1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

3763 ]

CONTENTS

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 108). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 6. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3763

Amendment to add new

section 9(a). Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3763

Report and third reading — 3764

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 101). Committee

stage.

section 2. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3764

section 3. Mr. Morrison — 3767

Report and third reading — 3767

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 106). Committee

stage.

section 1. Mr. Wallace — 3768

Report and third reading — 3769

Mining Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 122). Committee, report and third reading

— 3769

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 140). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Nicolson

— 3770

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 109. Mr. Fraser — 3770

Appendix — 3784

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker,

committee on Bill 108.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 108; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 6.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : Mr. Chairman, I had to agree with my educated

friend from Edinburgh that the word "bicycle" and the

definition thereof did repel me, I think as much as it repelled

him. There was rather an Alice-in-Wonderland tone to the

language, but as I rather suspected, it is not just as simple

to add a couple of words and solve all the problems related to

legislation. So as nearly as I can do it in the time that has

been available, I would move the following amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have only

section 6 before the committee.

There is an amendment before the committee.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would ask that that amendment be

disposed of, Mr. Chairman. I cannot accept that amendment

because of the complications which I rather expected would be

involved in accepting it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member is not here. Therefore, unless

someone else proposes the amendment, the amendment is

dropped.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, the amendment is dropped.

I would move an amendment by deleting

section 6 and

substituting the following:

"Section 121 is amended: (

a) by striking out the definition

of bicycle and inserting the following definition after the definition of crosswalk:

'cycle' means a device having any number of wheels that is propelled by human

power and on which a person may ride; and (

b) in the definition of traffic,

by striking out bicycles and substituting cycles."

I would move that amendment and then....

I don't know whether I have to put it all in one motion because there is another

section I have to amend also. I'll read you the whole thing and you can give

me advice, Mr. Chairman:

"...by adding the following after

section 9" — which is

actually a new section, 9(a) — which says

section 173 and the

heading preceding it are amended by: "striking out bicycle and

bicycles wherever they appear and substituting cycle and

cycles, respectively, in each case."

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Well done!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know whether it is one motion,

two motions — but it gets rid of the Alice-in-Wonderland

quality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will be a brief pause while the Chairman

seeks advice from his counsel.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting, I

wonder if I could give the order of the bills to the

opposition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We're on 108. The next will be 101, 106,

122, and 140.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now considering an amendment to

section

On the amendment.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I speak in favour of the

amendment, if only to acknowledge that every now and again in

this House sanity prevails.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 9(a).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would move that

section and say that,

yes, I always believe in sanity. Sanity always prevails.

MR. WALLACE: Not here it doesn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, sure it does. Anyway, I think we have

solved that very tough problem that you presented me with this

afternoon.

Section 9(

a) approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move

[ Page 3764 ]

the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as

reported?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With consent, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 108, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1975, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 101.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 101; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

this is the

section which is the obvious companion to the bill

introduced by the Hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson),

and which will remove the renter's grant this year from people

who are under the age of 65. The explanatory notes which were

given in that bill were that it would be compensated for by an

amendment to the Income Tax Act. It is

section 2 of this bill

which provides the missing link.

The Hon. Premier, when he gave his budget address this year

so many weeks ago — months ago — promised this to the people of

British Columbia as being a new method by which the renter's

grant would be available to the people of British Columbia. One

needs to pay very careful attention to the words in

section 2

to understand precisely what it is that the government now

proposes. It takes some care to examine the situation. While

the Hon. Premier in his budget address talked about gross

income, in fact, it should be noticed that in this bill the

renter's grant will be determined upon a person's taxable

income as opposed to his gross income.

Assuming, as the Premier did, a taxpayer with a family of four, it is easy

to determine what renter's grant the government will pay this year. It amounts

to this: if you have no taxable income, then you are entitled to a renter's

grant of $100. If you have a taxable income of $10,000, then you are entitled

to no renter's grant whatsoever.

Within that range, the government is now offering to the

renters of British Columbia some assistance. I think that what

they are offering to the renters in British Columbia is not

much assistance at all. Surely, it will provide some

assistance, to a maximum of $100, to those people who are in

the very lowest income bracket. That's about $8 a month. When I

consider the extent to which the government is prepared to

subsidize the taxes of people who have much higher incomes and

much greater wealth — I speak, as I spoke in earlier debates,

of practically everyone in this House who owns his own home.

Everyone in this House who owns his own home is currently

getting from the Government of British Columbia a much higher

subsidy towards the cost of shelter than anyone who happens to

be a renter in this province.

When, as I say, you consider a person with a zero taxable

income — you're talking about a man and a wife with three

children — you're talking about a man who earns only about

$4,150 a year, and he gets $8 a month. I think that this is a

very frugal, almost spiteful assistance on the part of the

Government of British Columbia to the people who cannot afford,

for a number of reasons, to own their own homes.

I think it's regretful that the government should have taken

this move with all the fanfare that was given by the Premier in

his budget address to this momentous assistance to people in

British Columbia who have a serious problem with respect to

providing themselves with accommodation. It's difficult enough

to get a place to rent, but having got a place to rent, it's

obvious that a very limited number of citizens in British

Columbia are going to gain any benefit.

I think the time has perhaps long since passed when the

government must totally review the extent to which it is

prepared to contribute to individuals in this province with

regard to the provision of their accommodation. There is a

marked distinction between those people who have the down

payment and the income to enable them to acquire a home with

all of the obligations that go with that home today.

There's a marked distinction between them and those young

people and those old people in our communities who cannot

afford to own or maintain their own homes. The government in

this particular legislation is, I think, re-emphasizing the

distinction between these two categories of our citizens, and

in re-emphasizing it I would have thought the government would

have made a more generous gesture to the people who are in the

renter class.

Young people today face an almost impossible task of

acquiring their own homes. They are almost virtually destined

to be renters for many, many years. When you consider the wage

rates which are currently

[ Page

3765 ]

being paid in the Province of British Columbia, when I

suggest to you that a taxable income of $10,000 — which at the

very minimal standards is a gross income of $14,000 — produces

a zero grant, then you recognize how many of our young citizens

are being given no assistance by this government

whatsoever.

It would be easy for me to vote against this bill just on

this basis. I don't propose to because there is one other

saving grace found in

section 2, and that is that with respect

to senior citizens, people over the age of 65 years, they will

be afforded the minimum grant of $80 a year to assist them in

meeting their rent obligation, regardless of what their income

might be. But I think that we can't let this opportunity pass

at this particular time again to draw the distinction that the

government has allowed to exist between those who I believe are

very fortunate in our community and those who are not. That

covers a wide spectrum of people in age groups, a wide spectrum

of people in income groups as well.

I must also draw the attention of the committee to one other

consequence of this

section as it is presently drafted. I

recognize that it is a message bill and one which is therefore

not within the competence of a private Member to amend. But

really, Mr. Chairman, it discriminates against married people.

If you look very closely at the section, you will note that of

people who are married, the principal taxpayer, and the one

that is therefore entitled to enjoy the renter's tax credit, is

the one of the spouses who has the higher income.

So you have a husband and wife situation and if the

husband's income is higher than that of the wife, then he

qualifies as the principal taxpayer and it is on his taxable

income that the decision is made as to whether a tax credit is

allowed or not. But if you have people who live together who

are not married, then obviously there's a choice available. The

obvious choice is for the individual with the lower income to

choose to claim the renter's tax credit.

We had this before under the previous government. I remember

the Hon. Premier criticizing the previous government for

encouraging the common-law relationship and discouraging the

relationship of married people. Yet here we find enshrined in

this legislation precisely the same principle. I would hope

that the government would give serious consideration to a

change in this to ensure that such disparity is not allowed to

continue to persist in this province.

There's another and final problem, and it may only seem a

minor one, but I detect in this

section an obligation on the

part of the person who seeks this renter's tax grant to file a

tax return. This is only going to encourage the pushing of more

paper, at the great cost that there is to government

departments, in order to get this grant. If you don't file a

tax return, there's no way you can gain benefit from

section 2

of this Act.

Now the federal government has been at great pains over

recent years to ensure that people who have no taxable income

need not go through the difficulty of preparing and filing a

tax return. It's no longer required. Yet we have in this bill

implicit the requirement that in order to gain any benefits

from the renter's tax credit, you must file an income tax

return. It may be that you have no taxable income. It may be

that you have no income at all, but in order to gain the

benefit, you've got to file a return.

Lastly, I would ask the Minister who has charge of this bill

at the moment to indicate to me what the consequence will be

if, contrary to the provisions of subsection (9), an agreement

is not reached with, the national government. Subsection

(9) contemplates that if an agreement is reached with the national

government, then the matter of refunds in the amount of the tax

credit will flow back to the taxpayer, or offsetting tax

credits will be made available to the taxpayer. That will be

the way in which the matter is handled. And then the British

Columbia government pays the Canadian government and the

Canadian government pays the taxpayer.

I'd like to know what the government has in mind if it is

unable to reach an agreement with the national government for

this to take place. In what way can people who qualify for the

renter's tax credit make their application and receive the

benefit which the government is prepared to make? The benefit,

as I say, is minimal enough as it is, and obviously it's a

benefit this government is going to make as difficult as they

possibly can for anyone to receive. We know the difficulty

there was in the previous renter's grant. The government was at

some pains to take paid advertisements in newspapers

encouraging — begging, if you will, Mr. Chairman — people to

make application for the renters' grants. What will they do in

this case, when the receipt of such a benefit requires not

merely a simple application, but instead the filing of a tax

return?

What other, if any, opportunity will the government extend

to taxpayers in British Columbia to take advantage of this

legislation? And it should be well recognized that under the

terms of this legislation "taxpayer" does not mean a person who

pays tax. It in fact means any person in the Province of

British Columbia, whether he has taxable income or not. The

legislation makes that quite clear. So within this framework of

rather difficult procedures I think the government should make

clear the way in which they will move to ensure that the people

who should be enjoying this minimal benefit will be able to

gain such assistance as the government is able to offer.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman,

the Hon. Member made several points and I think in a way agreed

with the intent of the

[ Page 3766 ]

legislation, which is to help those on low incomes. He kept

pointing out over and over that all it was really doing was

helping those on lower incomes but not helping them enough. Now

certainly anything that the government or any government does

for those people who need it most is never enough. But this is

a start on a programme of helping people who are paying rent.

Previously this kind of assistance was available only to

homeowners. Last year a move was made to have some assistance

available to renters. This year it has been changed and the

amount of assistance increased. But the emphasis is on those

who need it most, admittedly, and that's the intent. That's

what we wanted to do, help those who need it most.

The Hon. Member is concerned that those who own their own

homes actually get more assistance. Then he went on to say that

they have more obligations. Of course they do. That was in your

remarks; you may have to wait until you read it in the Blues.

But they do have more obligations, and certainly owning a home

carries with it more expenses. There are repairs, redecorating

and that sort of thing that add to the cost of actually owning

your own home;

whereas a person renting usually is faced with

the rent itself and that's....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Cut the grant? The homeowner grant? That

would be one way of evening them, to cut the homeowner grant.

However, we have no intention of reducing the homeowner grant;

we have every intention of increasing this sort of assistance

from time to time.

The homeowner grant was established originally to encourage

people to own their own home, to give them some financial

encouragement to owning their own home, It's a principle that

we think is worth supporting. But we do feel that there should

be some recognition of the fact that for some people, for one

reason or another — whether they can't afford it or choose not

to or it's not convenient, whatever — there should be some

assistance, particularly for those on the lower income. This

section does provide for that.

Yes, there is the necessity to file an income tax return.

There has to be some way of establishing the taxable income.

The income tax return is a convenient way of establishing just

exactly what that taxable income is. If, indeed, the taxable

income is zero, well the income tax form.... I said

convenient. Perhaps some people find it not so convenient as

others find it. That's possible.

Nevertheless, it's a relatively convenient way of establishing just what is

the taxable income, and one doesn't have to file a tax return if one doesn't

want to bother, even if you have to get professional assistance at the rate

of perhaps a minimum return of $40 to claim $100. If he doesn't want to bother

spending $10 to claim $100, he needn't file his tax return. Then he, of course,

will not qualify under this legislation. That's the way it is written today.

Another day it may be changed, but under the legislation as it is now written,

admittedly it does require the filing of a tax return to qualify for the credit.

As far as reaching agreement with the federal government,

agreement has been reached. While it has not been formalized,

similar agreements have been reached and have been formalized

with the Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. We've been

given every assurance by Ottawa that they will formalize

similar agreements with B.C., so we have absolutely no concern

on that score.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for his response. I

think that what the Minister says is a clear indication of the

way this government is going, but I also think that it has got

to be put clearly into perspective, The fact of the matter is that any Member of this House

receives from the Government of British Columbia $200 per year

to subsidize his costs for accommodation — $200 per year. Now

certainly if you own your own home or your own condominium, you

have to pay your taxes, you have to pay your upkeep, your

maintenance and all the other things that go with it. But if

any one Member of this assembly wishes to change his lifestyle,

sell his home and rent an apartment, the fact of the matter is

that he will get nothing from the government to subsidize his

accommodation — nothing. And once he is a renter he will,

through his rent, still contribute to the tax burden on the

apartment building or home or whatever it is he rents. He will

still contribute to the cost of upkeep and maintenance of that

dwelling. He will meet all of the expenses, one way or the

other, that we meet as homeowners.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): That can't happen.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Of course it can happen.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The opposition says there is no rental

accommodation, so how can you sell your house and rent?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, now, Mr. Chairman, if the Hon.

Member for Kamloops wishes to raise that other problem created

by this government, and discuss the fact that there isn't any

accommodation at all in the Province of British Columbia, I'd

be happy to discuss that with him in debate. But I was very

carefully leaving that aside from my remarks at the moment.

[ Page 3767 ]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There's a 20 per cent vacancy in

Kamloops.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The fact of the matter is if anyone wants

to go and live in Kamloops, then of course they've got it made,

but I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you want to go and live in

Kamloops and you are a renter, the very best you can get from

this government is $100. But if you go to Kamloops and you want

to become a homeowner and can afford to do it, this government

will give you $200. Now I ask you, Mr. Member for Kamloops, if

you think that is fair to the people who may wish to go and

live in your constituency.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Do you want to

withdraw the homeowner grant?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It is that disparity, MT. Chairman, that

I raised with the committee in discussion. I don't want to get

into an inflamed debate about this, but I am quite happy to if

the case arises. I'm only pointing out that as between two

classes of our citizens — home owners and home renters — the

government is making an unfortunate distinction, and it is a

distinction which is not based upon their contribution to the

community.

They all pay their share of taxes. They all pay their share

of maintenance and upkeep of the facilities in which they

reside, and let the government not be confused about this. The

distinction is clearly one, Mr. Chairman, of those who can

afford in these days to own their own homes and those who

cannot afford to own their own homes, aside from all the other

problems. I'm not going to vote against this bill. I welcome

the opportunity of making sure that someone who has an income

of $4,000 a year or less gets $100 assistance from this

government. How can anyone do otherwise? I only point out that

in taking away the renter's grant — as was done in another bill

— and substituting this, makes it quite clear that the

government is highlighting this distinction between these two

classes of our citizens.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it's really the homeowner

and the tenant themselves who make the distinction rather than

the government. It's the individual involved who decides

whether he is going to be a homeowner or whether he is going to

be a tenant. It's not always financial. Some people choose to

rent. They rent houses, they rent apartments because they

choose that lifestyle or because it's convenient because of

their work or something else. So it's not simply that we're

making a distinction. We are distinguishing in the

treatment.

I think it's worth noting also that the community does subsidize renters in

a sense in that when you own your own home you pay out of your own earned income,

or what's left of it after you pay income tax and everything else, all the costs

of maintaining that home. When you rent an apartment, many of the costs of maintaining

that apartment and the building of which that apartment is a part are charged

against the taxable income of the person — whether that person be an individual

or a corporation — and reduce the amount of income tax that is collected.

In a sense the community is already subsidizing people who

rent rather than people who own their own homes. I did say

earlier that the emphasis on this legislation is to help those

in the lower income. It is giving more help to those on lower

income than was available under this system last year, and last

year was the first year that any assistance was available at

all other than the indirect form of assistance that I remarked

about.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On

section 3, I wonder if the

Minister could give us an indication of how much additional

money is expected to be raised by this alteration.

HON. MR. STUPICH:

Section 3 is one that has been introduced

completely at the request of the federal government to bring it

in line with its taxing. It is not intended as a revenue item

really; it is just meant to be more equitable treatment of this

foreign tax situation. We have to depend on federal

calculations and we don't have any federal estimates as to how

much this is going to affect either their income or ours.

Section 3 approved.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 101, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 106, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page

3768 ]

MUNICIPALITIES AID AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 106; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 1.

MR. WALLACE: This bill, which only has one section, is

really the first step towards correcting some of the

inadequacies of the per capita grant — the very system by which

the municipalities receive a great deal of their financing. In

fact, apart from the property tax which municipalities level

against property owners, the per capita grant has to be a major

source of funding.

While it is clear that the government is, in some way,

trying to rectify the shortfall, as it were, that the

municipalities have suffered between 1966 and 1971, I think two

points should be made: this really is a very inadequate and

partial approach to the problem and the per capita grant, per

se, has been discussed time and time again in this House and

shown to be an unfair and inadequate way of providing financing

to the municipalities. We needn't go through all of the

different arguments. Basically, I think it is important to

point out that the per capita grant was, in the first place,

settled on a very arbitrary figure. I can only gather that as

increases have been allowed over the years, the increases have

been very arbitrary and have not really taken cognizance of

some of the increasing costs of the municipalities in relation

to a variety of factors such as inflation and living costs.

Worse than that, of course, as the per capita grant has been

increased from year to year it has really not in any way

proportionally reflected the increase in revenue of the

provincial government. The per capita grant allocations seem to

have been very much at the whim of the government of the day.

It has gone up from $30 in 1971 to $34 in 1974. This really is

a very insubstantial increase. In other words, it is an

increase of 13 per cent. As you look at some of the related

factors — and I am quoting from the brief which the UBCM

recently presented to the government, so these are very recent

figures — the total provincial revenues per capita between 1971

and 1976 rose by 138 per cent. The provincial revenues per

capita from the personal, corporation, capital, succession and

gift taxes rose by 179 per cent. The provincial revenue per

capita from sales and fuel taxes rose by 124 per cent. Yet we

have this example that the provincial per capita grant rose by

13 per cent.

So this bill, while it will help.... I want to touch on the bill in more detail

in just a moment. While the principle of

section 1 and the details will help

in trying to take cognizance of population changes, it really is doing nothing

other than that, being a partial, stop-gap measure. The per capita system itself

is really not fair; it is not adequate as between certain municipalities with

a large industrial and commercial tax base and other municipalities who are

not that fortunate. It also is inadequate because of the arbitrary nature by

which the provincial government can choose to increase the grant out of any

relationship to provincial government revenues. I won't pursue that argument

any further, because we get a little beyond the details of

section 1.

To look more specifically at the specifics of

section 1, on

page 30 of the budget speech the Premier and Minister of

Finance about halfway down the first column on page 30 states

that by 1976 the loss that the municipalities incurred over the

1966-71 period by virtue of having been paid on the 1966

population count will be totally offset. These are the two

particular words I would like to stress — "totally offset."

This bill in fact does not do that, because the bill seems to

be based on the premise that of those municipalities that did

have an increase, the increase in population only increased

during 1971. It's quite obvious that the population of the

municipalities rose more or less steadily each year over a

period of five years. There is a compounding effect, both in

terms of the population growth and in recognition of the grant,

which did change from year to year.

According to the UBCM — the Minister may choose to question

this, but I'm quoting from statistics which they tell me are

accurate — "the compounding factor of the year-by-year

population increases and the figure increase for the grant...that the government will reimburse municipalities $6.8 million

or approximately 60 per cent of the losses which were incurred

in the period from 1966 to 1971." The proposal in the UBCM

brief was that a formula which averaged out the population

increases over the five years and added them cumulatively each

year would provide for the other 40 per cent. So we certainly

agree that this bill in

section 1 is a step in the right

direction, but there are two major points which must be made at

this time.

First of all, the per capita grant approach to municipal

financing has so many disadvantages and is so apparently

arbitrary and so unrelated to changing revenues by whatever

yardstick, whether we use the yardstick of personal,

corporation, capital, succession and gift taxes, or whether we

use taxes derived from fuel and sales tax. By either yardstick

the situation is unsatisfactory as a measure per se, regardless

of any other factor. The trouble is doubled, I might say, by

the arbitrary way in which the per capita grant is handled.

Secondly, the commitment made in the budget speech that this

bill would provide total offsetting of the losses which have

occurred between 1966 and 1971 does not seem to be valid in the

terms of

section 1. So while I am not speaking against the

section, I am just saying that there are two rather

[ Page

3769 ]

basic deficiencies, one of a more general nature in relation

to per capita grants per se, and a second which relates more

specifically to an apparent inadequacy in the formula outlined

section 1.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay, has certainly outlined the inadequacies of

the per capita grant for municipalities. I don't think there is

any Member on this side of the House who would disagree with

the points he made tonight and which have been made on so many

occasions in the past.

A couple of questions for the Minister who is piloting the

bill, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

Would this catch-up per capita payment be added to the monthly

payments which are sent out by the province to the various

municipalities, or is it seen that this would be handled in a

one- or two-step lump-sum payment through the course of the

year in question?

Secondly, perhaps the Minister would care to comment on

reports I have received very recently which suggest that the

government is just a little delinquent in its payments — not

seriously delinquent, but I think the May per capita payments

to municipalities were perhaps 10 days or two weeks late. That

may be a minor mechanical problem; if so, I would be reassured

by that. The June payments have not yet been received in most

cases.

While there are inadequacies, as I mentioned a moment ago,

these monthly payments are particularly important, particularly

so during the first part of the calendar year when

municipalities are operating on borrowed money, by and large —

that is, they are waiting for their tax revenues which come in

in the summer months. If the Minister could comment on those

two points, I would appreciate it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If I might respond to the remarks from the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) first. Admittedly, there is no compounding in that.

Of course, in reading the passage from the budget speech, it is a matter of

how you read it. We interpret it that this legislation is doing what we said

it would do. In fairness — and when I am talking about the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay, I feel can say "in fairness" because I think he is trying to be fair and

does invariably try to be fair — we have to be careful we don't take this thing

in isolation. There are other features, other programmes that we have undertaken

to assist municipalities. While the increase in the per capita grants in the

last three years might be only 13 per cent, this particular provision, which

will amount to about $6.8 million, added to the absolutely new provision of

$20 million that is provided this year will actually give us a 42 per cent increase

over what would have been paid to the municipalities if there had been no changes

in this one year. In those two areas there is quite a substantial increase,

apart from other programmes that are going on to assist municipalities. So there

is a substantial increase. There is no compounding; that is the way the legislation

reads.

As far as the payments — whether it is going to be paid monthly or how — it will be paid over the remaining months of

the year, that is, the months remaining after this legislation

becomes law. There is delay from time to time. I really don't

like to blame delays or anything else on computers; it is

people who work computers. Sometimes there is delay because of

things like that. In this particular instance, there was some

deliberate holdup in anticipation that.... You know, some

people seemed to have some crazy idea that the House was going

to adjourn. It just didn't happen. It was felt by the

administration in the Finance department that we would have

adjourned by now and that the payments for April and May could

have included a portion of this $6.8 million. That didn't

happen, so the payments were finally authorized on the old

basis. Hopefully, if we adjourn before the time for the next

bi-monthly payment, it will include it. If not, well, then,

perhaps the next time around.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Give it to them for

Christmas.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 106, Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 122.

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 122 1; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the

[ Page

3770 ]

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 122, Mining Tax Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, last year there was a

complete rewriting of the Strata Titles Act. I think it is a

tribute to the legislative council, the input from the real

property division of the bar association, and others, that such

a tremendous overhaul of the Strata Titles Act, and embodying

some new sections and concepts, such as space strata title

plans and other innovations, were able to come in without too

much criticism or comment.

There have been a few minor changes in

interpretation. The

major change in this bill would be the not restricting of the

definition of "municipality" — that is, no longer to exclude

village municipalities as an approving authority under the

Act.

Most of the other changes are towards a clarification of the

original intent which may have been there legally, but has been

put into clearer legal definition. I think the bulk of the Act

would be best discussed in committee stage, So I would move

second reading.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Minister of

Housing — this is a fairly lengthy bill and is more

appropriately dealt with in committee stage.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 140, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 197 5, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the

House to move to Committee of Supply, permitting debate.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I won't occupy too much of the

committee's time here tonight, but I have a few questions to

ask the Minister.

I believe the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

brought up Indian land claims, and I heard his answer that

they're finally going to have a meeting with the Government of

Canada and, I assume, the B.C. Indian chiefs here next

week.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): On the

cut-offs.

MR. FRASER: On the cut-off lands — that's fine. But I would

like to ask what Mr. Howard is doing. He was engaged by your

department as an adviser on Indian affairs, and I'd like to

know what he's doing. How much is he getting paid and how much

has he got around to the communities of British Columbia? In my

riding of Cariboo, we have lots of native Indians — about 5,000

of them. They're all good citizens, but there's lots of games

going on. We have an area west of Nazko, and that's been held

up for over a year. Logging camps proceed in a large area there

west of this community for 70 miles. At Alexis Creek, which is

in the Chilcotin, there's some logging stopped there. Most

recently, from Redstone, in the central part of the Chilcotin,

notification has been given by that band to all the cattlemen

with legal grazing permits — not like Lloyd Bennett, who didn't

have a legal grazing permit, that I brought up in the House.... Their turnout date there for the cattle was, I believe,

the latter part of May, and those permits are valid until

sometime in the latter part of September, but the Redstone band

has given notification to every cattleman under permit to get

his animals off the Crown range by June 20. I think that's

tomorrow. They don't say what they're going to do about it,

but I want to advise the Minister that these cattle people are

really concerned. I think it involves 3,000 or 4,000 head of

beef animals under permit from the grazing division of the

Forest Service, and it's quite legal. They're told to get their

cattle off the range by June 20, which as I say is

tomorrow.

In this general area of Redstone, there is a good lake

called Puntzi Lake. It's excellent for fishing. There are a lot

of fishing resorts on there, and the same Indian band has told

them to desist and stop fishing the lake. The resort owners are

concerned

[ Page

3771 ]

because the natives say that they own the fish in the lake

and no one is to continue fishing there again after June

What I'm trying to point out to the Minister before he has

the discussions next week is that we already have a very

aggravated problem here. I really think that what the natives

want is some discussions with government, but it is getting

serious. That's all I have to say on the Indian land claim

problem that this Minister's responsible for.

I have two or three questions to ask regarding Human

Resources. I would like to refer to day-care centres. I would

like to know the policy of the department on recovery of

day-care centre costs from the parent or parents. What is the

policy of collection? Is there any attempt made to collect? I

am referring to parents who can afford to pay. What kind of an

attempt is made for recovery?

That leads me to another subject in his department that I

have only recently come across. That is the subject of Mincome.

I would like to hear from the Minister how big an effort this

department is making to recover Mincome from people who have

already been paid it. I refer to cases where a person on

Mincome leaves British Columbia in November or December to go

to Alberta to visit with his son or daughter for Christmas and stays on probably until March or

April and then comes back to British Columbia. The permanent

home has not changed at all; it is still here, although in the

cases I have heard they are single people. Now they are being

harassed by the Department of Human Resources for recovery of

the Mincome that was paid them because they have been out of

the province for a period of probably not more than four

months. I would like to know the policy on that. The parties I

have talked to can get nothing in writing. All they get is

insulting phone calls from the Department of Human Resources

demanding return of this money. So much for that.

I congratulated the Minister, I believe it was last year,

when he reduced the welfare costs to municipalities from 15 per

cent to 10 per cent. But I have some documentation to show me

that even with this reduction in percentage of net cost, the

cost to municipalities is up in dollars. There are not too many

cases, but I think the worst I have in front of me that I could

point out was in the year 1973. I wish the Member for Kamloops

(Mr. G.H. Anderson) were here to bring this up.

I understand these are net costs that I'm talking about. In

1973 it was $594,261. Even after the reduction from 15 to 10

per cent, in 1974 their costs had spiraled to $749,284.

Surrey shows a slight increase from $1,707,000 to

$1,844,000. Burnaby shows a slight increase from $1,947,000 to

$2,008,000, and so on down the line.

Certainly the worst one that is on this sheet I have shows a 50 per cent increase

in costs to the City of Kamloops. I realize there was a boundary change that

probably had something to do with that. I would like to hear from the Minister

on these few items I have raised.

In conclusion, does he feel that the costs of welfare to

municipalities and the reduction from 15 to 10 per cent is

because of inflated costs and is it due for a review so it will

stop their costs from going higher than it even was before?

HON. MR. LEVI: The Member initially asked about the

situation with the Nazko. The Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is on his way up there

tonight to meet with 15 bands tomorrow. That meeting was

arranged over the past several weeks.

MR. FRASER: Where are they meeting, do you know?

HON. MR. LEVI: In Williams Lake. It is being held tomorrow,

and he left tonight to attend. You were aware of that.

Discussions will take place tomorrow.

You asked about the work that Frank Howard does, Along with

Mr. Filipchin from the Attorney-General's department he has

been doing the research that was needed to put together,

particularly with respect to the cut-off lands. He was also

meeting on a regular basis with a number of the representatives

from the two Indian organizations — that is, BCANSI and the

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. He has also visited a number of

bands at their request.

We have not in any way sent Mr. Howard on an investigation

trip. We had an agreement with the Indians that they would

request from us the kinds of services they required, and a

number of them did. He has been involved in the Port Simpson

development situation. When he was back in Ottawa he had

discussions with the Department of Fisheries when we were

attempting to get more licences for the cannery. He has been

involved in discussions on the Burns Lake Native Development

Corp. He has a continuing role in a number of these things. His

salary was, I think, announced publicly, and I think it is

$30,000 a year.

You asked about day-care centres and recovery from parents.

You will know that in the annual report, on page 30, there is a

series of statements about day care.

We have an income-tested and needs-tested programme which is

based on the income of the family where we have a sliding scale

and the scale is in the report. So we are not paying, in some

cases, all of the day-care costs; we are only paying a subsidy,

part of the costs. There is a level at which people pay no

costs at all and that's usually on the very low-income

[ Page 3772 ]

level, particularly people on social assistance. There are

people, of course, paying full costs in day care — people who

utilize the private day care. But there is an income-tested and

needs-tested programme within that. It's the only one that

exists in Canada at the moment. Other provinces are attempting

to get to get into it.

What we've been able to do is to move the number of people

that can use the programme beyond what previously existed,

which was only at the welfare level. So we've made that kind of

expansion. It's on an income-tested programme, basically, so

it's based on the needs in terms of their net income. There are

a number of things that are taken into account. There is no

recovery as such, but neither are there full payments where

people can pay some of it. So it's on that basis.

On the question of the Mincome people who leave the

province, there is a policy that if someone leaves the province

they receive a cheque in the month that they leave, then

cheques are stopped, and they receive a cheque again when they

return. I mentioned earlier this afternoon that we are making

somewhere around 8,000 corrections and adjustments to our

Mincome programme — that's the total Mincome and handicapped

programme — every month. Some of this involves people who are

leaving, who've notified us. Some people do not notify us. Some

people work out some arrangement. That's very difficult to

track down. I am concerned about the Member's statement that

people were getting insulting remarks. If that is the case I'd

certainly like to know about it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I'd certainly like to know about the

cases because we've spent quite a bit of time in the department

improving the PR. As a result we get a large number of letters

from people either laying complaints or making compliments, and

we try to follow them all up, so I would be happy to hear from

the Member on that.

On the municipal costs, the Member did answer the question

himself about Kamloops. There was the incorporation which led

to the increased costs because two other municipalities were

incorporated.

The general situation is this. You'll recall that last July we did increase

the welfare rates by $20 to each group. That does reflect an increase for the

municipalities on their 10 per cent. The caseloads, as I reported last year,

were climbing somewhat; therefore the caseloads do reflect an increase. We will

be able to have the final figures for this year, and I think they're very much

in terms of what we predicted and not, as far as we can see, anything over last

year. They were perhaps within it, but I don't think they're over. We haven't

got the final figures and won't have probably for another few weeks, but then

we will release them. I think before the UBCM meets we'll make that available.

We're not aware that it's exceeded the amount of money paid

last year, but certainly inflation has caused some problems

with the economic situation for the number of people that are

coming on and going off welfare. Particularly, the increase

there is in the family units where inflation hits the hardest.

The single person situation has held fairly firm.

The Surrey situation, again, is a particular problem. I

talked about it this morning. There people have access to lower

rental housing and people are moving out there, and that is a

problem. I was talking the other day to the Vancouver

opportunities people — the incentive programme in Vancouver —

and they have an average of 250 to 300 people who go off the

programme and move out to places like Burnaby, Surrey and the

Delta area. Certainly Surrey has a particular problem in this

area. I think they have a very high incidence of people who are

on welfare.

I think, if I'm not mistaken, I've covered all the

questions. I would like just before I sit down to make some

comment. The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

made some reference this afternoon to the question of Mincome

and the regulations. I just want to assure the House that

nothing has changed in respect to eligibility. He was reading

from the regulations and he quoted 5(l)(f), which says:

"A person 60 years of age or older without dependents has

assets exceeding $1,500 in value, or a person 60 years of age or older with

dependents has assets valued in excess of $2,500, where there is one dependent,

and an excess of an additional $300 for each additional dependent."

I have as much trouble as anybody else understanding what

that says. When we first introduced Mincome we made no

reference to the length of stay in the country. Then we made

the decision but instituted a kind of a close monitoring system

so that the Mincome programme was not being used to attract

people from other countries. Subsequently, when we noted the

trend we put on the freeze, and a provision was made that an

individual had to reside in Canada five years in order to be

eligible for Mincome. We made that change, because in reality

we were interfering a little bit with the Department of

Immigration provision of sponsored and nominated

immigration.

It was necessary to provide and this is the

section that the

Member raised through social assistance for persons 60 years of

age or over who, for one reason or another — mainly because of

the length of their stay in Canada — did not qualify for

Mincome. Those people over the age of 60 would then have access

to social assistance. It is that regulation that he was

referring to.

[ Page 3773 ]

In April, 1974, we issued a memo in respect to this to the

field, subsequently followed up, on May 28, by another one.

Then what we have done is to incorporate it in the regulations.

So there is no change other than what I announced in the

regulations. When I was talking to some of the press, I said

that we were incorporating some policies which had been

adopted, and which had not previously been incorporated into

the regulations. There is no change at all in the eligibility

of the Mincome programme. I am sorry that the Member isn't

here, but I will make available to him a copy of the memo.

MR. WALLACE: I don't want to be repetitious. Maybe the

Minister has notes of some of the questions I asked just prior

to noon hour, but there were one or two points I wanted to

develop. I am referring particularly to social assistance

initially.

It is interesting that in the Minister's annual report, on

page 62, he mentions that higher social assistance rates have

had some effect in extending eligibility to borderline income

recipients not previously eligible. Often these recipients are

men and women who work full-time, but at less than adequate

wages. I presume the Minister is referring to people on minimum

income.

HON. MR. LEVI: Low-income families.

MR. WALLACE: We know that 40 per cent of the work force are

the sector that receives minimum wage, or little more than

minimum wage. We have talked many times about incentives and

disincentives. This is part of the area about which I wanted to

question the Minister.

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

In the first place, I particularly want to discuss the

question of the $50 earnings for a single person and $100 for a

family on welfare. In our party we believe that there is a

tremendous challenge waiting to be taken up to try and get some

of these marginal people once and for all out of the in-and-out

welfare system. Again, to be fair, the steps that have been

taken of $50 and $100 are steps in the right direction.

But, as the Minister himself has said, that 15 per cent of

employables are not all the same group. Some of them are on for

a month or two and then they are off; they are in and out. When

I spoke this morning, I wanted to ask the Minister his reaction

to the feasibility of, let us say, a five-year transitional

period when we try to eliminate welfare for that 15 per cent

who are employable and who, with the right programmes of

training, employment and incentives need never be on

welfare.

This basically will certainly be this party's approach to

welfare in the next provincial election.

We are convinced that this is a much more productive plan in

the long run. It makes sense. I am very interested to know if

there are any basic reasons that the government has found in

implementing its plans as to why this proposal cannot work. I

am talking, essentially, about the 15 per cent who are

employable and who are on and off welfare frequently.

I want to make it very plain that we are not referring to

the 85 per cent who, if anything, should be receiving benefits

tied to the cost of living or consumer price index or some

schedule. The 85 per cent who are handicapped or disabled in

some way or other, and will always require the community

support, should have their benefits tied to some indicator,

possibly the consumer price index.

For the other 15 per cent we have to ask the question: why

is there always this 15 per cent when we know that they are

employable? I would like to make the point that we wonder how

much of the problem is due to lack of co-ordination and

planning in relation to population shifts between provinces and

between this province and other countries in the form of

immigration. Could we not start out by looking at the 15 per

cent of the people of this province who are now here and

attempt to undertake intensive programmes of education and

retraining? Then at the same time give some kind of financial

subsidy and incentives and, if possible, allow them part-time

jobs if these can be found. In other words, I am talking about

a sort of combination of school, work and welfare, and if

necessary, all three at the same time, but with individual

approach.

The training may be full-time. But when the training is

completed, maybe a period of financial subsidy is needed until

they really get on their feet — until they can perhaps save a

few dollars or acquire some furniture and assets. So often it

seems they just get retraining or they get a job and for some

limited period of time they manage to stay away from welfare,

but then something happens and they're back into the same basic

problem. In other words, the point I'm trying to express is the

apparent failure of societies to deal with that

section of

people who, with a longer range plan combining perhaps

training, work and social assistance over a longer period of

time than has ever been attempted, could perhaps give them a

better chance of being permanently self-reliant, employed

persons.

The kind of thing I'm saying in more specific terms: first

of all, should the $50 for the single person and the $100 for

the family not be increased? Should there not be newer

programmes to assist in accessory ways, not just by the $50 and

the $100, but by other forms of incentive which could be

translated into dollar terms and which would exceed the present

$1,500 limits? I think that that is one essential approach that

we might take.

The second is this whole question of population

[ Page 3774 ]

shift. If this five-year transitional period is looked at

seriously, one has also to consider what happens at the end of

the five-year period, This also relates to the whole question

of who qualifies for the intensive programming during the

five-year period. I'm not as satisfied as the Minister is about

the help we get from the federal government. I went home and

read the paper tonight, and here's a delightful headline which

I think just proves my point exactly. In the Victoria Times

tonight, June 19 — Manpower Minister Robert Andras — a big

headline: "Jobless Not Pressured To Take Unwanted Jobs."

I'm all in favour of helping people to get out of the rut

they're in — if they're in a rut — to retrain them, give them

help, get them on their feet and try and give them help for as

long as they need it to really be on their feet, but this kind

of approach by the federal government really is not much help

to this province. If we have any number of people coming into

this province without training, without jobs and with really no

economic future, and we have the federal government saying,

"Never mind, we'll make various funds available, whether it's

unemployment insurance or whatever," then it seems to me

the province is trying to take a responsible position but it's

not really getting much help federally.

That leads me to the next point. Would we not be better to

pull out of the Canada Assistance Plan, despite the financial

disadvantages in the short haul, and try to tailor our own

programmes on a long-term basis along some of the directions

that I have just mentioned?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Isolationist!

MR. WALLACE: No, I am not an isolationist. I believe very

strongly in one Canada and in the spirit of Confederation, but

I am wondering if in the light of some of the facts and figures

and some of the statements, such as this statement by Mr.

Andras, if this province would not be better in this particular

area of its problems at least to opt out of Canada Assistance

and try to develop its own programmes and divide more clearly

provincial and federal responsibilities. To go back to the

concept of an intensive five-year programme of training people

and subsidizing them, at the end of that five years there would

just be no social assistance for people who choose to come here

from other parts of Canada without some job training or without

some capacity to support themselves.

If the federal government wants to take a less responsible

attitude, then these people would have to depend entirely on

the federal funding programme.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Impossible! They can't be less

responsible.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Housing says they can't be less

responsible. But I often think the federal government feels

that just as long as they say to the provincial Ministers that

there are X millions of dollars, they seem to think it's like

throwing a dog a bone. The dog will go away for a little while

and it won't be another six months till you come back for

another bone. I don't like that approach.

I'm not sure that, in total, all the dollars that are going

into the pot federally are really being put to the best use as

far as we're concerned here in British Columbia. I know it's

more complicated than I just made it sound, but we neither have

the time nor the forum to go into all the specific details. It

seems to me that it's probably time we did take a fresh look at

the possibilities I've outlined.

Mr. Andras said, for example...he told a senate committee

examining federal Manpower policies that: "'The government

will not force workers to accept jobs they do not want.' Andras

said: 'It is the duty of employers and industry to ensure that

jobs are attractive in terms of pay and working conditions.'"

I agree; that's a very noble motive. I think we're all

trying to reach that goal. But in the meantime, the Minister

said this morning that every effort is made to find a person a

job. If certain jobs are available and they're at least minimum

wage and the conditions of work are adequate, then they are

expected to work and they don't get welfare. I agree with that

entirely.

But after hearing that this morning and then you open the

newspaper tonight and find that the federal attitude is almost

180 degrees in the other direction, one has to wonder just what

our provincial-federal relationships really are in relation to

this whole business of cost-sharing in the matter of social

assistance and Manpower programmes.

I mentioned to the Minister this morning that I certainly

know of cases where we have thoroughly well-trained, employable

people, such as the individual that I quoted the other day in

this House, a mining millwright in his early 50s who just can't

find a job anywhere. He's just been all over the place. He's

very conscientious in trying to find a job. He doesn't want

welfare. Yet this kind of man, because of a health problem, can

no longer work in the mines and he just can't find any

reasonable alternative job.

So I think that the Minister perhaps could comment on that

very big area, and just where we would be if we opted out of

the Canada Assistance Plan, and what the potential would be to

go our own way and develop some more attractive alternative,

specifically the training, plus job, plus welfare for graded

periods of time. I don't know how long that period of time

would last — three months, six months, or what — after the

person completed training and got a job. It could be even on

the job if it's a minimum-wage or low-paying job, some subsidy

perhaps on a diminishing basis over a period of six

[ Page

3775 ]

months, nine months or a year to really get them on their

feet. This business of stop-gap minimum props for a very

limited period of time, I think, is the main reason that so

many people have to return to the welfare treadmill.

The question of Mincome has been raised. I just want to ask

one or two questions. Again it's in principle and relates to my

attitude to social assistance. The Minister received a letter

from a gentleman in Chilliwack back in May. This gentleman

pointed out very clearly the injustice towards the person just

above the Mincome level who works and tries hard and saves a

few bucks and is just above that level. This man in the

specific example we have — he's a retired man — went to work

for three months at $2.50 an hour as a janitor, saved $700 so

that they could buy a new range and a new water heater. But

this income and some interest from earnings just put him over

the level, and they finished up being billed $30 for income tax

by the federal government.

Again, I think we must try and find programmes where it

isn't black or white, all or none. You either get Mincome and

do pretty well.... He goes on to point out that even in terms

of the premiums for Medicare, 80 per cent of that is provided

to the person on Mincome. Yet he and his wife pay their own

premium.

So there's this unhappy situation where if you just qualify

for Mincome, you get many benefits, don't pay income tax, and

yet someone just above the level who shows a willingness to do

a little bit of extra work, earns a very limited number of

dollars, finishes up being taxed on it. It seems to me that

there again it's like social assistance. You should not just be

on it or off it. There has to be an intermediate zone between

dependence on the social assistance and self-reliance, and that

has to be related to money as well as time.

On the other side of the coin, the Minister back in January

announced that some persons were putting their savings in

non-revenue-producing accounts in order to qualify for Mincome,

but to leave their assets intact. I wonder if the Minister

could tell us what the outcome of that inquiry has been.

One of the other points that comes out in the annual report in relation to

the senior citizen is the B.C. Hydro bus pass. I notice that we're talking in

terms of something like $135,000. The number of passes issued in November 1974

was almost 27,000 at $5 a time. When you think what the bus pass really means

to the senior citizen, not just the money but the mobility and the contact with

the outside world as it were, it just seems to me that $135,000 is pretty small

potatoes in a budget of $516 million, although admittedly the money is rebated

to the B.C. Hydro. But there again, when we think about the fantastic sums of

money that are involved in B.C. Hydro's operation and capital expenditures,

it just seems to me that $135,000 is really peanuts. I wonder whether we shouldn't

look at the possibility of just giving the senior citizen free bus transit and

never mind the $5 pass. I wonder if the Minister has given any thought to that.

Part of the Minister's report also deals with what he calls

mobility grants. This deals with repatriation of people from

British Columbia, sometimes back to the country of their

origin. On page 64, I notice that the sum mentioned is only

$21,000 to assist recipients in returning to other provinces

and other countries, when indicated, because of social reasons.

I wonder if the Minister could outline more specifically some

of the criteria that are used in deciding when recipients

should be repatriated. This is an area of the Minister's

responsibility that I don't remember seeing recorded in

previous annual reports. This may have been done in previous

years, but again in congratulating the Minister on the depth of

this annual report, here is a paragraph that I don't recall

seeing in previous years.

Could the Minister tell us if that number is on the

increase, and whether or not in fact we are making any

presentation, as a provincial government, to hearings on

immigration, for example? I gather from the statement on

repatriation that already we are paying for the return of

certain recipients of social assistance to the country where

they originated, and according to this

section it states that

this is done because of social reasons.

I notice that this also relates to the returning of citizens

to other provinces in Canada. Could the Minister give us some

kind of breakdown?

I also would like some specific facts about the payment of

Mincome to patients in extended-care hospitals. I was nothing

short of amazed to hear the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

suggest this morning that when a patient is in an extended-care

hospital the government should provide adequate financing to

pay Mincome to the patient in the hospital, and also enough

financing that the patient's home or apartment could be

maintained.

Now once again, if money grew on trees and we could have an

endless amount of money to provide all these services, then

that might be feasible. But I have to say for the 999th time

that when we have people in this province in need of certain

levels of care and attention in the so-called....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Members

that there is a Member speaking. Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that only

the Minister is listening, but that, at least, is better than

nobody listening, I guess.

But when we have segments of our society in need and not

receiving any help for whatever reason —

[ Page 3776 ]

financial help I mean — then I think it would be ridiculous

for the government to try and take on the responsibility of

paying Mincome in extended-care hospitals, and providing enough

financing to maintain an empty home or an empty apartment. It

shows a complete lack of awareness by the Liberal leader as to

what this whole business of extended care and intermediate care

is all about. If we are going to start pleading for that kind

of situation, then I just throw up my hands in futility that we

are ever going to cope with the problem of intermediate

care.

I think again using the Minister's own words, the money has

to be moved around and some of the money that is being put

forward in Mincome payments for extended-care patients should

be made available to finance the cost of nursing-home care, at

least in part.

I wasn't clear as to how much a person in an extended-care

hospital, otherwise eligible for Mincome, is now receiving. I

understand that for a person receiving social assistance in a

nursing home, the payment monthly, is $25 for so-called

comforts or extras. I just would like to know what the

situation is now regarding a person eligible for Mincome who is

accommodated in an extended-care hospital.

The Minister pointed out that they no longer receive the

$238 a month. What I would like to know is: what do they

receive in terms of cash per month when they are in an

extended-care hospital? To be very explicit, I am referring to

the person who otherwise, if they could live in their

apartment, would be getting $238. They move into an

extended-care hospital, what do they now get per month?

I just want to ask quickly about the handicapped. The

Minister set up an advisory committee, and we were all

privileged to meet with some of the handicapped people in the

Victoria Inn reception the other day. I got the impression in

speaking to them that they are not satisfied with the rate at

which progress is being made, and that many of their requests

do not, in their view, involve capital expenditures or involve

changing attitudes by the community at large.

I wonder if the Minister could give us a brief report on how

he believes progress is being made on behalf of the

handicapped.

On day care, I did ask this question and I don't think the Minister fully appreciated

what I was trying to pin down. That was the question of subsidy being based

on net income and the way in which net income is calculated. There are certain

payroll deductions in certain forms of employment which involve money to be

put aside for Canada Savings Bonds or various pension plans or other forms of

investment by the employee. I have been told, rightly or wrongly, that these

payments can be taken into account before the net income is calculated. If this

is the case I would have to disagree very strongly, because while there is every

reason to encourage efficient and appropriate day-care centres I think we have

to be careful that we don't spend money foolishly by unnecessary subsidy. If

both parents are working and earning a reasonable income and having their children

subsidized in a day-care centre I think again we are going overboard in one

direction. If somebody is able to put aside savings and have the net income

calculated after the savings have been deducted from their gross pay, then I

think we have to take a long look at that. I wonder if the Minister is quite

confident that this is not happening. Could he, perhaps, in answering my question

define the specific deductions that can be used in calculating net income?

The last point I wanted to ask the Minister is his most

up-to-date information on progress to combat child abuse. There

are interesting figures published in this annual report. Of

course, we have the up-coming meeting on the best ways in which

we can provide an overall programme for children, but I wonder

if he has any up-to-date information on the progress. Is there

any apparent reduction in the incidence of child abuse? To what

degree did the legislation which protected physicians and other

people from reporting suspected cases lead to an increase in

the reporting of cases?

HON. MR. LEVI: I would like to answer the Member because he

asked a lot of questions.

On the child abuse, one of the effects of the legislation

has been that more doctors are now making use of the reporting

process. I think that is a positive thing. I don't think one

can say that there is a decline in child abuse. One of the

things we have not had in the province but are now developing

is a mechanism for people to report this in an adequate way.

That is now being developed.

We are also working in cooperation with Dr. Israels and Dr.

Siegel in that unit in the Vancouver General Hospital which has

been set aside for abused babies and some children. In

Vancouver we now have a provincial co-coordinator of the whole

business of child abuse. We are now looking and will be making

some moves towards the Zenith line operation. We have looked

very closely at the Alberta situation. Since introducing the

Zenith line they have had some 180 calls a month. Those are

cases to be investigated.

There is no doubt that when we are able to move to a Zenith

line affecting the whole province we will get a large number of

calls. Whether or not this will reflect an increase many of the

calls do not necessarily check out I am much more confident

than I was a year ago about the kinds of moves we are making in

respect to the business of child abuse. We have the thing much

better co-ordinate. We have

[ Page 3777 ]

people in the field and we are gradually moving towards

having a system. I would aim to have a system that is certainly

as good as what is in Alberta and get into the kind of system

they have in California.

With respect to day care, I would draw the Member's

attention to page 32 of the annual report which does lay out

the day-care formula system, the contribution system. At the

bottom you will notice there are a couple of examples. One of

them is two parents and three children in a family with a net

income of $640 per month. The day-care centre charges would be

$120 for the child; if there were two children in day care the

family pays $5 a month for one child and nothing for the second

child. It is based on net income but we do not consider

investment in bonds or savings plans in the company. We

consider that income. That is not exempted.

We do look at the debt structure to some extent, bearing in

mind that the most significant number of people using day care

on the subsidy programme are single women with children, many

of whom formerly were on welfare. In the Vancouver area

approximately 70 per cent of all the subsidy programme is paid

to women who were formerly on welfare and who are now working

but are working at a sufficiently low level of income that they

need the subsidy. In my estimation that is an extremely good

investment in dollars.

If you wanted to take all of the people on welfare — and the

programme runs to $13.6 million for the day-care programme —

and all of those people did not have access to day-care and

couldn't work, then your welfare bill could be double or triple

that amount, because that is usually what the situation is.

We are continuing to examine the subsidy system. We have

made some changes to the programme in relation to in-home day

care. We have now restricted it to people who are working.

Again, we are doing this to move the money around to look at

the effective programmes. We do have some problems in terms of

group day care. We now have to look at the kinds of facilities

which sort of have to be built from the ground up because there

is no space available any more in church basements, and the

standards regulate the kind of structures that children get

into. While we have in the province at the moment approximately

290 group day-care centres — that is an increase of 170 over

the past two years — I think that we would like to see a much

more specific move to in-home day care, family day care,

after-school day care, because we get into very high capital

costs in terms of the centres that have to be constructed.

I opened one the other day, along with the mayor of Vancouver in Vancouver,

which was a joint operation. They put up 60 per cent of the money; we put up

40. It is an ideal building for some 32 children, 12 under-threes and 20 over-threes.

But it is not something we could replicate all over unless we had that kind

of sharing with the local government.

We have made some changes in the day-care system. We have

not in any way cut back the money. What we have done is to move

the money around into what we feel are perhaps more effective

alternatives, particularly in relation to those people who are

attempting to work. At the same time, we are not ignoring the

fact that some children whose parents are not working sometimes

have a very special need for day care. That is made

available.

At all times the day-care programme is based on the needs of

children. It is not based on the needs of the parents.

Certainly I think it has been successful in getting many, many

people off welfare, particularly women who were stuck in the

welfare situation.

On the Mincome thing, we now have 75 summer students in the

field who are doing the interviews for the imputed assets. That

is, we are going to people whom we feel, on the basis of their

earlier applications, have assets on which there needs to be an

imputed income, possible because they have got them in

non-interest-bearing accounts. This process is going on.

Hopefully in September we will be able to have a report on what

success we have had in explaining the regulations to some

people — we don't know how many. I would probably think that

there are less than 1,000 that we will see when we finally get

through. We will say that they have $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000

in a non-interest-bearing account. We will say that that will

yield 5, 6 or 7 per cent, whatever the appropriate amount is.

That will be pro-rated over 12 months and that will have to

come off the Mincome.

It is the same situation with the extended care. While on

Mincome, extended-care people received a total of $239. The

only costs they actually have are $30, the $1-per-day fee in

extended care. The rest is put into their trust account. What

we have done is to not pay Mincome to the extended-care

patients.

I agree with the Member about the Liberal leader's comments.

That really reflects a kind of class distinction, where he is

talking about somebody who is getting service from the

government and wants to maintain an apartment. We have done

that. There is of course the comforts allowance for people....

But that relates to people who are on the welfare situation and

not the extended care.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: We don't pay them Mincome at all now when

they are in extended care. That has stopped. The last cheque

was issued in May. They, of course, still get OAS-GIS and that

goes into a trust account for them. They are universal

programmes and whether one wants to see that kind of situation

go on is something that is perhaps so political that nobody

[ Page 3778 ]

wants to discuss it. But when you are spending a large

amount of money on extended care with government funds, you

begin to wonder whether it is a desirable kind of thing to

spend that large amount of money to build up people's trust

accounts, which really wind up going to the children. It is a

very interesting situation which should be discussed. But it is

very sensitive politically.

I read with some interest the suggestion by the Conservative

Party about looking at a five-year approach to phasing out

welfare. In 1969 I made a speech in this House about the whole

business of whether we could go to a five-year budgetary

programme on welfare. At that time I talked about projecting

costs of welfare over five years, which would have come to,

over five years ago back in 1969, about $200 million. I

suggested that we would take the last two-fifths, which would

be something on the order of almost $80 million, and use that

for a whole series of developments, both in developing small

businesses and employment, in training, in day-care, and that

kind of thing.

The other day I was speaking to some people in the faculty

of the social work school at the university and said that I

would like to see some policy development around alternate ways

of spending almost $200 million of welfare money which we are

into in this kind of situation now. Bear in mind that, as the

Member pointed out, over 85 per cent of these people have no

other options; they are not employable, and this kind of thing.

But to spend large amounts of money in that way.... Future

costs look like they are going to increase; they are not going

to decline. We are still going to have to deal with a lot of

problems.

We really do have to look at some more significant ways of

dealing with large amounts of money, but you can't do it over a

year. You have to somehow be able to do it over three or four

years. The thing is that I would not relate that kind of

programme just to single people. There are many, many people on

welfare, particularly family heads — again, particularly women

— who want to get off welfare. Unfortunately, the federal

government's approach to guaranteed income is a categorization

where they say: "We'll take the old age pensioners, we'll take

the single parents and we'll take the handicapped and put them

over there and give them a guaranteed income," which

kind of locks them into that kind of situation. That's not

really the way to go; we shouldn't lock anybody in. We are

getting now a lot of response from seniors that they don't just

want to be on the shelf — they want to take a much more active

part in things. But given the unemployment situation, we have

to make choices between whether we can make employment

available with some pay for seniors and what we do about that

40 per cent under the age of 25 who have no employment.

In terms of the hard-to-place recipient, there is now the

community employment programme, a Department of

Labour-Department of Human Resources-federal Manpower programme

pilot project, operating in Nanaimo and Kamloops. That is

directed particularly at the hard-to-place employee,

particularly around the welfare recipient. We are working

closely with that; we will look to see what kind of results we

will get from that.

The Member might be interested that in terms of people on

unemployment, there is a figure in the book which relates to

the number of people...at the bottom of page 63, table 26:

"The number of social assistance cases closed during 1974 as a

result of persons obtaining gainful employment." You'll notice

the total figure is some 27,000 cases.

I think that it is important to re-emphasize that contrary

to what the popular believe out there is — I don't deny for a

moment that we have some trouble with a few people — those

kinds of figures do indicate that there is a great deal of

movement through the system. The difficulty in terms of the

employment and the planning is that we have had to pick up some

of the slack because Manpower has not been doing it. All right,

that's changing, but their programmes have been constantly

changing. We've probably got, I think, at least 30 people in

the field who do nothing else but job finding, That's a rather

inappropriate task for the kind of thing we're doing, but we

find that it pays off to do it and we do do it.

We have a very successful operation, particularly in the

greater Victoria area, on employment placement and the kind of

thing I talked about this morning where we are now interviewing

families about whether they would want to move to secure jobs,

secure housing and that kind of thing. We would like to do more

of that. There is no compulsion about it; we are interviewing

people on the basis of their suitability.

You talked earlier, when you were talking about a new

approach to welfare, about opting out of the Canada Assistance

Plan. Well, if we opted out of the Canada Assistance Plan on

social assistance, we'd have to come up with another $80

million of provincial money because we get a 50 per cent

sharing. If you look at the total budget for this year relating

it to the Canada Assistance Plan, that figure goes up to about

$170 million. I don't see that we should ever consider opting

out of the Canada Assistance Plan because, after all, this

province pays as much, or more in many cases, income tax to the

federal Treasury and we should have access to those

dollars.

What I'm not particularly happy with is the kind of thing

that's going on with the provincial-federal discussions about

income security review where there appears to be a tendency —

this was really identified by Quebec at the last provincial

meeting at the end of April, and I've raised it a number of

times — of the

[ Page 3779 ]

intrusion of the federal people into the provincial area,

particularly around these programmes. You may know that they

have an idea that what they'd like to do is do the income

supplementation for the low income working poor, but have it as

a federally-administered programme. I am on record as saying

that I was never very impressed with some of the programmes

that they administer. But that is an intrusion.

I think, as I've argued down there, that we are in a much

better position to administer programmes, to do the planning.

We're here on the ground floor and we have staff. The federal

government has no staff that is delivering welfare services.

They only have staff that does grants and does all sorts of

reviews. They're not into the line-service operation.

No, I would not like to see us get out of the Canada

Assistance Plan process. We have rejected the idea of tax

points in lieu of that because that really is very harmful to

the have-not provinces. But we do need to have a much better

understanding by the federal government, really, about the

kinds of problems we have provincially.

MR. WALLACE: Because they cost-share, they want to call

decisions.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, yes. Mind you, one thing we can say is

that they've become very twitchy about B.C. because we have

developed a number of new programmes. We have increased the

amount of revenue in terms of cost-sharing revenue in the

province and they are looking at us now. We moved into the

day-care area, which is a substantial programme; we have moved

into the retarded area — it has been transferred into the

department. That whole programme is cost-shared. We have

developed more in terms of cost-sharing around halfway houses

for mental patients, for the retarded — also in some of the

intermediate-care areas where we're into that kind of

cost-sharing. So they're looking and seeing that we are making

as much use as we can of the Canada Assistance Plan. Certainly,

by opting out, as a province you could not afford it.

There were a couple of other questions. I think this morning

you asked about the 15 child-care workers that were attached to

a programme in Victoria. I am, as a matter of fact, seeing

those people tomorrow, but this relates to the Special Services

for Children Programme.

We have instituted guidelines. The programme will not be as rich as it was

for some people who had a very rich programme. We are simply saying to them

that we just cannot continue to operate that way. We're not faulting them in

a sense, but we did tell them well over a year ago that guidelines would be

brought in, and that there would be some closing-in of the programme. I'm not

at all unhappy with the way that the programme has gone; the kind of facts that

are here in the report that we quoted from have shown that the programme is

a good one. But we obviously can't operate it in the kind of expansive way that

some people want. As a matter of fact, I will be meeting with this group tomorrow

morning to discuss it.

The Island Youth Centre, formerly Brannan Lake, has

undergone some changes. Contrary to some reports, it's never

been closed down. It's been regionalized. It's responsible for

taking children on the island, and we have an arrangement to

take up to 20 or 25 children, depending on what the pressure

is, from the Vancouver-Burnaby area. What we have there at the

moment are 40 children in the resident situation. We have

another 40 children who are coming in on a day basis. In terms

of staff, there are some staff vacancies.

What we've attempted to do there, is stop the previous

revolving-door policy. You know, in 1972, there were 477

escapes or walkaways — walkaways I think would be more

appropriate — from that place because there were large numbers

of people there, something over 120. It was very difficult to

do the containment. It's not the kind of place where you can

have all sorts of staff, because it's not that large. What we

did do was to regionalize it.

The other thing, and I think that the People of Nanaimo are

aware of it — that the whole facility has been thrown open to

the community of Nanaimo and district. Some 3,000 children in

the area went through that facility in terms of learning to

swim, operate canoes and make use of the gymnasium. We made it

virtually a community resource as well. But it is not, and I

readily say that it is not what it used to be three years ago,

which was a revolving 60- to 90-day process where kids would

come and go in a very high-powered way, only to be temporarily

taken out of the community and put back, but there was no

follow up. So we've regionalized it, and have been making much

better use of that programme over the last year and a half. We

have a reception diagnostic centre. It's a co-ed thing with

boys and girls there now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: The bus passes. Well, on the bus passes, it's

a question of equity. There are many senior citizens in this

province who don't have access to buses at all. We're looking

at the whole process of whether it's possible to move towards a

completely free system, but again, it's a question of equity.

You know, we haven't really moved the bus system much out of

the lower mainland area. We get a great number of demands from

people, seniors particularly, in areas where there's no

transportation. We've developed some transportation systems

through the

[ Page 3780 ]

department to carry seniors. So we've been looking at it.

It's certainly a question that, at the moment.... We're

constantly reminded by seniors that they much prefer to pay

something; it's not an issue of money. I've never known any

senior to complain about paying the $5. Many of them insist

that they want to be able to make that kind of

contribution.

I think I've covered most of what you said, I hope.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I realize that at the end of a long

session must people are feeling very tired, but I would like to

express some kind words to the Minister of Human Resources who

is one of the hardest-working Ministers and seems to be

tireless. I'm continually amazed by the personal attention that

the Minister is prepared to give to individuals and small

groups whenever I have had an opportunity of meeting with them

in his company. He is incredible. Not only does he run that

massive department, but he is able to take enough time to

express the kind of personal individual attention that means so

much to people in need.

I would like to mention just a few instances of what I'm

referring to. Earlier today the Minister made mention of the

fact that he'd met with the mayor of Comox and other

individuals from that community, as well as some students. Now

not only did he take time to meet with those students after the

meeting was over, he has also taken time to phone them, to

write to them and to follow up on the concerns of the students

in Comox. They appreciate it. I've heard from various sources

how appreciative they are of the fact that the Minister of

Human Resources would take time to take an interest in their

personal, individual problems.

I was with him when we toured the Campbell River Community

Resources Society's building in Campbell River, and again was

amazed at the time that he took to speak to each person who was

there that day, and again, take the same kind of interest and

concern for the problems of the people in Campbell River.

But I think one of the most exciting results of the

encouragement and the interest that this Minister has taken, at

least in my riding, is the formation of an upper island

low-income group.

A few people who are low-income people got together to meet,

they decided that they would approach the Minister of Human

Resources to see if he could assist them in obtaining a very

old, small building in which they could meet on a regular basis

in order to discuss mutual problems and to give each other

help. He responded favourably.

One of the first things they did was to decide to put out a monthly newsletter

to all of the low-income people in the Courtenay area. "Yes," said the Minister,

"I will help you with that." As a result, the Department of Human Resources

equipment is available for them to run off their monthly newsletter which they

mail out to the low-income people in the area.

They then found a larger building, because at this stage

they are collecting donations from anybody in the area and

reselling them, like a thrift shop, at a low price. "Yes,

" said the Minister, and they now have a much larger

building and have in effect quite a large store. They are so

proud of their accomplishments and so pleased with their

results.

They've obtained an OFY grant now. They are getting together

an OFY grant so that they can put on a summer camp for students

this summer. They are buying vegetables in the area in bulk for

distribution among their members. They are helping each other

find jobs and have been successful in two occasions that I am

aware of.

One of the biggest surprises that they had, though, again

showing the personal interest of this Minister, was to have a

letter sent to them as a result of a copy of one of their

newsletters that they had mailed down here to the department

that the Minister had taken time to read personally and had

taken the time to respond to personally. If you have any idea

what this kind of interest means to those people, then I think

you have an idea of how valuable this Minister of Human

Resources is to the people in need in this province.

One other point. These people hope to continue their efforts

to help each other and hope to have the continued support of

the Minister. Now I don't have any questions for the Minister

and the Minister certainly doesn't have to respond to this, but

I did want to pay him those compliments on behalf of the people

in my riding.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't let the vote go

through without making a few comments about the Alcohol and

Drug Commission this evening, and some of the comments that the

Minister himself made earlier today.

It was unfortunate that the Minister was away from the House

at the time that the Alcohol and Drug Commission education

handbook was being discussed, but he made a significant

statement today when he said that there was nothing new in that

handbook. And to a large degree that was the problem. There

wasn't anything new in the handbook. It was so out of date that

it was almost criminal. You know the people went and gathered

information from Alberta, from I think 1966....

AN HON. MEMBER: 1971.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. And they put it together in a book.

There was only one

section put together by our own commission.

Everything else was just taken straight from the Alberta

Alcohol and Drug

[ Page 3781 ]

Commission, even to the point, Mr. Chairman, where it made

one comment about no research being available in connection

with marijuana as it relates to driving. Your own department

had partially financed a study right here at UBC.

So the book was out of date. I'd just like the Minister's

assurance that that kind of thing can't be done without a lot

of research by our own department, and that every Minister who

is connected with education, health and the Attorney-General's

department should be fully aware of what is happening before

such a book gets to the stage that it did. It was ready to go

into the schools. It was completed and I hesitate to think what

it might have cost the taxpayers of British Columbia, but it's

all down the drain now — money completely wasted, Mr.

Chairman.

I agree with the Minister that there are strides being made

in relation to alcohol treatment in this province, and good

ones, in the expansion of the detoxification centres and other

moves that are being made with relation to alcohol abuse. I

also agree with the Minister that there are no magical

solutions to any of these problems. That's common sense.

Everybody knows that. But I and thousands of other British

Columbians, Mr. Chairman, are disturbed about the non-approach

to the hard-drug abuse problem in this province. The Minister

mentioned today that the City of New York spent some $8 billion....

HON. MR. LEVI: I said $1 billion.

MR. McCLELLAND: You said $8 billion this afternoon. So it is

$1 billion in attempting things that failed — and things that

failed before. I agree — that's a problem. It's been a problem

in education, it's been a problem in corrections, it's been a

problem in alcohol and drug research and in attempting to find

solutions. We seem to have a propensity for picking up on

failing projects, and I'm glad to see that the Minister says

that we are not going to do that in this area. That's good, and

that's going to save the people of British Columbia some money.

But I wonder why we never want to try things that prove to have

worked. We don't do that either. I think it is time that we

did, particularly in relation to this problem of drug abuse in

British Columbia.

Before I continue that part of the discussion I just want to

express concern, too, Mr. Chairman, about the methods we seem

to be going with in relation to our methadone clinics, in

expanding them into the community. I asked the Minister before,

but I don't think he answered me, if it is true that we are

planning five new methadone clinics in the greater Vancouver

area, and whether or not we are planning to expand those

methadone treatment units into other parts of British Columbia.

If we are, Mr. Chairman, I think it is the greatest mistake we will ever

have made in relation to the drug-abuse problem in this

province. What we will be doing is simply spreading a disease

around this province that should be contained in one area

rather than making it available into the communities of this

province.

We can rest assured that every one of those community

clinics which will be dispensing methadone will find drug

trading in the alley behind it, and we will introduce the use

of drugs into those communities as quickly as those clinics go

into them. That's a sin that we can't afford in this province

because our drug problem is bad enough as it is.

What we should be doing is really cracking down in those

smaller areas, driving the drugs out of those areas, and

leaving the clinics in the areas where the drug-abuse problem

has been traditionally bad. Then I would suggest that we could

get at it. But to spread it into the community, Mr. Chairman,

is a move that fills a lot of people in this province with

fear.

The Minister, when we talked during his estimates the last

time around, said that this side of the House never offered any

solutions, only criticizes in relation to this problem. I don't

think that is quite fair because we have talked about solutions

in the past, Mr. Chairman, and the commission and the

government have been unwilling to accept any suggestions that

have been made. That includes one of the suggestions made from

a department of this government itself, and that is the

Department of the Attorney-General. I refer to the task force

on correctional services and facilities which has come to be

known as the Matheson report.

The Matheson report made some positive recommendations

regarding the drug-abuse problem in this province and ways in

which we might attempt at least to solve them. Once again, you

can't say that the Matheson report was any magical solution,

but it was a start, and we've never tried that kind of approach

in this province. We've had solutions offered to us for 40

years. We've never tried any of them. Instead of that we have

turned our head and stuck our head in the sand and said, no,

those programmes won't work so let's not bother trying them.

Here is another one, coming much more recently, that offered a

reasoned, sane approach to the drug abuse problem, and we've

turned our head again.

The Matheson report, Mr. Chairman, refers to a drug problem

in Japan in which it was reported that less than 15 years ago

the addict population in Japan was some 40,000 people, mostly

in their 20s and 30s. Along with that problem there was an

abuse of sleeping pills among teenagers and, according to the

Japanese authorities, at least, that problem now no longer

exists. Dr. Nobuo Motohashi,, the head of the narcotic

division, Ministry of Health and Welfare in Tokyo, says there

no longer is a drug-abuse problem

[ Page 3782 ]

in Japan — that from 40,000 addicts less than 15 years

ago.

The Matheson report goes on to say that the Japanese solved

their problem by the use of some five specific approaches. Mr.

Chairman, the first was comprehensive and co-ordinate measures

in which the government established a firm and consistent

policy that there would be no drug-maintenance programme

allowed in that country, and that the country itself was

determined to rid itself of heroin and drug abuse.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that's the first step that we

have to take in this province, and in Canada. If the Canadian

government doesn't take this step along with us, we might as

well be pushing against a brick wall as well, but we have to

first of all decide that we want to get rid of this problem and

take some measures to get rid of it, or we never will.

Secondly in Japan was the reinforcement of the police.

That's an important step here as well, and probably the most

important approach — the third approach — was the encouragement

and support by the general public in Japan, and without that

you can't succeed either.

The Matheson report goes on to say:

"Along with the development of this public support for the

action taken against narcotic trafficking a great deal of

attention was given to the education of the public in order to

make them knowledgeable about drugs and the dangers

inherent."

The fourth, again, was the strengthening of penal

provisions. The courts handed out more severe sentences than

before to criminal addicts and drug traffickers.

The fifth was the compulsory hospitalization of drug

addicts.

Mr. Chairman, that is not really a hard-line approach.

Nobody was executed; nobody's head was cut off in the public

square. Addicts were given the opportunity to come into the

system voluntarily. If they didn't, then they were forced into

the programme.

Dr. Matheson, at least, suggests that some of that approach

could be adaptable in British Columbia. In suggesting an

approach to the problem in British Columbia, Matheson says:

"A very major and sustained effort in prevention and education

must come first of all. It is recommended that a much more elaborate and intensive

programme be developed for the education of the public and a very substantial

and major increase be made of law enforcement personnel assigned to this area."

That is being done. It has been done, as a matter of fact — the law enforcement

part of it. We have CLEU operating now in what appears to be a very efficient

manner and doing a very good job in British Columbia.

But what is the good of that if it isn't backed up with a

follow-up approach to make sure that CLEU's work doesn't go for

naught? CLEU can do all the good work in the world in cutting

off the supply of narcotics and getting at some of the major

kingpins in the illicit narcotic trade. But if we ignore the

follow-up approaches, the educational approaches, the

strengthening of the court system and the education of the

public at large to finally, once and for all, say we are not

going to stand for Vancouver being known as the drug capital of

Canada any longer, if we don't back it up with that kind of

action, then we might just as well fire CLEU — get rid of it.

The job won't be worth a twig.

Dr. Matheson indicates that much of the approach that is

being made in Japan and in another clinic in Baltimore could be

adaptable here. I just say that we have been afraid to try. For

40 years we have been talking about the drug problem in British

Columbia. Forty years of talk and no action. I include the

national level as well; probably Ottawa is much more to blame

than British Columbia is in this whole problem. But as long as

Ottawa still thinks the problem is stuck out there on the other

side of the Rocky Mountains and they can't see it so it doesn't

matter to them in Ottawa, then we won't get any action from

Ottawa and we had better start doing something ourselves.

In proposing further solutions, or at least attempted

solutions, to the problem we face in this province, I think it

is important that any programme that gets developed must

understand that there are two kinds of users: the user who has

been habituated to the narcotic for a long time and is the

hard-core user, whose chances of recovery are very slim, and

the new, young, beginner user. I don't think we should ever

allow any kind of a system in which these two groups are ever

allowed to intermingle in any way whatsoever.

It is the young, new user with whom we have a chance of

success at the moment. I think we should set up the kind of

programme that would isolate these new users in a pilot

project, probably, that would include vocational training as

part of a total immersion unit. We would deal not only with the

drug-abuse problem, but also with personality problems of the

user, the educational standards — trades training, if that

becomes necessary — and no chemicals would be used in the

treatment of this new user, none whatsoever.

I think we would have to make sure that the screening was of

such a nature that we wouldn't allow any habitual user,

regardless of their age, into this kind of a programme. I think

then that if the people refuse to cooperate or abuse the

programme, they would have to go onto some other kind of

[ Page 3783 ]

programme which would include, at that time, the habitual

user.

I think, too, and Dr. Matheson pointed this out, that the

habitual user has to be given the opportunity to voluntarily

come into a programme as well. But if, upon registration, that

habitual user continually abuses the programme or refuses to

voluntarily come into it, then I believe we must make sure that

that user comes into a programme. So that means that he comes

in involuntarily. It could include imprisonment for an

involuntary term with periodic reviews.

AN HON. MEMBER: For an involuntary term?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no. For an indeterminate term, I am

sorry. An indeterminate term with periodic reviews to check on

the progress of that particular user.

I must say again that what seem to be the present plans to

set up maintenance clinics all over this province will prove

disastrous. It will do nothing more than increase the user

population and expose the adolescent non-users, again, to the

exploitation of the user and user-trafficker. I think those

clinics have to be restricted, preferably, probably to one

centre, but if necessary, perhaps to four major centres where a

serious problem has already been identified.

We must have much more severe sentences in our courts for

traffickers, whether or not they are user-traffickers,

because they are the people who introduce drugs to the

vulnerable young people who are in the subculture. I think

those user-traffickers must be given the option to come into

the programme, the same as the non-trafficker-users, but we

have to have a programme.

I say again, Mr. Chairman, that Dr. Matheson and many others

have clearly indicated there is a course we can follow. I don't

think it is hard-line, but if it is hard-line to want to

eradicate this problem once and for all in British Columbia,

then I say let's get hard-line. We've never tried it. Why don't

we try it and see if it works? My God, we can't be any worse

off than we are now in relation to drug abuse problems in this

province.

If the Drug and Alcohol Commission is not prepared under any

circumstances to take these steps, then I think we would be

saving the people of British Columbia a lot of grief and a lot

of money if we just scrapped the Drug and Alcohol Commission

and put the problem back to the Attorney-General, your own

department and the Health department and got going on this kind

of a programme.

As long as we just shake our heads, stick them in the sand

and refuse to accept that some solutions might work in this

country, we will always be known as the drug capital of Canada,

and it will never change, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the Member makes constant

reference to the hard line. That is the programme we have in

the province. In reference to the court system, if you observe

the kind of sentences that traffickers are getting — and the

majority of the recent crop are non-users, as I observe...

MR. McCLELLAND: Recent?

HON. MR. LEVI: ...anywhere from 14 or 15 to 20 years, big

sentences. There are some smaller sentences; I notice some

getting six or seven years.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

HON. MR. LEVI: This has been the constant pattern here. This

is not a new thing. I have been associated with the field for

pretty close to 20 years now, and I can recall people getting

10, 15, 20 years....

MR. McCLELLAND: When they get there.

HON. MR. LEVI: They got that kind of thing. But the thing is

that we went through a whole process in the Matsqui treatment

until some years ago where they were looking to do a segregated

programme, a screening programme. Four years it operated and

they had a great deal of trouble. It was finally abandoned.

There were programmes operating in Oakalla years ago in the

panabodes where there were attempts to do these kinds of

things. What we have had is the continuing hard line. I am not

disagreeing that we shouldn't continue that way. After all, we

have tried it, and we don't have any other solutions.

You constantly make reference to the Japanese experience.

Okay, if I'm up on estimates tomorrow, I will bring you some

facts which don't paint it as such a rosy picture. But then we

have a whole situation about: is it the kind of thing that in

this country you can even get across? It has never been tried,

for instance, in the United States, and they have been trying

all sorts of things. It isn't that simple to just transfer that

kind of programme.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I didn't say it was.

HON. MR. LEVI: I accept that you are not implying that it is

simple.

MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say it should be transferred

either.

HON. MR. LEVI: It is the same with the constant debate about

the British system. Obviously, the British system is not

applicable to Canada. That is quite true. If you tried to do

the British system here, it would take you years. You would

have to get the

[ Page 3784 ]

doctors to agree, and they obviously don't. If you can't get

that kind of agreement, then, of course, it is not going to

happen.

I just want to make a point about the methadone centres. The

only proposal for the five methadone centres is really the

decentralization of the large Vancouver methadone centre into

some of the areas. You may recall that some months ago there

was a great deal of unhappiness in the business community in

that area. As a result, there is a slow move towards

decentralizing.

In looking at where these people are, you made mention of

that business of avoiding the great congregation, although that

is the kind of lifestyle they have. We found some 66 people who

are on a methadone programme who lived in the south part of the

city, and they set up a small unit there. There can be a much

more intensive process dealt, rather than just having this

great big central thing that did exist.

The centres that do exist are in Victoria and Vancouver, and

they are breaking down into five there — Coquitlam, Prince

George, Trail, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Campbell River and Duncan. I

think it should be understood that they are there because...well, in the area of Prince George they do have a significant

problem. They do have a significant problem in the Nanaimo and

Campbell River areas.

I went into Duncan with the leader of the Conservative Party

some two years ago when we were at a very large meeting, well

over 150 people there, with parents saying that they have

children who are addicts and who had a methadone programme that

was stopped and the kids went to Vancouver. We were able to

reinstitute that programme. Again, that was at the request of

the community. It seemed very legitimate and it went ahead.

We have a constant application of the hard line. That is exactly what is happening.

I agree with the Member that we have got to hit Ottawa over the head with a

2-by-4 to make them pay far more attention to this problem than they are prepared

to pay to it. As you say, we are on this side of the Rockies and they don't

seem to be prepared to sit down with us. There are recommendations, for instance,

from the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Bar Association about

an attempt at looking at a pilot project on heroin maintenance — something that

four or five years ago was unacceptable. They are two significant opinion groups

— those two groups have recommended this. It is something that we talked about

a couple of years ago but we are a long way from getting that kind of agreement.

That has got to be agreed to by those people in Ottawa.

There is the question of trying alternatives. If you are

going into hospitalization then it is a question of priorities.

You can either decide: are you going to spend $50 or $60 a day

dealing with an addict, or are you going to spend $30 a day

dealing with people in extended care? It is a question of

resources: what are you going to move around to do this? Even

if we attempted to deal with 10 per cent of the population —

1,000 people — putting them through a process that could take a

minimum of three months and a maximum of six, it is a very

expensive programme. Then you come to the great debate about

what resources you are prepared to move away from this area and

go into another area. So there is the question of looking at

the total situation. But I must reiterate that we do have the

continuing hard line and that is what the situation is.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee, reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not asking when the committee wants to sit

again. Unless leave is asked tomorrow by the House to sit and

debate, on the morning on Friday.... That could be done

tomorrow morning.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: For the information of the House, we will

be cleaning up bills on the order paper first and then,

perhaps, proceed back to the Minister of Human Resources.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

APPENDIX

108 The Hon. R. M. Strachan to move, in Committee of the

Whole on Bill

(No. 108) intituled Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1975 , to

amend as follows:

By adding the following

section after

section 5:

"S. 86D.

5A.

section 86D is amended by inserting 'or adjudged to be a

juvenile delinquent under the Juvenile Delinquents Act (Canada) by reason of,'

after 'discharge in respect of,'."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada