public money?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

It's truly unfortunate that these members opposite, for whatever crass

personal motive they may have, refuse to accept and understand my

comments. That report dealt with an individual, an employee of

government. Government took actions which an employee must have the

opportunity of developing and pursuing, following whatever advice he

may receive from others. Therefore that report must be held in

confidence until those options — not only his own, but also those of

others who may have a statutory responsibility to ensure that the

public right is protected, enforced and monitored effectively.... Both

sides must have adequate opportunity to develop and investigate all of

those matters.

To suggest today, as has been suggested in

the past two days, that that confidential report be tabled now, for the

sole purpose, I suspect, of allowing members of the opposition to

continue to unfairly characterize players in this exercise until all

of the subsequent investigations are completed.... That report

dealt

[ Page

9973 ]

with the alleged performance of an employee. As a

consequence of that report, the employee was dealt with. That

ex-employee now has a right that we must all appreciate and protect,

and it does none of us in this House any good whatsoever to attempt

to....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The answer has gone far beyond the scope of the question.

TRUCKERS' DISPUTE

MR. LOVICK :

A question to the Minister of Labour. The transportation of goods is

being seriously disrupted, and some supermarkets are now running short

of food. What steps has the minister taken to meet with the independent

truckers and seek a resolution to the current dispute?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I haven't at this point been involved directly in any action. This is a

dispute between the independent truckers and their employers, as I

understand it. I appreciate that it's providing some difficulty in some

areas, but I think we prefer to allow the parties to settle their

differences and to work out their disputes. That is happening in this

case, hopefully, as it happens in others. I don't think it's necessary

and expected that government will interfere every time parties are

trying to reach an agreement.

MR. LOVICK : A

supplementary to the minister. The minister ought to be aware that his

legislation, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, precludes the two

parties' getting together. Would the minister not agree that he has a

responsibility to ensure the public interest is protected by using his

offices to get the two sides to talk?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, the member's assumptions are not correct. The legislation

does not preclude the two sides from reaching an agreement. Hopefully

they will reach an agreement soon. To say that they can't reach an

agreement on account of the legislation within my ministry is not at

all correct, and I think the member knows it.

BOWRON LAKE TIMBER BLOWDOWN

MR. VANT :

I have a question to the Minister of Parks. Recently Parks ministry

staff discovered a blowdown of timber in the neighbourhood of Isaac

Lake in the Bowron Lake Provincial Park. This blowdown covers an area

of about 700 hectares, or 1,700 acres.

My question to the

Minister of Parks is: how many hectares of timber blows down throughout

our provincial parks system throughout B.C.? Also, what will happen to

all that prime timber now lying on the ground in the Bowron Lake

Provincial Park in my constituency? It is not a laughing matter.

MR. SPEAKER : It may not be a laughing matter, but it's probably

a matter best suited for written questions put on the order paper. The details

involved in a question like that are not expected to be known by any minister.

TRUCKERS' DISPUTE

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Has the minister ascertained whether the truckers' dispute is indeed

jeopardizing the operation of the B.C. Ferries service? Does she have

any plans in place to ensure the continued operation of all B.C.

ferries? Can she answer that for us?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the member opposite,

there's no question that we've seen a significant drop in the truck

traffic on our ferries, but it certainly isn't jeopardizing the service.

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Native Affairs. Today's

landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is a clear signal to

all Canadians that aboriginal rights are entrenched constitutional

rights. They are real; they have not been extinguished.

Everywhere

in this province economic activity is jeopardized by your government's

ongoing refusal to negotiate comprehensive claims before settlements

are imposed by the courts. My question is: has the minister decided to

resolve this economic uncertainty, to end this government's harassment

of well-established rights and to sit down at the negotiating table?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the premise that the member makes is

not correct. However, the Sparrow decision did come down this morning.

I haven't had an opportunity to study the decision yet, but I have

spoken with those who have read the decision a first time, at least.

It's

far too early, in my mind, for me to make any comments about the

decision — or the implication of the decision — handed down in the

Sparrow case.

MR. G. HANSON : It's clear from a

perusal of the decision that the courts are signaling.... Once again,

the public, the industry, the aboriginal people and the courts are

saying that the only way to deal with this matter is to negotiate. Why

does your government refuse to negotiate?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

I think the member's comments answer the question. This is far too

important an issue, in my mind, to make any kind of a decision based on

"a perusal of the decision." As I said in answer to the first question,

it's a decision....

MR. G. HANSON : It's obvious.

[ Page 9974 ]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

The member thinks it's obvious. I would suggest to you that it's an

important issue in British Columbia. If this decision is going to have

wider-ranging implications, then they should be looked at carefully and

careful and thoughtful decisions be made rather than those based on

someone making a perusal of that decision four or five hours after a

decision has come down.

COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA

MRS. BOONE :

A question to the Minister of Advanced Education. The College of New

Caledonia will have a serious budget shortfall that will limit the

number of university spaces in the transfer programs. Applications for

these programs have already increased by 17 percent. What steps has the

minister taken to ensure these additional students will not be turned

away?

MR. SPEAKER : The Minister of AT&T.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

The

member is not only having trouble reading the question, but the member

is also having trouble understanding the financial analysis that's been

presented to the college. I'm quite sure that the budget we presented

to them — I spoke to the acting president this morning — is going to be

adequate to serve their needs. If it isn't, I am sure that the college

council will relay that information to me.

MRS. BOONE :

All of the information I have says that there is going to be a

million-dollar shortfall there and that British Columbia places tenth

in the country for university enrolment. Does the minister not agree

that university programs should be growing, not cut off? Will he ensure

that the necessary funds are there to ensure that students have seats?

MR. SPEAKER : It's a very broad question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Considering, of course, that the member wasn't here for my

estimates.... If the member would attend the House regularly, she would

know that from....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We'll look for the member's ten-day declaration sheet, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Had the member attended the estimates, she would know that the budget

for this ministry has increased 13 percent. It's the largest increase

in Canada for a ministry of post-secondary education. After meeting

with my colleagues, I can say with some justification that without

question we have the best access program in Canada. We will be

enrolling a greater percentage of students than ever.

can't accept at all what the member is saying. The allegations

contained in the member's question are quite incorrect. This is a

superb post-secondary....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The member is wrong.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : One at a time. Come to the estimates next year, and we will discuss it again.

The member's premise, needless to say, Mr. Speaker, is incorrect.

Ministerial Statement

SECHELT LAND TITLE SYSTEM

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may make a brief statement to the House.

Following

the introduction by the hon. Prever at the beginning of question

period, I am pleased to advise the House today that the executive

council and the Sechelt band have completed the last formal step to

enable the Sechelt band to register land titles in the land title

system in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this move clears

the way for the Sechelt people to enter into the economic mainstream of

the province of British Columbia specifically and certainly in terms of

our land titles system. Formerly we had constitutional constraints

which made that very much impossible. Because registered titles are

guaranteed by the province of British Columbia, lenders and others will

be more inclined to finance development on native lands and to lend

money on the security of those registered interests. Traditionally this

has been a very serious impediment to land development aspirations of

native peoples across the province of British Columbia.

B.C.

is the first Canadian Torrens jurisdiction to provide a

constitutionally sound registration scheme for native lands that is

under provincial legislation. It means autonomy for the band in

connection with real estate transactions, in that they no longer need

federal approval or assistance. It means as well security of title for

both the band and for those people with whom they do business.

[2:30]

Land title will be governed by provincial law and adopted by the

band, rather than current federal law which is paramount in the area of

Indians and land reserved for Indians. The Sechelt were the catalyst in

this process of achieving the legislative changes necessary to make

registration of Indian land possible. They were persuasive for their

cause, and they were realistic and pragmatic in their approach. The

band and the provincial government developed a creative solution for

the Sechelt and for other Indian

[ Page 9975 ]

bands who will in the future opt into the scheme that has been developed here.

summary, Mr. Speaker, we recognize today the first constitutionally

acceptable provincial title registration scheme for Indian lands. It

represents an achievement for the Sechelt people, because it gives them

the opportunity to enter the economic and business mainstream of the

province in a way that they have not previously been able to do.

illustrates what can be achieved when native and non-native government

leaders work together to strip away legal barriers and turn an

aspiration into a reality. It leads the way for other native bands,

without compromising other aspirations or claims they may have, and it

provides a provincial guarantee of Indian title and eliminates all

existing doubt on matters of proof of ownership and title security

issues which were previously associated with native lands as

administered under the Indian Act.

MR. G. HANSON : We

compliment and applaud the Sechelt band in pursuing self-government

initiatives with the provincial government. We fully endorse and

support that. But we know that the band council also supports us in our

contention that British Columbia will only achieve its economic, social

and moral potential if the province takes its rightful place at the

bargaining table and negotiates fair and comprehensive land claims for

the aboriginal people of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The response to a ministerial statement must be within the framework of the statement.

MR. G. HANSON : It is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : Well, it isn't. So far you have strayed well beyond it. Having given you that caution, I will allow you to continue.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about rights that belong to aboriginal

people that have not been extinguished, that are inherent rights to

self-government. For too long, British Columbia has pursued a course of

litigation, of denial, of hiding their head in the sand as court

decision after court decision comes down saying that the only way to

address the land question in British Columbia is to join the federal

government and aboriginal people — Sechelt, Kwakiutl, Tsimshian,

Nisga'a — and sit down and work out a comprehensive land claims

negotiation where various subjects would be on the table. Until that

occurs, British Columbia will never achieve its economic and social

potential.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the financial

statements for the B.C. Steamship Company

(1975) Ltd. for the year

ending December 31, 1989, in accordance with

section 65 of the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Before we go to Committee of Supply, I would just remind the House that

the Select Standing Committee on Health asks leave to sit today at 3

p.m., and the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and

Intergovernmental Relations asks leave of the House to sit at 4 p.m.,

both meetings in the Douglas Fir committee room.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 59: minister's office, $331,553 (continued).

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) wants to

continue her line of questioning, and I'll relinquish the floor to her.

MS. CULL :

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude with some of the things I was

discussing earlier this morning. I want to follow up on the last

comment the minister made to me and also some of the comments made

immediately afterwards by the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt)

that the issues I was raising should more properly be addressed in the

estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Throughout

this debate about housing issues, a number of items have come up: the

need to control demolitions, the need to manage Crown land more

effectively to provide housing, the need for rent stabilization, the

need for protection of children and families against discrimination by

landlords and the need for more support to municipal governments for

planning, services, infrastructure and dealing with regional growth

problems. That's what we're talking about here.

We're

talking about growth problems that are being experienced primarily by

the greater Vancouver and the greater Victoria areas. The point that

I'm trying to make is that these issues are all interrelated with

housing. Yes, these issues do fall under other ministries, and I will

be raising those when we come to that minister's estimates.

think one of the essential problems we have in dealing with the housing

crisis now and the housing crisis that we had in the mid-seventies is

that these items have not been integrated. They are being dealt with in

isolation by separate ministries and by separate branches. There isn't

an overall approach or a comprehensive housing policy.

Throughout the time that I talked about this issue and asked questions of this minister and the former

[ Page 9976 ]

minister on a comprehensive housing policy, I have yet to hear that we actually have such a thing.

in concluding my remarks on the housing issue, I want to say that I

think the reason that we've come full circle since 1976, that the

vacancy rates and the affordability problems are the same now as they

were then, and that we're facing exactly the same set of problems as we

did then.... If we could go back in history, I think we would find

other cycles in the housing market that had the same kinds of

statistics; if we could look into the future, I'm sure we will see

another time like this where we will again be calling the situation a

housing crisis. I think the reason that this is happening to us time

and time again is that we haven't addressed these issues in a

coordinated and comprehensive fashion.

We don't know where

we're going. We don't have the objectives or the targets. With this

ministry and the policies it has put forward, we really don't know what

you're trying to address in terms of solving the housing problems.

I hope that the committee, which the former minister mentioned a number

of times, continues to do its work. Perhaps the staff and the

ministries on this committee, who are very competent and able people,

will be able to persuade the ministers — and I use the word in plural

because a number of ministers have to be persuaded — to come together

and put forward a comprehensive housing policy that addresses all of

these issues — not just a rental supply program or development

incentive grants, but the comprehensive issue of housing and growth

management that needs to be addressed in this province.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question that the member has asked. I'm

very pleased to inform her that, despite the fact that she may not be

aware of it, we do have a comprehensive housing program in British

Columbia; it's very comprehensive, as a matter of fact.

The

issues that you talk about — servicing, which is clearly within

Municipal Affairs; Crown lands, which would belong to Crown Lands as a

responsibility — are issues that we all agree belong to different

ministries, but are related to the issue of housing. There's no

question about that.

I could point back to the meetings

that we talked about a little this morning. When we met with the mayors

of the lower mainland to talk about the housing needs there, those

meetings were attended not only by the Minister of Social Services and

Housing and myself as the Minister of Consumer Services, but Municipal

Affairs and other ministries that have an involvement in the process.

They were at those meetings for input and for their discussion to make

it a comprehensive policy.

You can appreciate that I

cannot, as Minister of Social Services and Housing, decide the policy

that affects other ministries. That's something that comes under those

ministries. But we are working together to deal with whatever

roadblocks or difficulties there may be in getting more and more

affordable housing and rental accommodation onto the market. It is

comprehensive. It does involve other ministries; it's not done in

isolation, as you suggest. It is, in fact, a very well-coordinated

effort.

MS. CULL : Just one final question then. If

the minister could make available to me a statement of the housing

policy, I would really like to see it. It would encourage me very much

to see that there was such a statement which integrates all of these

issues I've been talking about and shows that the various ministries

are taking coordinated action. I'm sure you don't have that with you

today, but I would very much appreciate it if you would make a

commitment to making such a document available to me.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Could I just say that what proves the point, I guess, that I'm making

is.... Just to let you know who attended those meetings: they were for

the sole purpose of discussing issues of housing. Obviously when other

ministries attended, they attended to participate in and coordinate

that effort.

MS. A. HAGEN : I want to address two

issues today in some brief questions to the new Minister of Social

Services and Housing. I think one of them is particularly appropriate,

because visiting in the precincts today are representatives of the old

age pensioners' organization. I understand that they have been briefing

the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy. It's interesting that these

groups are continuing to brief this government while we are still

awaiting their response to the task force on older people — "Toward a

Better Age" — and also the appointment of the Seniors' Advisory

Council, which is under the aegis of the minister's colleague the

Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen).

The specific question

I want to ask in respect of seniors' issues has to do with the recent

announcement of some further moves to increase the level of rent that

will be eligible for SAFER funding. I think that both the minister and

I would agree that the increased rents that are eligible for SAFER are

a graphic illustration of the absolutely fearsome escalation of rents

in many of our communities. When we are looking at rents being

subsidized at well over $500 a month, when a year ago they were in the

$300 range, we have, just in this program, an indication of what our

renters are facing. Of course, seniors are fixed-income renters, so the

impact on their income is very significant.

One issue that

continues to trouble me around the government's management of the SAFER

program is how information gets out to seniors. The minister will

respond that there's been a considerable increase in the number of

older people taking advantage of this program, and I would certainly

acknowledge that there has finally been an increase and some changes —

which took ten years to get some action on by this government. But in

my riding and in calls to my office, I still run into people who are

not aware of the SAFER program and how to access it. The issue of

information to seniors continues to be a major problem.

[ Page 9977 ]

Would

the minister please advise the House what he intends to do to make sure

that every senior in the province is aware of this program, so that if

he or she is eligible, that person may take advantage of it?

[2:45]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

To begin with your first comments, we did meet with a group of seniors.

I might add that we had a very good meeting. Those people are very

appreciative of the efforts government is making on their behalf to

provide accommodations. They understand the circumstances and the

limitations and that things take time. It was a very good meeting.

The

SAFER program is highly successful. The amounts have increased rather

dramatically. On July 1, 1990 — this year — the rent ceiling will be

raised to $520 from $450 for a single person, and from $475 to $575 — a

$100 increase — for couples. That is a substantial increase. We know

that it's required. There has certainly been an increase in rents;

there's no question about that. We think this program is doing a great

deal to assist those people who have to rent their accommodation.

The

question is: what are we doing to make sure people know about it? We

are doing everything we can in SAFER advertising. If I may just look at

the list of things we have, we have a supply of SAFER brochures at many

different places: pharmacies, health units, Second Mile Society, DERA,

senior citizens' councils, seniors' organizations and the minister's

constituency office. The SAFER brochures are sent to all government

MLAs to be distributed. A complete supply of information is also sent

to all government agents' offices. The government can certainly never

be accused of not trying to make the information available, but that is

not to say that every person may know about it. We are certainly making

our best effort to make that information available, because we want the

people who need and deserve this program to take advantage of it.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask the minister if there's going to

be any electronic media advertising, any TV or radio advertising, on

this matter?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : No, that is not the

plan at this particular time. Could I just give some numbers for

'89-90? There were 9,130 cases that received SAFER assistance. In

'90-91 there are 10,910 — a substantial increase. The cost has gone

from $10.43 million to $17.7 million — a very, very dramatic increase

in costs. All of us must certainly recognize that the government is

doing a great job in providing this support system to the public.

MS. A. HAGEN :

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the government will use its news

update for information about programs not yet before this House, but

won't use that medium to let seniors know about programs they are

entitled to. I think it's really reprehensible that we're still looking

at print media and whether people go into social services offices,

MLA's or government agent offices in order for people to know.

Mr.

Chairman, the government's action in promoting this program, which is

an important program in terms of seniors' economic security, continues

to be totally inadequate. The minister has just outlined those

inadequacies.

I want to move to another matter of

importance to this ministry, which I raised during the estimates of the

Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), in respect to programs that particularly affect women. I'd

like to refer the minister to a recent report of the task force on

programs for social assistance recipients — with the acronym SARs often

used to refer to that group of people. This report is one that has

federal and provincial implications, and it is indeed a very

significant report in respect to women who are poor — because women on

social assistance are poor — having an opportunity to participate fully

in the economic life of our province. This report is a part of a

four-corners discussion which involves the federal Ministry of

Employment and the provincial Ministry of Social Services and Housing,

Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology and Ministry of

Education.

In this particular report, there are some very

significant recommendations coming out of their analysis of the

problems that women face in getting the kind of training, the adequate

training, the length of training and the support they need to move into

the economy of the province at wages that enable them to support

themselves and their families with some dignity and in some realistic

relationship to the cost of living.

Recognizing that this

is a federal and a provincial document, I want to just highlight some

of the issues that relate specifically to this minister and his

responsibilities. The report notes that there are many barriers that

prevent women and other social assistance recipients from participating

fully in training and preparation for jobs. These include the lack of

financial support for training-related expenditures: child care,

transportation and clothing. They include restrictive eligibility in

that very often women are not able to participate in these programs,

because the time is too short or there isn't a background of bridge

training and upgrading. As well, many people fear that the jobs they

will have are jobs that will not be adequate for them when considering

the loss of some of the benefits they have as social service recipients.

The

minister, for example, noted yesterday that they were subsidizing jobs

to $7 an hour for private employers to employ such people. But $7 an

hour does not provide families with an income that enables them to pay

the rent and feed and clothe their children. It's totally impossible

for people who have families to function with that level of income, so

the kind of resources that enable people to move into jobs that are

adequate for a reasonable income are not a part of the present

arrangements for training.

[ Page 9978 ]

The

Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology made at the end

of his estimates some vague commitment to looking at some of these

issues in the broad sector of training for women. I would like to know

what action this minister plans to take in respect to the very serious

barriers outlined in this report that prevent women and other SARs from

gaining the kind of training they need for the kind of jobs they need

to participate in our society. I would like to know what this minister

plans to do about this report and the recommendations that it has

brought forward.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Thank you very

much for the question. If I can just go back to the matter of SAFER,

there seemed to still be some concern on the part of the member that

people were not adequately Informed about the availability of the

program. In addition to the items I listed, I would just like to

mention that it was also in the community papers, daily papers, ethnic

papers and also, I think, a stuffer in the B.C. Hydro bills, which I

think most people in the province get. There certainly has been an

effort to make people aware of the program.

We provided

employment and training for more than 14,000 women in the first ten

months of the '89-90 fiscal year. We have placed an emphasis on women

in our employment and training programs. In fact, we provide about 70

percent more employment and training places for women than we do for

men, because we recognize that there is a need there.

For

women who were on income assistance and then became employed, we will

provide one year of full medical coverage, up to $90 per month in

transportation allowance and pay day care surcharges. Those are some of

the things that make it difficult for people to enter the workforce

after having been on social assistance.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Is this minister prepared to make a commitment to review and act on the

recommendations of the task force on employment and training for social

assistance recipients?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Mr.

Chairman, I can only make half of that commitment at this point. I

would not usually say that I would review and then act without knowing

what I'll find when I review. But I will make you the commitment that I

will review and then make a judgment after I've seen the contents of

the report.

MS. A. HAGEN : This, I think, bears out

one of the problems that we have with this set of estimates. We have a

24-hour-old minister who is not cognizant of one of the most

significant reports that have been done about this issue. We are

therefore not able to carry out our responsibilities because the

minister is not able to give us answers. I would like to advise the

minister that we will be following up on his partial commitment. There

is the expectation on this side of the House that with this very

detailed work that has been done and the very extensive work that looks

at the reality of what women face in trying to get the kind of training

that they need to be economically self-sufficient and therefore

socially self-sufficient, it is time for this government to act. Four

years into a mandate, and we still haven't seen that kind of action,

and we will be pursuing that matter with this minister.

MS. MARZARI :

In keeping with women in training and employment, a question arises

which has come up in this House before. It has to do with unlicensed

child care spaces being created on the backs of welfare mothers. The

system works this way. We only have about 25,000 licensed child care

spaces in this province, and these licensed spaces are within group

centres holding up to 25 children or in family homes licensed for up to

five children in each home. Many of the group centres and licensed

family homes really can afford to work without having to receive or

take in subsidized parents. Because there are only 25,000 licensed

spaces available, a good number of those spaces are filled by

full-paying parents.

[3:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH : Are you just about finished now?

MS. MARZARI :

No, I'm not just about finished, Mr. Minister. I'm just warming up to a

question here. I'm glad you've come in to join in, because you might

also be educated by this question.

Therefore many of our

licensed spaces are filled with full-paying parents. Unlicensed spaces

are proliferating in this province. It's not something I feel

comfortable with. A lot of parents don't feel comfortable. In fact,

many of the people involved with the child care field do not feel

comfortable with the number of unlicensed spaces that exist. We all

know that the mom down the street, the grandmother around the corner or

the nice lady across the street might be taking in kids to make a

little money, and it might be happening on an undeclared basis. A lot

of people actually have those arrangements. But we know that when we

subsidize those arrangements and we as a province actually say to

parents, "here are your coupons; here is your subsidy; go out and find

yourself an unlicensed space," I don't think we're doing anybody a

favour there.

We carry this whole scenario one step

further. A few years ago the provincial government starting flirting

with the idea of training mothers on welfare to take in children or to

do baby-sitting. I'd like to think that I was partly responsible for

killing that proposal, and I called it the

nail-their-other-foot-to-the-floor program. Welfare mothers were forced

into a short two- to ten-hour training program and pushed back into

their own homes in unlicensed spaces, without support, to take in up to

five children at absolute minimum wage. Then when they collected their

money at the end of the month, these mothers still on welfare would

find that the money they had earned would be deducted from their

welfare.

[ Page 9979 ]

thought I had killed this program by suggesting to the federal

government that it was unfair. Now in the last year I discover that in

fact this form of forced "workfare" is happening in our cities and our

province. Women on welfare are being encouraged to take minimal

training programs of as little as ten hours. Then they are being put

into their own homes to mind two to five children for eight to 12 hours

a day for about $270 a month. The mother gets to keep $100 plus 25

percent of $170. They're allowed to keep $142 a month. If she's getting

family maintenance under the FMA program, $100 of that will be deducted.

what we've got, basically, are a number of welfare mothers in this

province working their buns off by working with children in their own

homes for $42 a month. I call that slavery. I call that the worst that

we can provide to mothers on welfare and to women in our province.

The

questions I have to put to you are the following: are you prepared, Mr.

Minister, to write a letter and state in public that no welfare mother

is going to be forced off welfare if she does not accept this slave

labour and this so-called training? Are you prepared to change the GAIN

regulations so that women who might decide, out of desperation, to do

this work will be able to keep all the money they make? And are you

prepared to develop the needed amount of licensed child care spaces

with trained workers at decent wages?

If we could go back

to where we started with child care — a two-year training program — we

could develop a bank of good workers who are prepared to devote their

professional years to child care. With decent training and decent

wages, that's possible. If we cared, we could give welfare mothers the

kind of money they need to raise their children with some health and

security.

But what we've done is the worst of all possible

worlds. We've created a wage-slave class of women on welfare, and I

don't see any way of getting out of it unless you, Mr. Minister, take a

stand. Would you be good enough to make those commitments to this House?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

First of all, let me say that I don't disagree with the importance of

day care and the need for it, and that day care be of good quality.

That's not the issue.

But there is one point that I have

some problem with in the conclusions that the member comes to. The

suggestion seems to be that unless it's something that government is

involved in subsidizing, it won't be good and it won't be reliable. I

think there are many good things that happen in society. In fact, some

of the best things that happen in society are where government is not

involved in at all and is separated from it, and where people do it

because they want to do it. And when they want to do it, they generally

do a good and conscientious job of it.

You suggest that I

write a letter to condemn and put an end to what you call a

slave-labour type of situation. I won't write such a letter, and the

reason I wouldn't is because I don't believe that exists at the present

time. As a matter of fact, the information I have is that when these

ladies who are receiving welfare assistance go into providing this day

care service, they are not pushed into it; they choose to do it. I'm

surprised that in the early part of your comment you said that you did

everything you could to kill that. If it's a free choice of people and

if people choose to go into it, why should you or anyone else try to

prevent them from doing so?

HON. MR. MESSMER : I

would like to ask the minister what cooperation he is receiving in the

housing industry in his housing initiative as far as municipalities are

concerned. I have heard much said over the last week in regard to our

social housing program within the province, and today I heard from the

Oak Bay–Gordon Head member (Ms. Cull) that she would like to go back a

few years as to what has happened in housing.

I would like

to take you on a little trip back, because housing, and especially

social housing, has been a problem in British Columbia for many years.

I can remember — going back to the fifties — being in the industry. At

that particular time interest rates rose to 6 percent, and the monthly

rent went from $55 to $85 a month. In the early fifties that was seen

as a catastrophe. As a matter of fact, housing contractors were

thinking of going out of the business because the federal government

had raised the rate so high that no one could afford to buy a new home.

The

actual responsibility for housing and the cost of housing lies more

with municipalities, regional districts and the private sector than it

does with the provincial government. The reason I say that is that it

is a case of supply and demand. The municipalities and the regional

districts actually control the amount of housing that can take place in

any particular year or number of years.

As you know, Mr.

Minister, having been the mayor of a community, it is strictly the

infrastructure there which allows the private sector people to go in

and either be able to supply the demand that is there today or not to

supply that demand.

It is also a known fact in the industry

that if you wish to reduce the inflation within a province or country,

all you have to do is raise the interest rate on housing within Canada,

and immediately the inflation period starts to come down because people

are out of work. As you are aware, the construction industry employs

many people within the province on a daily basis, and consequently it's

a fast factor in order to stop inflationary periods.

So we

went into the sixties, and during that time Central Mortgage and

Housing and the province went together on certain types of deals, which

at one particular time provided 20-year guarantees to the developer if

he would put up his money and supply a place for social housing or

low-cost housing — whatever name you wish to put with it — in British

Columbia. That particular deal was good and certainly helped to supply

and fill the needs of the day, but of course comes back to haunt us

because the 20-year period is now up.

[ Page 9980 ]

The

people who built those units had a contract with the federal

government, and after 20 years we are now allowed to raise the rates.

Of course what is happening there is that in the rising economy the

owner of the property is entitled to raise the rates, which increases

the burden against those people who have been living there for many

years.

In the seventies and eighties we had some great

programs to relieve the low-cost housing situation. Unfortunately, some

of those programs were good and others were bad. Others were bad

because they left certain communities with slum-type residences with

not enough money for upkeep, and consequently they became a burden on

society. While there may have been a place to sleep every night, in

some cases they were not the types of places that you would like to

raise your family. Consequently, in many communities in British

Columbia we have that type of situation. We talk about the high cost of

rental within certain communities in British Columbia at the same time

that we are paying $1,000 plus in Vancouver.

A year or so

ago we also heard about Logan Lake. I went there and looked at those

particular houses — probably some of the nicest houses you'd ever want

to see, ranging in size from about 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. Those

houses could be purchased for $50,000, and that was less than two years

ago. So, really, we're into a regionalized situation within British

Columbia; we're talking about the high cost of housing in the Vancouver

and the greater Victoria area. It's caused simply because of the

numbers of people who are living within the community. You do not have

additional land in order to subdivide to build rental units either for

those who can afford it or those who cannot afford it.

Mr.

Minister, I congratulate you for the effort that you're putting into

trying to solve the housing situation within British Columbia. But I

also believe that while you are working very hard on it, without the

cooperation of the municipalities and the regional districts we will

keep fighting this with a very limited amount of success. It's up to

the municipalities and the regional districts to develop more property

and invite the private sector to come in to build the housing that is

needed. And the only way that rents in British Columbia will come down

is when you have an oversupply of housing in a particular area.

MRS. BOONE :

I would like to ask the minister some questions regarding the whole

process of granting of subsidies for day care. Over the past few months

I have received numerous complaints and concerns expressed by

individuals in private day care centres who are having a great deal of

difficulty receiving funding from the ministry for those people who are

on social services and who will receive a subsidy. In fact, at one

point there was a waiting-period of a month to two months before a

mother could even get an appointment to see if she could apply for a

subsidy. And then, once that happens, you are looking at another 30 to

60 days sometimes for that to be processed.

Can the

minister please tell me what is happening to alleviate this problem? I

understand it's created because of a lack of staff at the local level

to handle this. I can tell you that it's creating some severe hardships

for those women who are entrepreneurs, out there trying to earn a

living and keep their bills paid while they are waiting for that

funding to come in.

[3:15]

In one case a person took a child in and then found afterwards that

no application had been made and that she was now behind three months

and is receiving absolutely nothing for taking care of this child.

The

difficult

part is that many of the private day care centres are

refusing to take welfare recipients into their centres because they

can't afford to have that long wait. That's not in the best interests

of the children. It's far better to have children in licensed day care

centres with people who are trained, and it is certainly not helping

those mothers who are out there struggling, trying to make a living and

create a decent home life for their families when they can't even get

adequate child care for them. Can the minister please tell me what is

happening with that whole program now.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

To the member for Prince George, I was going to say that based on the

information she was providing, yes, I would be very concerned if that

kind of a delay was taking place and people had to wait that long. That

I would find hard to accept and would certainly want to look into it.

The staff have given me some material on this, and it is site-specific and concerns Prince George. It says:

"Action

has been taken by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing staff in

Prince George that is expected to remedy problems encountered by

persons wishing to apply for day care subsidies and by caregivers in

receiving timely payments from the ministry.

"Day

care services have been centralized in the job service office to

increase visibility and access to the program. The number of staff

assigned has been more than doubled. As soon as someone phones for an

appointment with the ministry staff about day care, an information and

forms package is mailed out to them within two days now. Emergency day

care requests are being seen within two days of first contact.

Caregivers now have the approval to submit monthly billings after the

15th of the current month.

"In Prince George,

waiting-time for an appointment has been cut in half. On a provincial

level the ministry is actively reviewing the program to remedy delays

in payment to our caregivers."

So we recognize that we have

had problems, but we think we have gone a long ways towards correcting

them, and we are still reviewing them.

MRS. BOONE : I'm glad to see that the minister has taken some action, because, as I said, it's over the

[ Page 9981 ]

past

couple of months. It's rather disconcerting when you have people

phoning you, saying that they haven't received payment for 60 days on

children in their care.

You say that the waiting-period has

been cut in half. People are saying they're waiting one and sometimes

two months for an appointment. Does that mean that there's still a

month's wait for an appointment to see if they qualify for subsidies?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

No, that's not what was intended by my comments. I guess it's always

dangerous to talk in terms such as "cut in half, " because that all

depends on where you start from. No, the staff inform me that we're

talking about a time-frame of a couple of days.

MRS. BOONE :

One of the difficulties that I think came about — and my staff has been

working with the people on this whole effort — is that many employees

did not feel adequately informed to handle this whole situation. We

have a tremendous turnover of staff there. People felt that they

couldn't handle those things, so somehow these people got shunted off

and put off further and further down the line. Has there in fact been

an increase in staff at that level so that people have the ability and

the time to sit down and learn the rules and regulations, and can take

care of their clients?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Yes, there

has. I mentioned that the staff has been doubled, but then that's a

little bit like when we said something was cut in half; it depends

where you start from. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers available

right now to tell you about the numbers in Prince George specifically,

but the staff certainly have been increased there.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Chairman, I won't take long with this. That's what they all say.

The

other day I was pursuing an item having to do with what happens when we

have a citizen on old age pension and the supplement, as well as GAIN,

and there's an inflation increase recognized by the federal government

in those cheques, and what happens to the GAIN at that point. It was

pointed out by the minister that GAIN is reduced by the amount of the

increase. I don't understand why that's the case. It seems like

confiscation to me. It almost appears as if inflation didn't happen in

British Columbia, because that's exactly how the ministry is operating

in this way.

I object to this because I feel that if these

people get GAIN, it means they have no other income. They're among the

most vulnerable citizens and the least able to fight for themselves.

Since

you're a brand-new minister in this field, you might be interested in a

comparison with the Manitoba experience. Now I'm not saying this was

brought in by those wicked, wild-eyed socialists. Anyway, it's being

carried on by those wicked, wild-eyed Conservatives.

It's

called the 55-Plus. We don't have any equivalent program, to my

knowledge. But I do know that Manitoba appears to have recognized that

there are many people who have reached the age of 59 who are unemployed

and can't get another job, or they were in resource jobs or low-skilled

jobs.

I'll just outline the program. If you do not receive

an old age pension or any other security benefits — unemployment

insurance or whatever — then you are entitled to apply under the

55-Plus program. Under the 55-Plus program, a single person gets $744 a

month. If you compare that with the welfare rates for a single person

in British Columbia, regardless of age it's $468 a month.

Now

we're always beating our chests and proudly boasting that we have a

wonderful province, the budget's balanced and everything else. I hope

it hasn't been balanced by taking money away from the people who

perhaps need it the most. If you're 55 or more but not 65, $744 a month

for a single person in Manitoba. A person living in Winnipeg or Brandon

or Dauphin certainly doesn't face the rents we do in the lower

mainland. The Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer) has said that rents

and housing prices vary widely throughout our province; but the rates

for welfare and housing don't. I know about housing allowances; I'm

aware of all that stuff. But $744 in Manitoba for somebody between 55

and 59, and in B.C. it's $468. If you're married in Manitoba and part

of this program, it's $1,206 per month — a married person living at

home and perhaps even with a family. I'm not clear about that, but I

think it's with a family. Two people in B.C.: $787; in other words,

$500 less. With three people it's $924. In the 60-64 age bracket, we

have $518 for one person and $837 for two people. Compared with the

$1,206, it's still well below — about a third below.

I hope

your deputy is briefing you on some of the other benefits that might be

applied for in British Columbia. On the surface of it, it looks as if

our people are underfunded compared with a province that is certainly

not considered a "have" province. If they can do it, and it's their

priority to do it, then I think we could.

I'll just go over

those people who do receive OAS and GIS — old age security plus the

supplement. They are among the people who are entitled to GAIN in this

province. A Manitoba single is entitled to get an extra benefit of

$111.60; if married, $119.90 maximum. In B.C. it's $49.30 and $60.25

for two people who are cohabiting. B.C. guaranteed income for age 65

with spouse is $1,327.54, and for a single is $820. This is over 65. 1

don't know the cap in Manitoba.

If you look at those two

sets of figures, it appears our people are decidedly disadvantaged. It

would help if you would stop confiscating the GAIN money every time

they get an inflation increase. It's either you or the landlords trying

to take these increases. I'd rather, perhaps, give it to the poor

landlord.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : First of all, I guess it's a matter of how you see the GAIN program when you start talking about confiscating the money. As I

[ Page 9982 ]

understand,

the whole principle is that there is a set amount provided for people

as a fund for them to live on. That amount is decided, and when they

receive additional funding from whatever source, then the province does

not add that to the amount that's being paid or allow that to be added

to it, because it is a set amount to begin with. That's what the person

is required to have according to the numbers that are used as his cost

of living for the month. If he receives that some other way, then it's

considered that it's not necessary for the province to pay the portion

he receives. If he doesn't receive it, then the province brings it up

to that level. Or if he receives nothing, the government provides all

of the amount.

I think your question was a discrepancy in

an age group between 55 and 59. 1 guess there is a difference between

us and that other province you specified.

MR. ROSE :

I suppose my concerns rest on two basic premises. One is if GAIN is

fixed at a specific amount.... I'm told that it may be adjusted

quarterly. I'd like that confirmed; I don't know that for sure.

Whatever it is, if it doesn't move with inflation, that fixed amount —

that total maximum — it means that B.C. does not recognize the

inflation factors that are recognized by the federal government in both

their programs — OAS and GIS. That's one point.

The other

point is that we have no programs. How can we justify not having

programs at least as generous as Manitoba for those people who find

themselves out of a job, unable to get another one, too old to be

retrained at 55? We're running into the same thing in this province as

other provinces are. It's endemic really, because it has to do with the

new technology and the fact that our resource industries are becoming

that much more efficient and more capital- and machine-intensive rather

than labour-intensive. So you're just casting people out in the cold or

asking them to live on about two-thirds of the amount they would

receive if they were living in a have-not province.

[3:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I suppose there are a lot of, numbers that perhaps would enter into

that discussion. I'm just thinking that there may be a difference

between the percentage of senior citizens in that class in Manitoba and

the percentage in British Columbia So when you're looking at the cost

to the province, I'm not sure your numbers can really support that.

There is a difference in that particular category.

MR. ROSE : I meant 55 to 59.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Yes, and I'm conceding to you that there appears to be a difference in that category between 55 and 59 or 60.

MR. ROSE :

I know you're a brand-new minister, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, but

your predecessor is sitting right over there doing his best to look

like George Bernard Shaw.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Heaven forbid I should ever look like him.

MR. ROSE : He was a socialist too, you know — a Fabian socialist.

Last

year, during the brief and pleasant round of estimates that we had, the

former Minister of Social Services and Housing — or whatever we called

it then — conceded that the 55-to-59 age group was a growing problem in

British Columbia. So you've had a year. You haven't even had 24 hours,

Mr. Minister, but the government has had a year. I want to know what's

been done about that group that was conceded to be a problem a year

ago. What did they do — all move to Manitoba? You say that people are

moving to Manitoba from British Columbia after they're age 65. I think

the movement is the other way, and I don't blame them. Have you been in

Winnipeg in the winter?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes, I have — me and the brass monkeys.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm disappointed that the minister can't find an answer to that

question. I know it's a tough one, but the fact of the matter is that

during last year's estimates the Minister of Social Services at that

time outlined who the people on income assistance were, and he

specifically singled out males over the age of 50 — it might have been

55 — who have become technologically redundant and are a growing group

at risk in this province. It was fine to identify them, but the big

question is: what are you going to do about it?

I have some

questions for the minister, and what I'd like to do is just more or

less put them on the record in the hope that the staff can produce the

answers before the day is over. We have another member that wants to

put some questions on the record, so if the minister would take

note.... I don't expect him to have the answers at his fingertips, but

perhaps his staff could get the answers for us.

Yesterday,

with the previous Minister of Social Services, I asked some questions

about staffing, and the minister came back with some of the answers.

I'd like to elaborate on those questions and reinforce some of them. I

want to know the overall turnover in staff, particularly front-line

workers — social workers and FAWs — and clerical workers. I'd like to

know the breakdown by region for staff turnover in those three areas in

the last year. I'd like the staff to let us know the number when they

report back on staff turnover. I'm asking about social workers, groups

1 and 2.

Finally, the minister said that in this past year

the length of stay has diminished for many foster children in care, and

a certain percentage of those children returned to their homes within

nine months — and there was only one foster placement during that

period of time. Perhaps the staff could provide figures with regard to

the other 29 percent of children in care. I'd like to know how many

foster situations those children may find themselves in in

[ Page 9983 ]

their

stay with the ministry. While we have asked the ministry specifically

with regard to foster care, I would include in that group those in

homes, motels, receiving homes and emergency placement homes.

With

regard to the other group — the group that is in the care of the

ministry for the shorter period of time — I'd like to know what

services are available to those children in the way of receiving homes,

homes that are specifically designed for children with a short-term

stay.

I will leave those questions, and we'll continue with that later on in the day.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'd like to canvass day care and child care and some of the programs

offered by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. I do that

because I know that in my riding there has been a significant increase

in the number of single-parent families with children living in certain

sectors of my riding. For example, in the western communities in the

past year we've seen a 29 percent increase in single parents who rely

on subsidies from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing with

respect to day care operations. Generally speaking, my riding consists

largely of suburbs of Victoria, and we've seen a tremendous increase in

the number of families moving to the area. These days, where people

need to have two incomes to make ends meet, there is a growing need to

make sure there are adequate services and provisions made for day care

and child care in the western communities and in Esquimalt.

have had the opportunity to meet regularly with the day care operators

in my riding and canvass from them, from time to time, their feelings

about how the system is working. At the same time, I get regular

feedback from my constituents through letters and phone calls

expressing some of their frustrations with respect to day care and

child care operations in my area. I don't intend to read on the record

all of the letters that I get — there are so many of them — but I do

want to take some of the themes that emerge from those letters and ask

the minister some questions, particularly questions as they relate to

operators and to parents.

The Ministry of Social Services

and Housing, it is my understanding, provides a subsidy for parents

with one child to the extent of $250 per month for children who are

under three, and $15 a day for over three. In both those cases, the

subsidy is provided for 20 days. The operators in my riding remind me

that quite often they provide day care operations for more than 20 days

in a month, and in fact they are not being paid for those services,

which is certainly unfair to those operators who are strapped in terms

of both resources and finances. Could the minister tell me, given the

increases in this year's budget, whether any provision is being made to

increase that subsidy so that it reflects payment equal to the actual

number of days the service is provided as opposed to the 20 days in

question?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : I'll provide that

information to the member. I don't have it here right at this very

moment, but we will have it in a few minutes. If you want to ask

another question, go ahead.

MR. SIHOTA : I want to thank the minister for that, and I will give him the courtesy of time to reply to that very important question.

want to ask the minister another question relating to subsidies and a

matter of policy while he's trying to get that information. Would the

minister not agree that it might be far better, in terms of providing

the service, if the government were to simply pay a set fee for the

services, plus X number of spaces — for example, $400 a month for 100

spaces? As a matter of policy, would it not be better to proceed that

way than the way you have been proceeding?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Admittedly, there are some difficulties with being new. It takes a lot

of discussion on this side. I think we missed a good part of the last

question. However, I do have the information for your first question,

so we're just one question behind. Maybe you could repeat the second

one.

The answer to the first question is that there has

been no announcement at this time, but there is money in the budget to

look at increasing that rate. I am expecting to make an announcement

shortly on that.

MR. SIHOTA : I appreciate the

minister's difficulties in being new to his job. I want to say that I

also want to make it clear that from my point of view it's not just the

rate that should be increased. I think the rate should be increased,

and I look forward to the minister's announcement in that regard, now

that he has made it clear that there will be an increase in the rate.

But I also want to make it clear that the rate should not only increase

but the number of days covered should equal the number of days that

service is provided for.

Will the minister confirm that the

changes that his ministry is contemplating will address both those

problems — i.e., an increase in rates, which would deal with my second

question; and, secondly, an increase in the number of days so that you

aren't artificially tied to 20 days?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

You know, we're getting dangerously close to making the announcement,

aren't we? No, I can't agree or deny. That's future policy. I guess

we'll just have to persevere and wait for the announcement.

MR. SIHOTA :

It saddens me to think that on an issue like this one would delay

making an announcement for reasons of political opportunism, when there

are operators out there who are in need of the money and clarification

as to the policy. I would invite the minister to let the world know

today what his budget provides for. You have an increase in your

budget. This is a very important issue in society. Quite frankly, I'm

somewhat angered that you're going to just wait and allow these

operators to

[ Page 9984 ]

continue under the status quo until you make your announcement.

All

I can say to you, Mr. Minister — and I respect the fact that you're new

to your portfolio — is that I would hope that announcement will be made

as soon as these estimates end, so that people know where they stand.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We can announce it in five minutes.

MR. SIHOTA :

Look, if the minister says they can make the announcement in five

minutes, there's no reason why you can't make that announcement now. So

don't come in here and try to play....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

That's right. You just want to base it on your own political timing,

and it's got nothing to do with the needs that are out there. Somehow

you relish the ability to play those games.

[3:45]

MR. RABBITT :

A point of order. It's very basic. We found throughout this session

that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew gets raving on these lunatic

fringe ideas of his, when we're supposed to be talking about matters

before the House. I would ask the Chair to call him to order, and let's

talk about the issues that are before the House, not about some raving

issues that he's mesmerizing himself with.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is talking about an

issue that is directly concerned with the vote, so I can't help but

suggest that your point of order is not in order.

MR. SIHOTA :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly don't consider day care matters to

be lunatic fringe ideas, as the Social Credit member across the floor

does. I want to continue with my question to the minister around day

care.

The minister knows that spaces are provided by

operators, and so much space is allocated per facility for children.

The mathematics of that usually works out quite well, if you've got

full-time children coming. But when you've got part-time children

coming, parents — I know from my riding — who work part time either

have to find another child from another family to cover the full five

days of service or have to pay the full five days because of the way

the system is set up.

Could the minister advise the House

whether any steps are being taken by his ministry to address this

matter of part-time children and provide some flexibility to the

operators to accommodate part-time needs without offending the rather

rigid rules that you've got right now? In other words, are you prepared

to inject some level of flexibility into the rules? And if so, what

level of flexibility are you prepared to put in?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

To the last question, the rules for governing day care, as the member I

think would know, are in place though the care facilities licensing

act. That's under the Ministry of Health, so it's not something that

this ministry could change or interfere with.

The other

thing that I'd like to comment on is the suggestion that the

announcement on changes in rates for day care is simply withheld for —

I think the member said — political opportunity. It's held until the

policy is decided and the decision is made; it has nothing to do with

politics at all.

MR. SIHOTA : That's an interesting

explanation. Given the fact the minister has deferred that matter —

appropriately I would say — to the Ministry of Health, could he tell

the House what representations his ministry is prepared to make to the

Ministry of Health on this very important matter? Families that are

covered by subsidies from his ministry face this problem every day,

particularly those people who are trying to improve their financial lot

and get off social assistance but have this part-time problem and are

hit with this extra potential cost. What representations have you made

to the Ministry of Health to inject some flexibility into those

criteria?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : This ministry has a

member on that committee. That member is aware of all the concerns and

the needs as determined by this ministry, and makes representations to

the committee.

MR. SIHOTA : That's a less than

satisfactory answer. I think I would have preferred to hear the

minister say, "Yes, we recognize this as a critical problem; and yes,

we are taking every step possible to lobby the Ministry of Health to

get them to inject a level of flexibility."

It may well be

that I have misinterpreted the minister's response, but am I correct in

saying that your ministry is lobbying the other ministry with the type

of vigour that I would like to see? Or is your posture somewhat less

than that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : All I can do is

provide the answers. I cannot guarantee that the member will be happy

with those answers. That's not really my purpose. My purpose here is to

tell the truth, to explain the situation as it is. Whether the member

is happy about it is another issue.

I would hope that the

member would be happy, because I think we're doing a great job. We're

providing the information, and as I said, we have a representative on

the committee who has input, who recognizes the concerns that this

ministry has with the delivery of day care services throughout the

province and who makes representations. So that's all I can tell the

member about that particular issue.

MR. SIHOTA : The minister has a responsibility to be an advocate for day care and make sure that every

[ Page 9985 ]

step that can be taken is being taken to deal with the realities faced by families in British Columbia.

want to ask the minister another question, and again this is an

important question. There are many people out there who would like to

establish a day care operation and have the intellectual ability to do

it and have the licensing and all that stuff. But there are some

difficulties in terms of getting capital to get an operation

established. In my riding, for example, we have a tremendous demand for

services and an inadequate number of facilities to provide those

services. Bankers, on the other hand, are not particularly eager to

lend money to people who are establishing day care operations, because

it's a non-traditional form of enterprise, if I can put it that way.

What

provision has been made in this year's budget to provide for grants for

capital acquisitions or improvements with respect to day care

operations, to make sure that private operators can enter the field?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Chairman, so that the member will be happy with the answer, he'll

forgive me if I read it, to make sure that we get in everything.

Funds

were established to preserve existing day care spaces and to help

create additional spaces. Lottery funds were made available to

non-profit day care societies on a matching basis for capital costs of

creating new day care spaces. At March 6, 1990, $473,870 from lottery

funds has helped preserve or create 686 spaces. In September 1989 the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing implemented the startup grants

program, to help non-profit societies to furnish and equip new day care

facilities. From September 1989 to March 1990, $45,430 in grants has

helped create 159 spaces. The ministry's emergency relocation grants

program, at March 1990, has helped preserve 1,971 spaces, with $346,895

in grants. In addition, $1.7 million has been allocated by the ministry

for non-profit societies to recruit, train and support informal day

care providers, and to assist parents in the selection of informal day

care arrangements. This is also an issue that is being dealt with

through the women's ministry.

MR. SIHOTA : That, of

course, dealt with the non-profit sector. I was dealing with the other

sector. But fair enough; I accept that response from the minister.

terms of other assistance that I think the government could provide to

those in the sector that I was speaking about.... It involves work with

other ministries. Many of the operators that I've talked to in my

riding talk about the need for supplies and materials and that kind of

stuff. As you can imagine, when you're dealing with young children, a

lot of that kind of equipment is needed. They want to be allowed to

participate in some of the bulk buying that goes on with the school

boards. It seems to me a very logical idea. What representations has

the ministry made to the Ministry of Education to ensure that bulk

buying opportunities are made available to these operators, to acquire

what they need to look after children?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I'm not aware that there has been any contact made in that regard. But

it's not a bad suggestion. We will take a look at it. Maybe there are

some benefits for day cares through that process.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm glad the minister sees the merit in that idea. I was going to say

that maybe next year when we're in estimates we'd have a progress

report, but then I realized that next year we'll have a New Democrat

government and we won't have to worry.

Another

representation with respect to the Ministry of Education that I think

is important is the matter of out-of-school programs, programs in the

morning and the afternoon, to cover that time when you drop off your

kids before school starts, on your way to work, and after-school

programs as well. In my riding there's a significant need in that

regard. Could the minister tell me what steps they are taking with the

Ministry of Education to see whether school facilities can be used to

provide programs both in the morning and the afternoon, to alleviate

some of the burden on operators?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

That's something that has been left to the societies who provide the

day care, to find the locations. I understand that there are some cases

where that has been done. Sometimes there's a problem with that, in

that there becomes a need for the space, and the day care has to move

out. So apparently that's not altogether successful, but it has been

done in some cases.

Could I just comment on one other

thing. I think we must keep these discussions fair. Earlier today — I

think it was just before lunch — I got criticized by the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) for trying to inject a little

bit of humour into these estimates. Now I didn't inject nearly as much

humour as the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) did when

he started to talk about the prospects of the next election. If it's

not right for me, Mr. Chairman, it's not right for him either. So would

he please be serious.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, when you're 15 points down in the polls, I guess you've got to put on a brave face.

any provision made in this year's budget for start-up grants to assist

people who want to be private day care operators — to help them provide

that service in communities?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : No,

that isn't available. Private day care is considered a business the

same as any other business. We would not provide grants for someone

wanting to start their own business in another field, so we wouldn't

become involved in that. When we're talking about the grants, we're

talking about the subsidized day care centres.

[ Page 9986 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

I think that those who provide the service as private operators would

not describe it as a business but as a service, because few of them

make any profit in that regard. I think the minister understands that.

However,

my question to the minister is: in terms of wage subsidies for those

workers, many of whom are greatly underpaid.... I think the minister

knows the federal studies that have come....

Maybe he

wouldn't know, because he's new at the job, but in his general

experience he may well be aware that there are a number of general

studies put out at the federal level which point to the level of wages

earned by those people who are employed in the day care sector. And it

is remarkably low. In a rather sad way there seems to be an attitude

out there that it's an extension of the maternal role, and people get

baby-sitting fees for the provision of this service.

What

thought has the ministry given in this year's budget to the matter of

wage subsidies for those people who provide services as employees in

the sector?

[4:00]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

As the member knows, the policy of the government is to subsidize the

user of the day care and not do it the other way around as is suggested

here.

MR. SIHOTA : Thank you, Mr. Minister. Of course

that gets right back to my first question about the rates, because I

don't think this last question would be as salient if there was a

commitment from the government to increase the money that's provided to

the user that they can pass on to the operator to pay for the costs. So

$250 per month for a set number of 20 days is inadequate, as is the $15

per day for 20 days for over three-year-olds.

We get back

to that fundamental problem I outlined right at the beginning. The

minister has chosen to make an announcement about increases in that

rate at a later time, and I would hope that there would be some

significant increases.

Another problem one of my other

colleagues raised in a rather passing way — so I won't be long in

pursuing it — and which is one of the common complaints that I get from

operators in my riding, is that the ministry seems to be somewhat slow

in making payments to the operators. Of course, the minister knows full

well, if he takes the view that this is a business — to quote him from

earlier on — that you can get into all sorts of cash flow problems when

the ministry is not being particularly quick in responding to the

matter.

I wrote to Mr. Churlish of his ministry back in

November 1989 with respect to problems in the greater Victoria area,

and in reply correspondence dated November 28, 1989, he said to me that

the ministry was in the process of hiring two additional staff to work

in the day care accounts office to deal with the backlogs being created

as a consequence of the demand for the services and the tardiness with

which the ministry was responding with those payments.

he has that information, could the minister advise what steps have been

taken in the greater Victoria area, whether or not additional staff has

been provided and what studies subsequent to that have been undertaken

by the ministry to ensure that payments are now being made promptly to

those operators? Does he have any numbers to indicate how long it now

takes in terms of a turnaround period to deal with it?

see the minister has some notes, so I'll roll all the questions into

one. Finally, let me ask the minister: what steps is your ministry

taking to have one person in every office that operators can deal with?

One of the frustrations they express is that they phone an office —

let's say in Esquimalt, Langford or Vic West — and can never get

through. They're looking after the children at their site. It seems to

me that it might be a good idea for the ministry to consider having one

person there who just looks after these day care needs. As a matter of

policy, what steps are being taken in that regard?

I see

the minister is being briefed on that point, so I would expect a

detailed answer from him. That would conclude for today the questions I

want to ask the minister, and I want to thank him in advance for being

candid in replying so far.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Yes, I

agree. We do recognize that we have had a problem, though that problem

has been dealt with. The ministry did receive some complaints last

winter of day care payment cheques arriving late. A review conducted by

the ministry concluded that for a time It had fallen slightly short of

its target of a ten-day payment delivery period: 94 percent of all

claims were processed within the ten days; 6 percent were not.

have corrected that. We have additional staff, and the effort is being

made in each office to have someone who understands and specializes in

day care to make sure that these problems do not recur in this area —

or in other parts of the province.

MR. SIHOTA : I want to thank the minister for his responses, because I know some of my colleagues want to enter this debate.

guess it's really a matter of philosophy and commitment with respect to

day care services in the province. Some of the answers the minister has

provided have been interesting, others have been scant, and others have

been, in my view, deficient. I know the minister is new, so I don't

expect him to do it right now, but there should be a firm commitment on

the part of this government — and any government — to make sure this

problem is attended to.

I can tell you, it is a very

serious problem in my riding. Many of my constituents who are

single-parent families or very young families are torn over the

difficulties caused by day care. They want their children to have

quality services, and they worry about that. They want to have

affordable services, and often the financial impediments to day care are

[ Page 9987 ]

great that it actually suggests to people that they should stay home

instead of engaging in that second occupation; yet they need the income

to make ends meet. It's a very real problem in the communities that I

represent and it requires some very real responses.

bothered me no end to see that during the course of the last federal

election campaign this whole matter was kicked around like a political

football, and ultimately no resolution came at the federal level. It

does disturb me that even at the provincial level it is not accorded

the priority I think it should be, given the changing face of British

Columbia.

I have made my comments and I have put them on

the record, and the minister has made his. I would now like to turn it

over to my colleague from Nanaimo.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I would just briefly like to comment on that last statement because I

think it is important. The member who asked the question and I don't

agree on the calibre of day care that is provided within the province.

Unfortunately, he has left the House and is not interested in the

answer. I regret that, but for the rest of you that are here, I would

like to say that we disagree about the calibre of day care that is

provided. We think it is good-quality day care. We think that a good

job is being done to enhance and expand day care services within the

province. There is certainly more money being put into that system year

by year.

I want to assure everyone in the House — on this

side and that side — that, for my part, I understand the importance of

day care to people who go off to a job, or whatever they may be doing,

and leave their children in the custody of someone else. They need the

comfort of knowing that those children are properly looked after, that

the people they are left with are responsible, and that there is some

understanding on how those children will be looked after. The need for

that is something we understand on this side of the House as well as

anybody — perhaps more. That need is very important. So while we may

have some differences in our views on the current system within the

province, I certainly want to make it clear that our appreciation of

the need for quality day care is there and we recognize its importance.

MR. LOVICK :

I didn't rise to address the very important issue of day care and the

services or lack of thereof being provided, thanks to the efforts of

government. I would just say, however, that I am not quite as assured

as the minister seems to be about the calibre of day care, given that

we have the phenomenon of licensed juxtaposed with unlicensed day care

And as the marketplace gets too forbidding for certain people, the

temptation is to deal with unlicensed — and in some cases illegal — day

care facilities, simply because they can't afford any other.

would hope the minister and his officials are going to address that

problem. I know it's one that has been brought to the attention of the

ministry before, and I hope it's an ongoing commitment to ensure there

is a level of service guaranteed to users of that service throughout

the province and all the time. I hope the minister would agree with

that and would indeed commit his ministry to pursuing precisely that

agenda.

I was taken by the minister's reference a few

moments ago to the fact — and I share his conclusion — that a touch of

levity in this hallowed chamber is sometimes desirable. I share that

perception, and I can't resist sharing with him the fact that what we

are witnessing here is in some respects — and with certainly no

disrespect intended to the minister or to his staff — reminiscent of an

episode of "Yes, Minister," the British television show. We all know

what happens there. The great theme in "Yes, Minister" is that the

minister is entirely at the beck and call and advice and information of

the senior bureaucrats.

Now this minister, in the unusual

predicament he faces — namely, that on Wednesday he has one ministerial

responsibility and on Thursday he has another responsibility and is

expected to participate fully in an estimates debate — is put in the

awkward position of having to rely exclusively on the bureaucrats who

flank him. We know that modern government requires that, but I would

wish that Hansard could somehow record the rather long and protracted

hiatus between questions and answers that we have waited through in

this debate. I appreciate that the minister can't be faulted; nor can

his advisers. However, as we all know, that comes from an unwillingness

to put aside these estimates to give the minister at least a little

breathing space or an opportunity to learn something more about the

operation.

What I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is focus on

some particular questions. I've pulled out my estimates books — my blue

books — and tried to find some information. I haven't located it, and

therefore I'm going to ask for a little guidance from the minister and

his colleagues.

I want first of all to draw a little

attention to the area of crisis grants. Crisis grants, as the minister

well knows, are that mechanism whereby we deal with people who, for all

kinds of good and compelling but not necessarily predictable reasons,

find themselves in the awkward position of having to get some money in

order to make it to the end of the month — money above and beyond

whatever their GAIN or social assistance payment may be. The question I

want to pose is whether, in this budget, this set of estimates, we are

looking at any significant increase in the crisis grants budget. Can

the minister or his officials tell me that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The answer to the question, Mr. Chairman, is no. We're there to meet

the immediate need and any crisis that may exist, but we're not doing

anything beyond that.

I also want to say that on the

question of unlicensed family day care — that is, for two children or

fewer — the parents select and monitor it. There are funds for

training. Just because something isn't part of the government

organization, let us not say that it doesn't work well and that it

doesn't provide good

[ Page 9988 ]

day

care. I suspect that there may be many cases when some of the greatest

day care — the highest standard — is provided in exactly this kind of

setting. Let it be clear for the record that I am not criticizing that

way of providing the service at all.

The other comment that

I want to make is that the suggestion.... Let me apologize if I am

delaying the process too much by taking time to get the answers; I

thought we were going along quite well. But let me also make it clear

that I don't feel that I have to be protected from the people who work

beside me when I'm answering questions. People who work for government

have the same right to be respected for the job they do as people who

work in other places in society. I think the remarks the member made

tend to criticize and belittle the role they play in our society.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

No, Mr. Member. If you check the record, it sounds like there was some

kind of great liability inherent in the fact that I have to rely upon

the information of the people who sit beside me. I have every respect

for them, for their opinion and for people who work for government,

because I think they do a very creditable job for society.

MR. LOVICK :

I can't believe, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is either so obtuse or

wilfully obdurate in sticking to a prepared script that he can

deliberately misrepresent the point I made.

I began by

talking about levity. I emphasized very clearly indeed, Mr. Minister,

in at least two statements in my brief opening comment that I had full

respect for your staff. I was faulting nobody. I offered the comment in

the spirit of friendliness, but if you're going to take that

sanctimonious, rather silly approach, then clearly this debate is not

going to be pleasant. Sadly there is no reason why it shouldn't be

pleasant.

Unfortunately you also chose to misrepresent what

I said about unlicensed day care. If you'd listened somewhat more

closely, you'd have recognized that I made a clear distinction between

unlicensed and illegal day care. I made that point very clearly. I said

that the problem is that there are many individuals out there who

simply cannot afford the kind of quality day care they require;

therefore they are resorting to illegal day care. I asked you and your

officials to look into that. Please, by all means, disagree with me,

Mr. Minister; but don't, for heaven's sake, misrepresent what I'm

saying. Let's establish those ground rules, surely; as a minimum, let's

do that.

The area that I wanted to pursue, as I say,

regarding the crisis grant allocation is why, given that it appears to

be the case that more and more social assistance recipients do not have

enough money at the end of the month, no consideration has been given

to either (

a) increasing the sum of money allocated to crisis grants;

or (

b) perhaps simplifying the process whereby crisis grants are

allowed.

1 understand from my staff and my constituency

office that a regular, perennial complaint about dealing with MSS&H

is the difficulty in getting crisis grants. Individuals say that they

are made to leap through hoops. They are made to go the long way around

in what should be a relatively straightforward process. I'm wondering

if the minister would like to comment on that.

[4:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Yes, I would comment on that. I think the member can appreciate that

there's an equal allowance given to all people receiving assistance. If

you make it easy for those people who do not manage as well — for

whatever reason — then, of course, I guess you begin to break down the

system. If you have a crisis at the end of the month and you will

automatically be given extra funding — it will be easy to do — I think

that under those circumstances we could expect there may be a

substantial demand upon the service.

Having said that, I

appreciate there are extenuating circumstances, and that being on

social assistance is not a pleasant role for individuals. My concern

and my hope is that we will do all we can to get people away from that

situation to where they can be employed and have the good feeling of a

job and be self-supporting in the community and all the good things

that go with that for each person. That's not for the dollars we save,

but for the emotional comfort and satisfaction of the individual.

recognize the hardships that are perhaps inherent in it, but you can

appreciate that it's not a system we could make easy and still maintain

the levels with any kind of control mechanism.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm sorry my question was construed to be how we have to make it easier

insofar as we loosen up the rules or something like that. I'm not

talking about giving a signal to people that there's a blank cheque

waiting there in the welfare office or anything like that.

What

I'm suggesting is that when clear and compelling evidence has been

presented, then the system ought to be straightforward — ought to be

simple. I'm sure the minister didn't intend in his comment to suggest

that what we have to guard against is in any way loosening the

regulations because all of those welfare recipients out there are eager

to exploit and rip off the system. I hope he didn't mean to imply that

in his observation about making it easy.

Let me, though,

give him an example of what I mean by the kind of circumstance that

arises when an individual, as I say, runs out of money at the end of

the month due to circumstances, in effect, beyond that individual's

control. Take for example the B.C. Hydro policy of calculating the rate

owed for hydro. We know that the policy is based on the notion of an

equal monthly rate, and then they break it up accordingly. When Hydro

discovers it has miscalculated the rate, what happens to the individual

— and in this case, an individual on social assistance — is

[ Page 9989 ]

that he or she will be presented with a bill that must be paid in a very limited and short period of time.

could give specific examples from my own constituency, and I'm sure

they're not unique to Nanaimo. I suspect they are rather commonplace.

Those individuals in that situation have the evidence that the fault

was entirely Hydro's and had nothing to do with the individual. They

are on a tight budget and don't have any surplus to play with and are

suddenly confronted with that extra bill.

They are truly in

crisis. They can present the evidence of crisis. They can go to get a

crisis grant. The process however that is invoked and unfolds at that

point seems to be cumbersome and rather slow. Perhaps the minister

could disabuse me of that notion. Is it much faster than I think it is?

If it is anything like I think it is, then clearly there's considerable

room for improvement. Would the minister care to comment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

First of all, with B.C. Hydro as an example, they have an equalization

plan for all their customers. We do encourage people who are receiving

social assistance to use that plan so they can budget more evenly. I

think you should know that in 1989 we spent $4.2 million on crisis

grants. For '90-91 we're forecasting to spend $4.18 million for the

crisis grants. There has been a 7 percent decline in the caseload of

people receiving social assistance. The caseload is favourable. The

trend is favourable. It is coming down. But the comments you make are

in line with the response I gave to the question earlier. I recognize

there are people who do have difficulties at times.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm wondering if the minister can answer another question, turning away

from the area of crisis grants now specifically to shelter allowance.

Again, I'm looking at the estimates, but I don't think the figure is

broken down.

Has there been any increase in the shelter

allowance portion of GAIN payments in this budget? While the minister

is exploring that, I can perhaps add to the question just by providing

a little sense of the reason why I posed the question. I know one

answer is to say that there is obviously always a demand for more.

That's understandable when we're dealing with people who are in effect

living below the poverty line.

The issue now is that we

have for at least a year and a half been living in a buoyant and

booming real estate market. Clearly the shelter costs have risen

exorbitantly in many cases. If we have pegged the shelter allowance to

a non-buoyant market in which there was perhaps excess supply as

opposed to the absence of supply and exorbitant demand, then clearly

those individuals who require shelter allowance are going to be behind

the proverbial eight ball. I'm wondering if the minister could address

the matter about the shelter allowance portion of assistance.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

We recognize that the shelter costs have increased, and that it is a

problem. We're looking at increases in GAIN, and shelter is one of the

main components that we're considering in that increase. I'm also aware

that apparently fewer people are receiving the shelter allowance. That

is a concern and something that I will also be looking into.

MR. LOVICK :

I listened carefully to the minister's comment, and his last statement

was that "fewer people are receiving the shelter allowance." I'm sorry,

I misunderstand that. Would you explain that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

What I meant to say was that fewer people have rents covered by their

shelter allowance. We recognize that more people are having a problem

with this, and that is a concern. That's one of the things we're

looking at in the increase.

MR. LOVICK : I hope I'm

not being obtuse, Mr. Chairman. I'm just wondering if that is referring

to the phenomenon of homelessness — young people tenting in the

family's basement, that kind of thing. Is that the sort of phenomenon

we're looking at to explain "fewer people"? Again, I don't understand.

It would seem that all the evidence would go the opposite way, that

there would be more demand for that assistance. I'm wondering why it is

less.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : The point we're trying to

make is that we agree — the communication is apparently not coming over

very well. There are fewer people whose shelter is being covered by the

GAIN allowance. That's a concern we have, and that is one of the things

we have in mind when we're looking at a GAIN increase. The costs that

people are incurring for their shelter is a prime concern.

MR. LOVICK :

I appreciate the answer, and I certainly accept the sincerity of the

answer. Clearly we all recognize that shelter for a family of three at

500 bucks a month and for a single person at $275 at the moment....

Obviously, in any city within a 40-mile radius of Vancouver with a

population of more than 15,000, you wouldn't be able to do that, I

suspect. So I'm pleased to hear the minister is indeed committed to

pursuing that.

Another question, if I may, dealing with

GAIN again, specifically in this case GAIN for handicapped persons. All

of these questions, Mr. Minister, I would emphasize, come directly from

the trenches, if you like — the people working in the community. I

understand that there is a problem — and it seems, sadly, to be a

recurring one — of delay, a rather long turnaround time for

applications for the GAIN handicapped allowance. The example I have is

of a young man who applied some ten weeks ago, and the local office of

Social Services and Housing in Nanaimo still had not received any word

from the Victoria office. I'm told that is not aberrant but is in fact

becoming the trend. I'm wondering (

a) if the ministry staff is

[ Page 9990 ]

aware of that and (

b) what steps they're taking to deal with that serious problem.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The advice I have received is that there are in fact no delays. But

admittedly, there are a number of those particular complaints that are

complicated and take some time to process. We're not aware that there

is any delay in the system. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd

be pleased to receive the information, and I'd be happy to look into

that.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister

for that answer, and I will indeed be providing him and his officials

with that information.

Another question. Can the minister

confirm for me that individuals who are under 19 years of age and who,

for reasons that are entirely unique to them and their circumstances,

say they cannot live at home — there is an unhappy, unhealthy or

perhaps abusive environment — and who do not have the option of staying

at home, are routinely turned down by GAIN for social assistance? Is

that the case, and is that current policy or not?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

No, that's not the policy. We have a number of young people who are in

fact on GAIN at that age and younger. What happens when they apply for

assistance is that we check with the families to find out if they can

be provided for and if it's required that they be assisted. But if

their case is such that they require assistance, they get it. However,

I do think — and I think you'd agree — that that is not the place where

we want to.... What we want to do for those young people is to

encourage them to progress, develop and do things with their lives. But

the emergency help is there for them.

MR. REID : Keep the family intact.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I hear a voice from across the way saying "keep the family intact at all costs."

MR. REID : I didn't say "at all costs."

MR. LOVICK :

Okay. He says now that he didn't say "at all costs." But that reference

about keeping the family intact, unfortunately, doesn't grapple with

the reality that I announced a moment earlier. In some cases we're

talking about street kids who can't go home because of an abusive

relationship. That's the issue. We're not talking about just

disagreement or the need to stretch one's wings and find one's own way

or something. We're talking about a more serious problem, and I am sure

the minister would agree with that.

Your staff can perhaps

help with this question, Mr. Minister, because I don't expect you would

have it at your fingertips. Is it not the case that the ombudsman's

report last year referred to this problem of young people — presumably

underage people — being repeatedly turned down by SS and H and

therefore frequently ending up as street kids? Was that not reported?

[4:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I don't personally have the information, but I understand that it's not

the case. As a matter of fact, these young adults that you're talking

about are looked after.

I want to say that I am very

concerned about those people in society. I can feel the hardships and

difficulties some of these young people experience. The great problem

we have in our society is that families have in many cases broken down

and the casualties become these young people.

As has been

repeated here many times today, I have only had a few hours in the

ministry. But let me assure you that this is one of the areas that I

will be looking at to determine what the situation is and whether there

is something we can do to help. I am very concerned about the needs of

those young people. They are an important part of our society, and

they're in a situation that very often they could not avoid.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK :

I want to pose a couple of questions to the minister regarding the

rules and the regulations by which his staff and the offices operate —

concerning whether the criteria are perhaps too stringent and too

rigorous and too hidebound, not allowing enough latitude to the workers

to respond to crises and emergencies. I will give you a couple of

examples to illustrate the point.

For instance, we have the

case of students — and there are a number of these in my community

because Malaspina College, with an academic and a vocational division,

is resident there — who are approaching the end of a training program

or an academic year. Their student loans have run out and they find

themselves in a crisis with two months to go in a program or some such

thing. My understanding is that they have difficulty getting any

assistance at all, Rather they are told that if they want assistance,

they will probably have to quit school — which seems on the face of it

to be a counterproductive approach to providing assistance. Perhaps

that one example will suffice to give the minister a chance to respond.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

My response is that I don't believe that to be the case; but if it is,

I would certainly appreciate the member's providing me with an example.

Would you give me the details so that we can check that one out?

MR. LOVICK : I shall indeed give the minister the information. We certainly appreciate his receptivity and his willingness to investigate.

You

realize that, given the responses to the last two questions — "Give me

specific examples and I'll investigate" — I am courting the temptation

to bring in a very large file and just start naming cases and

[ Page 9991 ]

funnelling

huge numbers of these things to you. Who knows? I will check and that

may happen. You may indeed get a number of these things brought to your

personal attention.

A couple of other small points, Mr.

Minister, and then I'm done. I know that a number of people want to be

involved in this debate.

Is it the case that under current

policy, individuals can be denied tenancy in a particular apartment or

complex because they are on GAIN? Is that allowed practice? Any

regulations to protect against that happening?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

We are not, in this ministry, aware that that happens or of

regulations. We might come back to the question in another ministry

involving some of the same people in the near future. But no, not as

far as we're concerned.

I don't know whether the member was

making a bit of jest with the comment about the large files, but if you

have that sort of thing, then I invite you to bring those files. We

obviously can't, and should not, deal with those here, but you're

welcome to bring them to my office. We have the staff people there who

will be happy to look through them.

MR. LOVICK : I again thank the minister for the response.

The

minister made oblique reference to the fact that another ministry ought

really to pick up this question about that sort of discrimination. The

predicament we have — and I am sure I am telling you something of which

you are already well aware — is that our current human rights

legislation doesn't prohibit that kind of discrimination.

know that we push the edges of the estimates envelope if we start

talking about future policy and legislative initiatives. But I would

just flag that for the minister's attention — and for his colleagues'

attention — because I think it is a legitimate area. Certainly in a

buoyant real estate market, it's going to be a recurring problem.

Another

question, Mr. Minister. Let me just tell this story briefly and then

draft a question on it. Again it's one case, but one that I think is

sadly all too commonplace.

A young single parent contacted

my office not very long ago. She had a significant rental increase —

something like $85 a month. She approached her financial aid worker for

an increase in the shelter allowance and was told that she was

ineligible. Some four months later she was told by her new worker that

she had indeed been eligible and had been shorted by some $85 per month.

The

problem is that Social Services and Housing — and understandably, on

the face of it at least — will not pay retroactively. Curiously enough,

though, there is a special pain and poignancy to that case, because it

is inequitable in the extreme, when you consider that if a client is

overpaid by the ministry — if somebody receiving allowance happens to

be overpaid — the ministry is able to collect retroactively. How can we

possibly justify that glaring discrepancy in approaches? I would just

like to ask the minister if he could give me an answer to that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

It's not justifying it, but the facts are that the act does not allow

for retroactive payments. Each case is judged individually. There may

be some circumstances that are very special, but ordinarily,

retroactivity is not allowed. It can't be done. It's unfortunate that

that sort of thing would happen, but I think you can also appreciate

that there are a lot of people involved in the ministry dealing with a

lot of people and cases. Sometimes there will be errors made or

different opinions given and so on. It is very difficult to completely

avoid, although we always have to attempt to make sure that those

entitled to it do receive it.

MR. LOVICK : I want to

thank the minister for his answers; I appreciate that. I'm a little

concerned, though, that the response in this very short space of time

that the minister has had responsibility is that the act does not allow

it. I would hope that the answer would be and will prove to be that the

act as presently written doesn't allow it, but we will certainly look

into the matter and see whether there is indeed a compelling case for

changing the act. It seems to me that if the case I presented is in any

way commonplace, it is sufficient ground for changing the legislation.

Beyond

that, I will simply say that I appreciate the answers the minister has

given to me, plus the invitation to bring some particular cases to his

attention. He has my assurance that he will hear from me. Thank you,

Mr. Minister.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I wondered if the minister had received answers to the questions I asked earlier.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : The answer is rather lengthy. Permit me to read the information to you.

discussed previously, of the children discharged in '89-90, 98.9 had

only one placement. A further breakdown would show that of 851 children

discharged, the average number of placements was 1.75. By length of

time in care, children who stay longer than two years in care have an

average of one placement. Children staying in care two to five years

have an average of 1.48 placements. Those in care from five to nine

years have an average of 2.13 placements. Those in care more than ten

years have an average of 1.8 placements.

As a further

breakd