1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5967 ]

CONTENTS

Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No –– 1) (Bill M208). Mr. Howard.

Introduction and first reading –– 5967

Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No –– 2) (Bill M209). Mr. Howard.

Introduction and first reading –– 5967

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

On vote 42: minister's office –– 5967

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lank

Mr. Williams

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1985

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 (NO. 1)

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act,

1985 (No. 1).

MR. HOWARD: In explanation thereof I point out that the

Ministry of Forests Act fails to recognize the great contribution that

small businesses make to the economy of this province. The economic

orientation and emphasis of the act states that the purpose and

function of the ministry is to encourage large integrated

timber-processing facilities. This orientation is accompanied by having

the act state that one of the purposes and functions of the ministry is

to "encourage a vigorous, efficient and world competitive timber

processing industry," which in itself favors the larger integrated

corporate structure.

It is the purpose of this bill to add a clause stating that it is a

purpose and function of the ministry to "encourage a vigorous and

efficient small enterprise timber harvesting and processing industry in

the province." Statutory recognition of the need to encourage such a

small timber harvesting and processing industry will provide continuity

of attitude and consistency of programs. Without such a legal

requirement, any small business programs rest upon administrative and

political level variables. We simply cannot afford any longer to have

such variables be the foundation for a revival of the forest industry.

Bill M208, Ministry of Forests Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 1),

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

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

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 (No. 2)

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment, 1985 (No. 2).

MR. HOWARD: In explanation thereof I would point out that

when the concept of responsible government became part of our

parliamentary system, it was a progressive move. Prior to that time,

government was a representative government — that is, it represented an

aristocratic and moneyed class. The concept of responsible government

was simply that government would be responsible to parliament and

through it to the people.

Over the years, the concept of responsible government has been diluted to a

theory. The Ministry of Forests Act now states: "The minister shall preside

over and be responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the direction

of the ministry." The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is now only a powerless

figurehead of the Crown. The historic power of the Crown is now fully exercisable

by the president of the executive council, otherwise called the Premier.

The effect of the Ministry of Forests Act now is simply that the

Minister of Forests is responsible to the Premier and the cabinet. This

amending bill proposes that the Minister of Forests be made, by

statutory declaration and force, responsible to the Legislative

Assembly, and that declaration in itself says to the people of British

Columbia that their Minister of Forests is responsible to them.

Hopefully such a declaration will result in the Ministry of Forests

being administered in the interests of all of the people of this

province, not just in the interests of those who happen to exist as

corporations.

Bill M209, Ministry of Forests Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 2)

introduced, read a first time and placed on orders of the day for

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 42: minister's office, $214,384.

MRS. WALLACE: This debate would not be complete unless we

dealt with a group of women which I feel very close to, and that is the

older women in our province. It is a group that is in a very unenviable

position, because so many older women live in poverty. So many of them

are dependent upon this ministry for their bare subsistence. It's true

that once a woman reaches 65 years of age she is eligible for the old

age pension, and if she is the spouse of a person who is 65 years old,

and if she is over 55 years old herself, she is eligible for some

spousal allowance. But the problem occurs when that woman's spouse dies

or if she doesn't have a spouse. Very often women are alone through

divorce, separation, desertion or death, We have a habit of marrying

men who are older than we are, and we also have a habit of living

longer than they do, so the average woman can look forward to 12 years

of widowhood, statistically.

The woman in this position is very often one who has not worked at a

so-called productive job — that is, work for pay — for many years, or

she may never have worked for pay. She has been busy raising a family

and looking after a home. As a result she is not eligible for Canada

pension, and she is faced with a dire financial position when she finds

herself on her own or when she is no longer able to work, if she has

been working. Statistics show that very often women work at much

lower-paying jobs than men. Many of them work part-time, and as such

are not eligible for many of the benefits that a lot of us take for

granted. They are hard done by, Mr. Chairman.

[10:15]

A few years ago we conducted a task force on older women. I think

the results that came out then are still very valid. The thing that it

stressed the most was the financial thing; next was loneliness,

isolation. But financial pressure is partly responsible for that

loneliness, because when you are pinching pennies, it's very difficult

to involve yourself in social activities. What happens with this

ministry, Mr. Chairman, and generally with ministries that deal with

older women is that many penalties are put on.

[ Page 5968 ]

I think that one of the saddest things that came to my attention

just recently was one of my constituents who is 64 years of age. She

did menial work in a local motel for 14 years — always on call — with

no benefits. She finally got to the point that she could not deal with

this any longer. About two years ago she left that position. She

collected her UIC until it finished about the end of last year. Her

husband is 72 and suffers from emphysema, which requires oxygen, for

which there is no funding. Last February, of course, their car

insurance and licence fell due, and a few other outstanding bills.

Forty years ago that women had managed to save $500, and she had

invested it in a bond that obviously bore very low interest. In

February, because of these extra expenditures, she decided to cash it

in. I don't know whether the minister can remember 40 years ago, but I

can: saving $500 was quite a feat, particularly if you were working as

a chambermaid or a waitress. She had saved that and she had invested

it. After 40 years she got for that.... It was obviously not wisely

invested — and that's another point where women certainly need

financial counselling, because very often older women particularly, as

shown in our task force studies, have not had access, have not had the

opportunity to learn how to conduct business or how to deal with

financial problems. Many of them had never written a cheque until their

husbands had passed away. So this woman had invested that $500 and in

40 years it had gone to $1,097. She cashed it in, paid her ICBC — got

her husband's car insured — and paid off a couple of outstanding debts.

You know what's happened, of course: her allowance, which was $186.67,

has been cut to $66.05, and her husband's allowance has been cut to

$220. Here they are, two of them — one is 72, one is 64 — obliged to

live on $286.05 for some six months until this $1,097, which they

received as a result of cashing in a bond that she had saved 50 years

before to pay off their ICBC premium.... They are being penalized to

that effect.

When she phoned me she said: "I went to see my doctor, and I told my

doctor this, and he couldn't believe it. He said: 'Phone your MLA."' So

she phoned the MLA, and she was somewhat surprised to find that the MLA

was a step ahead of her every step of the way, because this is not an

isolated instance. We've seen it happen so many times that I knew as

soon as she started to tell me the story what had happened.

That is disgraceful: a woman who has saved money, worked that hard

to save it, and the government has taken every cent of it, including

that very low interest that it had earned over 40 years.

Those are the kinds of situations that face older women in our

society today, the women who pioneered on our behalf, who raised their

families under circumstances that we would scarcely consider adequate

if we were out on a wilderness trip in the woods. It's a shameful

disgrace that that kind of thing can happen to older women in our

society. I know that the minister would agree. But why can't she do

something about it? Surely women deserve better treatment than that.

Surely women who have given their lives to work for this province and

this country to raise their children to become citizens, to become the

men and women who sit in this Legislature, who operate our businesses

and keep our economy going, who work in our industries.... The older

women of this province are responsible for the quality of people who

live and work in this community, and it is shameful, a disgrace, that

any person should find herself in the position where she and her

husband are relegated to living on less than $290 a month for six

months because the money she had saved 40 years before has been

confiscated by the government. That's a shame. That's a disgrace in

this province, and it should never be allowed to happen. Older women

deserve better treatment than that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It seems to me.... May I just ask the

member to nod: was it the same case that you brought before the House

last year? Is it that one individual case?

MRS. WALLACE: No.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: This is a new one. Okay. I'd be very glad to look into that case.

The reason I asked that question is because there sometimes are

other circumstances, such as other benefits they are receiving. When we

look into the case we find out they have other benefits; in other

words, they have more assets than perhaps we've been told, or even more

than a member of this House has told sometimes in explaining the

problem. I'd be very glad to look into that case, and we'll certainly

calculate whether or not there was.... If she hasn't got any other

income, if it's just as you say, I don't think that could happen to

her. Please let me have the specifics and I'll look into it. When such

a case happens, it's usually calculated on the assets that the person

has. Let me look into that one specifically. This is a problem that is

not evident on a regular basis; it's a unique case. I'd be very happy

to look into it for you.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister, and I certainly will give

her the information. But I think the rules are fairly clear that a

certain amount is the maximum per month calculated, based on their

assets. If you cash in those assets and have that much extra cash in

your hand, your income is considered to be greater. Any time I've seen

the rules applied, that's the way the system works. When those extra

bucks are in hand, your income is reduced by that amount. That's the

way the system works. That's what has happened to this woman.

I would appreciate it if the minister would deal a little more fully

with the generalities of the situation of older women. Is she prepared

to take any steps to ensure that older women do not have to face living

in poverty? Is she prepared to ensure that consideration is given to

the woman who finds herself a widow, separated or deserted living in

the family home?

Now the allowance for two people has to support only one residence.

But once that becomes a single-family unit, the shelter allowance is

reduced. This means that if the woman is to continue living in her

family home, she is obliged to cover the cost of that home out of one

income, and it's not enough. To tear someone up by the roots like that,

in her declining years, is a sure way to upset both her emotional and

her physical balance. It's a way to ensure that we're going to have

more health-care costs, more people unable to deal with life, to face

life. It's going to mean that diets are restricted if they're to stay

in their own homes, again with implications for health-care costs. I

hope I'm not out of order, Mr. Chairman, talking about health care, as

I am when I talk about education. But those costs are going to evolve.

I would urge the minister to consider some supplementary programs,

because this is a large group of women I'm talking about. I don't have

the statistics at hand that my

[ Page

5969 ]

colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) had yesterday relative

to the young people, or the people involved with income assistance; it wasn't

a small group. It is not a small group of older women in this province; it is

a large group, and it needs some consideration.

The minister has chosen to answer my specific concern and ask for

more information. But I would like some expression of philosophical

commitment from her that she is prepared to take some action to ensure

that older women are not a forgotten group — not put on the shelf and

asked to keep out of sight, or thought to be strange or peculiar

because of poverty. That's what happens if people don't have the funds

to dress properly, eat properly, and keep themselves clean and tidy.

They get the idea of being "queer" — that's the perception of the

public. There is loneliness, and that's something that can drive them

into despair, into a lot of emotional problems. They can become

hypochondriacs. We need things to keep their interest up. We need

retraining. We need social facilities, and those are not there. There

has been a valiant attempt by communities across this province to

assist. But it needs some help from this ministry — more than she is

apparently prepared or able to give. I think it is extremely unfair to

older women who are facing this sort of situation and who have given so

much of their lives to this province and to their country.

[10:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it is not true that we have

not considered this age group. We have. It is not that long ago that we

brought into the ministry, for example, the policy that when the spouse

of a woman passed away, that woman became eligible in advance for the

GAIN for seniors. That has been brought in just to meet that very

problem.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Sixty-four. They themselves then qualify

for the program at 65. So that has already been of significant help to

very many people.

What you're saying is that you want a philosophical statement from

me. Well, the philosophical statement has been made by this government,

and it has been made over and over by action.

The problem you've brought to the floor of the House today is a

unique problem. Until one looks into the circumstances it could be any

number of things which disqualified that person from being able to have

something done with her financial planning which she perhaps wasn't

aware of herself. Maybe she had bad financial and tax advice when she

was not on a limited income. It may well be that she did not maximize

her tax position while earning and did not take advantage of the tax

write-offs she could have had in that bond situation. I don't know that

by just a rather broad statement of one case.... I have to get the

details of that case, and I assure you I'll look into it.

At this point I would like to say to you that throughout this province we have

some excellent senior citizens' counsellors, who are ready and able to immediately

take that case you brought to the floor of the House. They are available to

give that kind of advice, and when they are not directly involved in the capability

of giving tax advice, they have all the capability of getting it. There is no

charge for the service. It's a personal, one-to-one, highly confidential

service, and those people are available.

So may I just suggest to you that that group of people you speak of,

who perhaps have assets beyond that amount of money, may well have been

able to do something before reaching the birthday that has put them in

the position where they can't work any longer and are not yet available

for GAIN for seniors. Had she been married to someone taking GAIN for

seniors, she would have been available for the spouse's.... So that

loophole has been plugged in the past four or five years. If you wish

me to look further into this particular case, I again say: just give me

the name and I'll be glad to do that.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to be very long, but

I do have some comments that I feel I must make under these estimated

expenditures. I'm very concerned that this government has absolutely no

concept of what grinding poverty means. I grew up on the Prairies in a

coal-mining town. During the thirties there were many people within

that little community in which I was growing up who faced grinding

poverty. I had hoped that once I arrived in British Columbia and once

the thirties were behind us, we would never see grinding poverty again.

But we're seeing it today in British Columbia. There is no way that

people can survive with any kind of dignity, any kind of health care —

that is, in the form of nutrition — on the amount of money that's made

available through this government and that ministry for those people

who have no other source of income. We had the figure of $3.33

mentioned a number of times, Mr. Chairman. How can anyone survive one

day, purchasing a nutritious diet on $3.33? It's not possible.

That's what makes grinding poverty: day after day after day to be

faced with those problems. I know what happened to the families living

around us on the Prairies. I know the kinds of problems that existed:

child abuse, neglected kids, families that fought and squabbled day and

night. It was largely related to the fact that they had an inadequate

income. They could not manage on what was made available to them, and

they felt they could not feed their children properly.

We are depriving the children of this province who are forced to

survive on the amount of money made available to them through this

ministry. We are depriving them of their ability to develop to their

full potential, because when you don't have proper nutrition, you

cannot develop to your full potential. There are enough studies

indicating that that's the case. Compound that by putting those same

children in classrooms that are too crowded, with teachers who are

trying to cope with a system that has totally demoralized them, and

then we are truly depriving those children.

I am wondering whether the minister or officials within the ministry

have tried to come up with a nutritionally sound diet on the amount of

money that's available to Human Resources recipients. You would think

that the minister responsible for the welfare of those 220,000 or

250,000 — I don't know many people are on welfare right now, Mr.

Chairman — would ensure that the amount of money available would

provide a nutritional diet. Has she done that? Has she come up with a

diet that shows the people of British Columbia, those of us in the

opposition who are here questioning her about the amount of money

that's made available to them...? Has she proven that the amount of

money is adequate in terms of a nutritionally sound diet? I don't think

she can do it. I have looked in the supermarkets. I have gone from one

place to another trying to figure out how, with $3.33, I'd be able to

come up with a nutritionally sound diet

[ Page 5970 ]

for a child. I can't do it. If that child is a

teenager.... If you know anything about teenagers, then you appreciate

that there is no way we can possibly expect that large portion of our

population today to be able to come up with decent nutrition; they

can't. The minister cannot ensure that those people have the basic diet

that everyone requires in order to develop to full potential.

[10:45]

It seems to me very clear, based on the fact that we have soup

kitchens and food banks all over this province, that the job she is

doing on behalf of the people she represents is totally inadequate. The

amount of money is inadequate. If I were the Minister of Human

Resources, I would be embarrassed that there are food banks and soup

kitchens all over this province; the amount of money made available

through her ministry is so inadequate that they have no other choice. I

would be embarrassed to go to a cocktail party costing half a million

dollars when I know that those children are being deprived of

developing to their full potential because of the position adopted by

her government and her ministry.

Has she come up with a budget totalling $3.33 a day for a person on

Human Resources assistance, to provide a nutritious diet? That's my

question to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: No answer?

MR. LAUK: Is the minister indicating that she's not going to

answer any more questions? Is the minister going to participate in her

estimates any further?

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 12

Macdonald

Dailly

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Brown

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Wallace

Passarell

NAYS — 25

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Davis

Mowat

Rogers

Segarty

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Parks

Reid

Ree

Veitch

Reynolds

MR. LAUK: I guess the minister's cabinet colleagues are a little

puzzled why they were called in from their morning coffee this morning. Perhaps

the minister could explain to her colleagues that she has steadfastly refused

to participate in these estimates. She's given non-answers. She's given

no research. She's ignored the legitimate questions of the opposition. Cooperation

in this House works both ways, Mr. Chairman. She can't sit there and give

those grade 3 arithmetic answers to serious sincere questions from members of

the opposition. She did so yesterday afternoon; she's done so this morning.

If you don't want to come back for divisions this morning and again this

afternoon, then talk to the minister.

Participate in the honest way that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) did, and other ministers like the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith), who gave answers to legitimate questions, and not silly

half-hearted answers saying, "Gee, I think I can get that information,"

and not propagandist-type answers. We're here examining the budget of

the Ministry of Human Resources. We're not here having a little

propagandist's discussion about how everything is wonderful in

Wonderland. We're here to ask legitimate questions. The member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I'm sure all hon.

members of the committee are sincerely interested in what the second

member for Vancouver Centre has to say, and with that in mind, could we

please be a bit more attentive and make less noise, please. I'd advise

both sides of the House. We have a speaker who has entered into debate.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it is a legitimate point to make on

behalf of the opposition. The minister cannot arrogantly look at this

committee and say, "All I have to do is ignore the questions and say,

'Carry on, carry on,"' like Marie Antoinette. People are raising

legitimate questions. They want to know whether the minister has

addressed herself to the serious problem of people receiving social

assistance, at great cost to the taxpayer in this province. She has not

done so. She has not discussed.... She is no longer on the employment

committee of cabinet that doesn't exist. She does not apply herself to

the problem of the unemployed in this province. She does not take her

job seriously, except to get up and say that everything's rosy. The

Pollyanna of the Legislature. She says: "I do not believe in

negapolitics."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will withdraw the personal reference. The Chair finds it unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the expression is not unparliamentary. The expression is.... Does Mr. Chairman know who Pollyanna was?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The point that concerns me, hon. member....

MR. LAUK: Does the minister find "Pollyanna" objectionable?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is a personal reference which I find offensive, and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I did not address that remark to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's to the minister and another hon. member of

this House. I would ask the member to withdraw the statement or

withdraw from the chamber.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister does not ask me to withdraw the statement; the Chairman does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct.

[ Page 5971 ]

MR. LAUK: What right does the Chairman have to ask me to

withdraw a statement that does not offend the minister? I wasn't

referring to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It offends the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: On what grounds?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find it offensive to another hon. member of this House.

MR. LAUK: The word "Pollyanna"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: In reference to another hon. member. It's a personal reference.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, you're in charge of the committee, and I withdraw that word. Can I say that it's pollyannish behaviour?

The conduct of the minister, in her office, by coming into this

chamber and expressing the view that she can get away with these

ragtag, non-researched answers to serious questions of the

opposition....

She comes in and says: "Everything is wonderful in Lotusland. All

the little lefties are feeding other lefties at the food banks. Isn't

that wonderful? We're not charging it up to the taxpayer, Aren't we

getting away with wonderful things here in British Columbia?" What

employment plans has she got? Nothing. She's said nothing about those

people.

I'd like her to go down to the food banks and soup kitchens and talk

to those people. They're not the regular chronic unemployed or chronic

welfare recipients. Those are people who have had families and jobs,

and in many cases houses and mortgages; in many cases they have voted

Social Credit in the past, and they never will again. Nobody they talk

to ever will again. What is she doing for those people? They're not

fooled by her saying: "It's the international recession. There's

nothing we can do about it." Champagne Charlotte and Champagne Charlie

— $500,000 cocktail parties, and legitimate questions from the member

for North Island and from our critic, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds,

have gone unanswered.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

When a series of questions are proposed to the minister this morning

by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), she says: "Carry on." Carry on!

Does she think she's going to sit in her chair and hope that her salary

is going to pass, and the opposition is going to roll over and play

dead? Or is she going to have us dissolved, like the government

dissolves other locally elected people in this province? That is why,

Mr. Chairman, it's going to be a long, hot summer, and her cabinet

colleagues and the rest of the Social Credit members can thank her for

it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if

she has reviewed the United Way report that was published in the last

year, with respect to the inadequacies of assistance in British

Columbia. That is my question: whether she has reviewed the United Way

report of November 1984, with respect to the adequacy of support

payments.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me just catch up on

three comments: first of all, the one from the member for Comox, who

asked a question regarding diet and income assistance recipients, We

do, through the Ministry of Health....They look after that kind of

thing and give that kind of advice throughout the province through the

public health nurse. But we do not, in our ministry, except for a pilot

project that we pay for indirectly in the city of Vancouver. If I may

say, it's more in counselling when people come to us; it's done in a

counselling way. So in a way we do it, but not on an overall basis. Nor

do we give advice to people who come to us on income assistance. We

don't interfere with their lives by giving them advice on

landlord-tenant relationships or diet supplements or any of those kinds

of things. If they seek advice, that advice is given through the social

workers and through the financial support workers who are in our

ministry. So that advice is available if they wish it.

Now the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was mentioning

targeting for employment for welfare recipients. That very question is

one which all provincial governments are wrestling with. I am glad to

tell you that British Columbia was the province that brought to the

federal-provincial conference a few days ago in Ottawa the fact that we

should begin in this country, which we haven't up to now.... We have

been trying in this province to target job opportunities to welfare

recipients, but that has not been a policy of the federal government

under CAP. It has not been the policy of any other jurisdiction across

this country, but we got our message across loud and clear about a week

and a half ago.

We think there will be some changes in the philosophy of CAP, so

when that kind of opportunity is available, we will be able to take

advantage of it. In other words, those people who are in the income

assistance group will not be isolated from the opportunities that are

given to all people. We've been working very hard to get a change of

philosophy nationally, and I'm working hard with the Ministry of Labour

and the Minister of Education, as I told the House yesterday, in just

that kind of targeting for opportunities. That has been working; it's

been working through the Individual Opportunity Plan. But in any new

programs that are joint programs with the federal government in which

we will join, that kind of targeting will be one of the first

priorities, I'm quite sure, having been to a conference where we think

that our point was not only well received but was also embodied in a

motion by the whole group, including the federal minister.

Now to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), all of the

reports which come to us — for example, the United Way report — have

been studied by my ministry. All of those reports are well critiqued by

my ministry and sent to me. Yes, I do see them all.

MR. WILLIAMS: I can say that I see a report too, Mr. Chairman

— just took at the report: "See Jerry run." That's not the answer. Has

the minister read the report? Has the minister looked at the numbers

that the Vancouver health department says are minimum basic numbers for

food for families, singles and the like? Has she gone over those

numbers?

She nods her head. She says yes. The health department tells us that

certain basic numbers are absolutely necessary in terms of decent food

for families to get by — for single parents and their children to get

by. The gap is significant. What does the minister say about the gap?

How do you deal

[ Page 5972 ]

with that gap? You can read the newspapers and find

that the cost of food in British Columbia is higher than anywhere in

the nation. Check the supermarkets in this city, in Vancouver or

elsewhere. The cost of food is higher than anywhere in the nation. Our

support system, if we're serious in terms of looking after families in

need.... As the member for Vancouver Centre says, the countless

families that no doubt voted Social Credit and were working before

their disastrous economic program have borne the fruits of it.

All of these people are now impacted by a welfare system that is

inadequate. They're getting a taste of what others in our society have

had all too often. So how can the minister sit here and say she has

reviewed the Vancouver health department's figures in terms of a

minimal moderately low-cost budget for food, see the gap between what

she provides and what's needed, and live with it and accept the

ministry that she has?

You know, when ministers in Britain have problems with their

conscience, they resign. Is this a problem of conscience in terms of

inadequate food and shelter and the rest for people that now need more

income assistance than has ever been needed historically in the

province of British Columbia?

[11:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 42 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there no response, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty

responding question by question, but it really does take up a lot of

time of the House. I don't mind doing them all at once, but if we do

two or three together, I think it's a lot quicker.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: the member brings up the question of

poverty levels. There are several. There's more than the United Way,

there's more than the health department and there's more than Stats

Canada. There's a different level all across the nation. I think what

the member has to understand is that when we strike a budget for income

assistance, we have to do so compared, firstly, to the dollars that we

have in hand — those which the taxpayers are sending to us, and in

relation to the economy and where we are going in the province. Right

now, this ministry is the third-highest spending ministry in this

province. The three social services ministries — firstly, the Health

ministry, secondly, Education, and thirdly, the Ministry of Human

Resources — spend the largest amount: beyond $5.5 billion of the total

budget.

This ministry spends $1.4 billion, of which almost $1 billion goes

to income assistance. It is true that we are serving more people, that

we have more people on income assistance, and therefore that is the

burden that the treasury, has carried. There is no possibility at this

point in time of increasing the rates, and that's what the bottom line

is of the question from the opposite side. But when one looks at some

of the income assistance levels that we have in the province, we

compare very favourably to other jurisdictions, although we are pleased

to say that we have increased the turnover. In other words, there are

more people going off income assistance more regularly and more often

so that they only need to use that assistance for a short period of

time. It is true that you can find just about any spokesman in Canada

who will give you a level that is different or who will give you a

different report to the one that the member mentioned.

For example, there are many benefits that are not counted in such

reports. We just get the bottom line. We don't get all the other

benefits, like the medical benefits and the dental benefits. The member

knows full well that he can take any statistical figures, and you are

comparing oranges and apples all the time.

What we are striving to do in the province is to create

opportunities so that those people who are on income assistance today

will be off income assistance in as short a time as possible and will

use the service for as short a time as possible. I'm glad to tell you,

Mr. Chairman, that that goal is being reached by this ministry, and

we're pleased that it is. There are a lot of success stories that you

don't hear. You know, the members opposite and even members on my own

side of the House can talk about some tragic circumstances, and we

always will be able to. We were able to do that during the most

affluent times in our history, and they will probably be there when

this province reaches it peak again in economic development.

However, there are many more success stories. There are people who

have got off welfare and become independent, and it is because of the

people in my ministry; it is because of the work and policies of this

ministry. I believe there will be many more if our negotiations with

the federal minister.... I think that was an exceptional conference of

cooperation the week before last in Ottawa. I really believe we're

going to target a lot more help to those who are unemployed and those

who are on income assistance at the present time.

MR. WILLIAMS: How, in all honesty, can this woman stand up

here and talk about her success stories? We have more people on welfare

now in British Columbia than ever before in the history of this

province, and she has the gall to get up and talk about what a great

success story it is.

These people are the mechanics of the provincial economy as well in

British Columbia. They're the ones who have let our forest industry

slide. They're the ones who let newsprint plants locate a hundred

kilometres south of the border, built by the CPR, as is currently going

to be the case, and we don't renew our own plants in British Columbia

where most of the machinery is over 35 years old. No wonder we're in

the economic straits that we are. We're the creatures of our own

destiny in this province. It was created by that administration. You've

had a decade. We are now getting the results of Social Credit economic

planning, and they are arriving at the minister's door. That is the end

result of ten years of Social Credit economic planning: the highest

numbers on welfare in the history of British Columbia. That is the end

result of all of that brains trust over there. That is the product of

your system, your inadequacy, your ignorance, your flying around the

world, your empty-headed twaddle that we get day in, day out in this

Legislature. There is no end to the emptiness from this administration.

We asked a simple question. In terms of the health department's

figures for the city of Vancouver, how can you live with the fact that

the numbers are so inadequate? We have the highest-cost food in the

land. On that basis, if British Columbia were to be equitable with the

other provinces, then indeed we would have to have the highest food

supplement available

[ Page 5973 ]

for people on assistance. Wouldn't that follow?

It's not, well, you're just asking about apples and comparing oranges.

We're talking about simple food, not apples and oranges, and it's

inadequate.

All the figures are clear: we have the highest costs in the land,

and just about the highest unemployment and worst economic performance

in the land. Given the resource base of British Columbia, it's all

inexcusable. These are all products of human beings. The economy does

not rain down on us from the sky. It is the product of people's work

and efforts, and the genius of man or the lack of it. The problem we

have in this province is the lack of it.

Does the minister say that the United Way figures are out of whack?

Look at this. An unemployed childless couple, 45 years old, living in

Surrey. Look at the numbers there. She's looked at those numbers; is

she saying that they're grossly inflated? Look at the modest figures

for clothing in the allowances. The minister at least should understand

what clothing costs in British Columbia. The minister especially should

know what clothing costs. Does she think the clothing allowances are

adequate in terms of what she provided for the 237,000 citizens in this

land? Might she indeed compare it with her own budget?

I don't think one can separate these things. I don't think you can

say $3.33 is adequate for food for a single person, and then spend 10,

20, 30 times that yourself. I don't think you can do that in all

conscience. Maybe you can. Let's hear from the member for Surrey; let's

look at the numbers for Surrey in terms of the new welfare. Let's look

at the new welfare recipients in Surrey. Could anybody on the other

side attempt to get by on that basis? Three dollars and thirty-three

cents a day. It doesn't pay for a cocktail, for God's sake. That's what

you were providing the other day in Vancouver. It just doesn't begin.

We are the expensive part of this land. We have a high cost of

living in British Columbia, and you're not delivering. You're not

delivering in terms of the provincial economic performance, and you're

not delivering in an honest way in terms of the need that's out there.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked a whole series

of questions of the minister, most of which she was unable to answer.

I've waited now for just over an hour, expecting that the minister

would have come back, having had an opportunity overnight to consult

with her staff and get us some answers to some of those questions.

For example and I'll start with the individual opportunities program

yesterday she said, after being asked several times, that each and

every month approximately 7,500 recipients of income assistance are in

an individual opportunity plan. Any fair-minded person reading or

hearing that would assume there are 7,500 people receiving assistance

who each and every month go onto the individual opportunities program.

That's the clear impression from that. Yesterday I said that those

numbers would mean 90,000 people were on the IOP every year, and the

minister didn't even have the knowledge or the ability or the skill to

recognize that those figures were nonsense. She didn't even attempt to

correct me on those figures, simply because she doesn't know the

numbers.

There have never been 90,000 people a year on welfare who then go on

the IOP. When I suggested that that's the logical extension of the

numbers she gave us in the House, she didn't even have the knowledge or

the ability or the skill or the concern to say to me and to this House:

"Those numbers are nonsense" — because they are. The 7,500 figure that

she would have us believe is a monthly figure is in fact a figure that

she tells us might be the total number of people on the individual

opportunities program.

Let me start again from the beginning on this particular topic,

before we go to others — and I want to go to some others. How many

people a year enrol in the IOP? How many people successfully complete

the program? How many people get a job upon completion? And for those

who do get a job, how many still have a job three months later, six

months later and a year later?

[11:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I did answer this question

yesterday. It may not have been to the member's satisfaction, but I

answered it. You're taking out of context something I said yesterday. I

said that at any given time this year there would be 7,500 people each

and every month involved in the Individual Opportunity Plan. It's quite

evident that the member hasn't taken the time to read what an

individual opportunity plan is. It is a program which is designed on an

individual basis to meet the concerns and the needs of an individual.

Each individual varies. For one person it could be the job action

program, which is really a very short-term reorientation into the

workforce. It takes under a month. Surprisingly enough, the success

rate of a program that only lasts a month is in some cases

exceptionally high. That's true throughout the province. There is a

very good success rate in that one program. However, not everybody

qualifies nor is the job action program for everybody. So there's a

selection of other things under the Individual Opportunity Plan. For

example, it may well be that somebody needs retraining. That program

could last up to two years. Some of these people in the program today

are working toward that goal, but they may be with us for 24 months.

But that's better than being with us for seven or eight years. That's

the whole idea of the program. If the member would only understand what

the motivation and the goals of our ministry have been for these past

few years, he would understand that that is a lot better than people

being committed to a life of welfare. The point is that welfare should

not be a way of life for our fellow British Columbians. We want to get

them into a life of independence as soon as possible.

You asked a question, and it's different. It's not to say that the

7,500 people who are on the Individual Opportunity Plan today are going

to be off that plan today. It means that of the 7,500 who are on this

month about 1,100, depending on the month and depending upon the

make-up of that 7,500, will be in a job and will be independent.

I told you yesterday, in answer to your next question, that we do

not keep statistics on those who are successful, other than knowing

that when they are off income assistance and no longer need it we know

they have been successful. I'd also like you to know — and I did refer

to this yesterday — that we do not take the easy way in terms of

getting people into the job market. We do not take the easy ones; the

easy ones are the ones who apply for income assistance today, because

50 percent of those people will be off on their own. We take the more

difficult cases, where they've been on for a little while, and then we

give them that concentrated help. Most of the people who come to us

today will manage on their own to get their own jobs and be off income

assistance. No, I don't have those statistics. We have not kept those

statistics on the IOP, because success is getting them from welfare

dependency to

[ Page 5974 ]

independence, That's the success of the program; that's how it works.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Alice in Wonderland.

Mr. Chairman, in the beginning of her comments just now the minister

suggested that I didn't understand what she was saying. I didn't trust

my memory; I trusted Hansard .

She said yesterday: "Approximately 7,500 recipients of income

assistance, each and every month, are in an Individual Opportunity

Plan." What she meant to say yesterday, and what she tried to say

today, is that at any one time there are 7,500 people who are on the

IOR. Yesterday when I said, in response to that, that listening to her,

it would mean there were 90,000 people a year through IOP, she didn't

contradict that; she accepted that yesterday simply because she didn't

know.

Because she's not involved in the day-to-day administration of her

ministry, she doesn't know or care about what happens in that ministry.

All she wants to do is paint a rosy story. She knows if she ever took

the time to get the facts, to understand what was going on, she

wouldn't be able in all conscience to paint that kind of rosy story.

That's the reality in that ministry.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not true.

MR. GABELMANN: It's true. We listen to it every year. Every

year we go through these estimates, and we hear this twaddle and this

claptrap and this nice, rosy stuff. Some years we let it go, and we

think we can't deal with this woman, because she never, ever deals with

reality. This year we're going to try to get something out of this.

How many people in 1984 were enrolled in the IOP?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the reality of the situation is that

my colleague is asking questions that would have been included in an

annual report, if we'd had one since 1982; 1982-83 is the last annual

report to come out of that ministry. That's the reason we're asking

these questions. Either the minister is going to do her job one way or

she's going to have to do it another way: either we get an annual

report telling us what happened in 1983 and 1984, or the minister is

going to have to answer these questions.

I'm not surprised that she's embarrassed about the Individual

Opportunity Plan, because, quite frankly, she's been kneecapping the

plan herself. The CIP program, in which she's been depriving those

people of their 50 bucks a month; that's part of the Individual

Opportunity Plan. Did you know that? That's part of helping people to

get off welfare. Even when they took her to court and won their case,

they still can't get their $50 a month. The job action program for the

disabled, which she talks about.... Again, that's $50 which they are

being deprived of. That's part of the Individual Opportunity Plan.

That's the reason there are no statistics and information on it.

I think my colleague from North Island should not despair; he should

continue to ask those questions until we get an answer. That's the only

way we find out what's going on in this minister's ministry, since she

refuses to publish an annual report.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of public record

that income assistance recipients, for the first eight months, are not

eligible for earnings exemptions. Can the minister tell us how she

thinks that is going to help people to begin to work their way back

onto the job market, if they're not eligible for earnings exemptions in

those first months of being on welfare?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: This decision was made because that's the

quickest turnover that we have. The singles are the quickest in the

under-eight-months group to get back into the job situation. The policy

was decided a year ago in order to make accommodation for the families

rather than those that are on longer than eight months; rather than

those that are not the most mobile group, the ones that are more

long-term. So that decision was made to accommodate the ones who stay

with us longer and need more attention, as I had explained earlier.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just make an introduction while

I'm on my feet. I'm really pleased to see that Nancy and Warren Hansen

are visiting the House today. Their home is in the city of Vancouver.

I'm very pleased to welcome them to the House.

MR. GABELMANN: It now being five minutes, and I think

sufficient time for the minister to have discovered the answer to my

previous question, can she now tell us how many people in calendar

1984, fiscal 1983-84 or fiscal 1984-85 — I'm not fussy — were enrolled

for whatever length of time on the IOP?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, my associate deputy

minister, Ev Northup, whom I should have introduced — Mr. Noble, who

was with me yesterday, is in Ottawa representing our ministry today —

has told me that it would be approximate; he hasn't got the exact

number with him. It's quite possible to get that for you. But it's

approximately 15,000 or 16,000 people per year.

MR. GABELMANN: Approximately 15,000 people are being assisted

in whatever way — without making a qualitative evaluation of the

program, which I want to get to in a moment — and at the same time,

during the course of the last couple of years we have had between

55,000 and 75,000 single adults on assistance at any one time. Let's

call it 75,000, because that's what it is — slightly over that — in

February 1985: single adults, male and female. By the minister's

calculations these people come on and off at a rate of about 10,000 a

month. It's mostly singles who come on and off, if one is to believe

what she tells us. It's hard to calculate how many people came on and

off welfare in a year, but you could say it would be about 120,000. We

are talking about probably a couple of hundred thousand single persons

who have been on welfare at some point in the year, if what the

minister tells us is true. Some 15,000 of those people, or 7 percent —

5 to 10 percent, to be generous — have had an opportunity to go through

the IOP program? It's no wonder that people on assistance, in my

constituency, are constantly coming to me and asking how they can get

on it, if 5 to 10 percent of the recipients are actually given an

opportunity.

The fact is that that is a public relations program, and the proof

of that isn't just in the minimal numbers involved; the proof of it is

in the fact that there is no evaluation in the

[ Page 5975 ]

ministry of its success, because the minister still

hasn't answered the questions about how many of those approximately

15,000 people got jobs. How many got jobs in the first place — even a

job that lasted a day? How many got a job that lasted at least a month?

How many of the people, let's say in fiscal 1982-83, because there must

be records...?

I can tell you, if the Premier heard about the fact that there

programs of this magnitude and this cost that weren't being evaluated,

he would soon have a discussion with the minister about that, I can

tell you. So there must be an evaluation. I just can't believe that

there's a government program of this magnitude that isn't evaluated to

see whether it's worthwhile. Therefore I'm sure it has been and that

the figures must be available. The reason the minister won't tell us is

that almost none of those people go into permanent jobs, because they

don't. If they did she would stand up in this House and brag about it.

Mr. Chairman, have the minister tell us how many of these approximately

15,000 people a year end up in full-time employment that lasts for at

least a year.

MS. BROWN: I just want to be sure, Mr. Chairman, that you

don't pass the vote because no one's on their feet. But if the minister

is ready, I'm happy to sit down.

Okay, I'll tell about one of the people who took the program, because I have a letter here that says:

"Yesterday in Hansard

I noticed that Mrs. McCarthy spoke in the House about the Individual

Opportunity Plan. This program is supposed to help people with few

skills to get a job. The government offers employers up to $2.50 an

hour for hiring and training these people. Anyhow, as usual, things are

not as they seem. I was on this program, and I was not offered any

help, other than one interview and use of their photocopier.

"Also, a friend was on this program, and she was sent

to an interview along with another person who is also on the program.

The position was as a receptionist in a lawyer's office, and the

employer was willing to train someone in return for the financial

compensation. Needless to say, my friend did not get the job, as the

employer chose the other applicant because she was a person experienced

in working in a lawyer's office, who just happened to be unemployed.

"Now the person with few skills is back on income

assistance, the person with previous skills has the job and the

employer has an experienced receptionist and is getting part of her

wages paid by the Ministry of Human Resources."

This is an example, Mr. Chairman, of how it works.

[11:30]

My question is: does the Ministry of Human Resources not check to

see if employers receiving the financial compensation are in fact

training someone, or are they just getting jobs for people with better

qualifications and being subsidized for it? "What is the program really

doing?" This woman signed her name.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the IOP numbers. I'll quote the minister from Hansard of April 30, 1985 — not very long ago — on page 5896:

Surely the Individual Opportunity Plan has been one of

the most innovative in this country, and it is looked on as a model by

my colleagues across this nation. The job action program, which to this

day, in the midst of an upturn in the economy, and in the past, when we

were in the midst of a recession, has a 70 percent.... Seven out of ten

people who come to us, even in the last two years. have found

themselves off welfare within a very few weeks of taking a job action

program.

Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of twaddle and bafflegab and nonsense

that we're trying to get a handle on. A casual and even a careful

reading of that statement would suggest what? It would suggest that

seven out of ten people who come on welfare go through the IOP and are

off welfare in a few weeks. That's what it says: "Seven out of ten

people who come to us, even in the last two years, have found

themselves off welfare within a very few weeks of taking a job action

program."

Now you can read that several ways. But the clear reading that any

fair-minded person would give to it, and what the minister intends it

to be interpreted as, is that once you come into welfare you then go

onto IOP, and then you're off in a few weeks thanks to this marvellous

program. It's all nonsense. First of all, you have to be on welfare for

eight months to get on. Seven out of ten people who go onto assistance

don't take the program and don't get off in the first few weeks.

It's that kind of misleading, half-truth kind of approach that this

minister takes to her ministry. I didn't accuse of her of lying; I'll

have to do that in the hallway, Mr. Chairman. I can't do it in the

House, so I won't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Parliamentary language, parliamentary phrases, please.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm being very careful about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the minister would have people

believe things which aren't in fact accurate, or aren't so. Now people

can make their own judgment about what kind of behaviour that is. She

does it in careful, manipulative ways, and a good....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. GABELMANN: I'm reading from Hansard : seven out of ten people who come on welfare take the IOP and are off in a few weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we may have differences of opinion

in this committee, and I'm sure that probably happens throughout the

debate. But to impute an improper motive to another hon. member of the

House is quite unparliamentary. Now the member can continue, and I'm

sure he's quite aware of what constitutes proper parliamentary

reflection on another member.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we're

trying to do here is to get some accurate information from the

minister. Her approach to her job is to talk in generalities, to be

vague, to talk about individual cases as opposed to the quarter of a

million, to find a ray of sunshine in a thunderstorm and to ignore the

fact that it's pouring and to talk about that ray of sunshine. That's

okay once in a while, but not when you deny the existence of the

thunderstorm.

Why won't she tell us about the program in specifics, in detail? Why won't she give us the numbers that I asked for

[ Page 5976 ]

yesterday in terms of caseload? The numbers she

gives us are just not believable. If 10,000 new people come on social

assistance every month in this province, and when you recognize that

those are cases, not people, that number in fact represents 20,000

people. In a year, that's a quarter of a million people who've come on

assistance, and she says that that many people go off assistance as

well. It doesn't take very many years before the total population of

B.C. has been in and out of the system, and there are still more coming

on. Where do they come from? The numbers are not credible. It's because

she prefers the bafflegab. She prefers the PR. In the Health estimates

you ask the minister a specific question, hoping to get an answer, and

he gives you that answer and ten times more. In this ministry you ask a

specific question and you get nothing, except a speech about how

wonderful things are.

Let me just go back to this April 30 quote in Hansard :

"Seven out of ten people who come to us, even in the last two years,

have found themselves off welfare within a very few weeks of taking a

job action program." Now someone who isn't familiar with the details

would assume that they come on welfare and they're shuffled off into

the office next door which is the.... The FAW says: "Now you've got to

go into the IOP office, which is next door." And a few weeks later

seven out of ten are off. That's not how it works. The minister would

have the population of this province believe that. In fact, what

happens is that they're not eligible for this program. She tried

earlier this morning to justify that, on the basis that people who come

on go off very quickly, so we don't have to worry about them — it's the

others.

But yesterday she told us, in effect, that only 25 percent of the

240,000 — 237,000, but call it 240,000 — who are on assistance are

chronic. The numbers just don't add up, Mr. Chairman, because of those

chronic ones, how many are unemployable, by the ministry's

definitions?

Let me ask that question as well. Maybe if we keep asking enough

questions, some will get answered eventually. How many of the social

assistance recipients in British Columbia are categorized by the

ministry as employable and how many as unemployable?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe the member, in quoting Hansard of last year, is quoting the job action program. Is that correct?

MR. GABELMANN: I know the minister can't wait for Expo 86,

but this is still 1985. The quote was from April 30, 1985. That was

last Tuesday, if my memory is correct. I quoted this excerpt three

times, Mr. Chairman, and I'll do it again: "Surely the Individual

Opportunity Plan has been one of the most innovative. Seven out of ten

people who come to us, even in the last two years, have found

themselves off welfare within a very few weeks of taking a job action

program." Maybe the word "very" means hundreds.

Let me ask the other question then, since she doesn't seem to

understand anything at all about this subject. How many people who are

on assistance today are categorized by the ministry as employable and

how many as unemployable?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have that figure, and we'll give it to you in a minute.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. We're beginning to make some progress. She tells us that we'll get that answer in a few minutes.

Have enough minutes elapsed for her to now tell us how many people

of the 15,000 who were in the IOP program are now working full time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member really wants to

get into a whole numbers debate so that he can confuse everyone,

including those who will perhaps be hanging on every word. I see there

are none, in the gallery. At any rate, I know exactly what he's trying

to do. It's a great ploy by the socialists. They love to do this

because, you see, they really don't want to believe that there are some

success stories. They really don't want to believe there are people....

Now in answer to your question regarding the percentage of people

who enter into the Individual Opportunity Plan, the job action portion

of the Individual Opportunity Plan does have a success rate, even in

difficult times, of approximately 70 percent. Seven out of ten people

is an exceptionally high record of achievement for any social services

program, and it is true that in the past three and a half years that

we've had the Individual Opportunity Plan, of which the job action is a

part, it has been a leader in the country. So when I said that, it is

true. It's just in this last month that the rest of the nation, the

other provinces, are even catching up to what we have done in British

Columbia. It is looked on as a leader in the field. So that's not an

exaggeration. I don't make any apologies at all for making statements

like that, because I think there's great credit to my staff and to the

people who work in my ministry for delivering such a program. So don't

try to tell me that I'm exaggerating. I don't exaggerate about the

people who work with me; I tell the truth. They're terrific.

You have asked for the number of people who are employable or

unemployable; whichever way. We estimate that at the present time the

numbers in the province who would be classified as unemployable now —

not necessarily next month or next year, but right now — are

approximately 37,000.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to pursue the success rate. Let me just

ask two simple questions about the "success rate." First, seven out of

ten is how many people? Obviously, if she's able to calculate it as

seven out of ten she must know the total numbers, and I'd like to know

what those numbers are. Second, how is the success rate measured? Is it

based on getting a job? She nods her head. Right. The success rate of

seven out of ten is based on getting a job. If the job lasts for one

day and that person doesn't work again, they're still in the seven.

Mr. Chairman, the whole program is a fraud. You do not measure success rates

in being able to get back into the workforce by simply asking the question:

did you get a job? The more important question, to see whether this program

is all that it's made out to be, is: how long did the job last and what

happened to the individual? I assume from the minister's response that once

that person gets a job there is no longer any concern in the ministry as to

whether or not that job continued. Is that correct?

MS. BROWN: I just want to clarify the goal of the job action

program and read it back to the minister: "The job action program is a

classroom program designed to teach recipients how to prepare for and

obtain an interview and a job." So if someone registers for the program

and stays until the classroom courses come to an end, that's a success.

That's

[ Page 5977 ]

it. Seven of the ten people who sign up for the

program have to stay until it's over and that's a success. They don't

have to find a job.

[11:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, both members would

love to leave that inference, and it's absolutely incorrect. You can

read what you want from the manual. It is a general description of how

you apply or how you get into the Individual Opportunity Plan or into a

job action program.

Again, you were kind enough to send over the quote that you have

just read. I didn't say the Individual Opportunity Plan has a 70

percent rate of success; I said the job action program.

Now let me talk about the job action program, because the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds brings it up. The job action program is by no means

rated a success just because we enrol people in it. It is rated a

success when those who who take the program, not just to be taught how

to write a resume and how to go out and from the Yellow Pages of the

phone book look for a place.... They do not even go to the "Help

Wanted" in the Sun or the Province or any newspaper in the province.

They go to the Yellow Pages of the phone book after they have been

taught how to approach people for a job. It is that program that has

had.... Six, seven, sometimes as high as eight people out of ten in

that program have been successful in getting a job within the

three-week program of job action.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

It is a very successful program. Our ministry is extremely proud of

it. We have had ministers and deputy ministers from across the nation

come and visit it. Just this past few weeks we have been told by

Alberta that they are aggressively putting it together for their

province, as they did with the Helpline for Children. They are going to

be the first in the nation to copy it from British Columbia. So don't

tell me that the success is that they enrol. If that were the success,

you would say that everybody that enrols in a school system is a

success. That's not true. Everybody that enrols in the school system

is not going to be a success. But the point is that we count the

successes as they have a position to go to, and that's the success. The

member for North Island asked how we measure a success. It's when they

are no longer taking income assistance and have the independence that

we want for each and every British Columbian. That's how we count the

success.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this lady with numbers is like an

accordion player. You know, a couple of minutes ago it was seven out of

ten. Then she says: "Well, six" — open it up this much — "well, seven,

maybe eight." 0 sole mio. Anything goes. What's the music you want to

hear? There has been no annual report and no firm data presented to the

House. It's just an accordion player with numbers that's before us

today. Whatever music we want to hear, whatever she thinks will sell

today, that's the tune that's peddled.

Yesterday she gave this House the impression that there were 90,000

people going through this program. The member for North Island talked

about it. Well, if there are 7,500 a month, we put that together, and

that's 90,000. Then the assumption is, well, if it's a seven-out-of-ten

success rate, then the success rate is what? Sixty or seventy thousand

people. My God, what a successful program! It isn't even there; it's

all evaporated. Once you start working on it, fold up the accordion.

All the air goes out of the machine. It's just hot air in the

accordion. That's all it is.

We still haven't had the firm numbers in terms of the success rate.

We've now narrowed it down to only 15,000 a year — not the 90,000 we

were led to believe yesterday. Fifteen thousand a year; that's it. She

now says it's seven out of ten there. Well then, what's that, Madam

Minister? Is that 9,000 people, maybe? We still don't have the firm,

specific numbers that the member for North Island has requested for lo

these few days. We still don't have the numbers.

Can the minister give us the precise annual figure for the last

reporting year? We still don't have that report, which I think is

nothing short of scandalous — that the annual report was not deposited

with the Legislature before the estimates came up. I think it's unheard

of. But what are the actual numbers? We're descending now from some

60,000 to probably 7,000 or 8,000. That's the kind of misleading

material this House has had. Can we have the precise numbers now?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are there no precise numbers?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not today.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not today. It's as the member for North Island

says: what kind of operation are you running? It's costing more and

more. What kind of evaluations do you have? Is it just a PR sham? Is

that all it is? You don't run operations this way. I cannot believe

that the numbers are not available. I cannot believe that the annual

report is not complete. I think a conscious decision has been made,

once again, to withhold information from the Legislature. The report is

not filed, the numbers are not provided, and that allows the minister

to do her concertina number. Any number will do. It simply isn't

adequate. We expect more; we expect better.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the reason that I say no is

simply because I don't want to give a figure that is misleading, and I

don't want to give an erroneous figure. You mentioned the annual

report. I understand the annual report is in the printing and will be

on the floor of this House in about four weeks' time.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't call the time for the estimates.

You know the number of people who are on income assistance. There

are approximately 126,000 cases in the province. That number has been

given over and over again, and that number is available. If you want to

know the success rates of those programs that have been mentioned, they

vary depending upon.... There are some people we count as a success

simply because we have them in a program — an educational program or a

retraining program. That is a success. They may not be off income

assistance, but we feel that it is a success. Those programs vary

anywhere between one month and two years. So they are all at varying

degrees of

[ Page 5978 ]

success in graduating, if you like, from income assistance rolls.

MS. BROWN: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think the problem that

we're having getting the figures is because in fact, as my colleague

said, the program really is a sham. The job action program is a

classroom program, which you are not eligible for until you've been on

income assistance eight months; you get $50 a week while you're on it,

for a maximum of three weeks. So in order to get 50 bucks a month — a

little bit extra, so you have more than $3.33 a day to eat — you go on

the job action program, stay on it for three weeks, and it's measured

as a success. That's what it is.

Now the minister says I'm now to pay attention to the policy manual. The

annual report which is in printing is the annual report for 1983. We haven't

received anything since the 1982-83 report. How can we discuss and analyze what

is going on in that ministry when a 1983 report is not going to be available

for three or four weeks? The job action program: there are no statistics; there

are no figures on it, because in reality, Mr. Chairman, it's fantasy.

I think that I should move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again, and the whole bit. After lunch there will

be some more information forthcoming from the minister.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada