1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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 6, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3773 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Industrial Development Act (Bill 156).

Mr. Kelly.

Introduction and first reading — 3773

Point of privilege

Accusation outside House by Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3773

Mr. Bennett — 3774

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3774

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Increase in ICBC auto claims. Mr. Fraser

— 3775

Manitoba withdrawal of mineral royalties bill. Mr. Gibson — 3775

NDP policy talks on wage and price controls. Mr. Wallace — 3775

Hay stockpiling in Fraser Valley against possible flooding.

Mr.

McClelland — 3776

ICBC option on Burrard Street property. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3776

Rise in cost of heating oil. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3776

Provincial assistance to Saanich with Glanford property. Mr. Curtis — 3776

Preferential treatment for veterans' land. Mr. Bennett — 3777

Transfer of Steve Dziaduk. Mr. Gardom — 3777

Summer female staff for Human Rights Commission. Mr. Chabot — 3777

Comfort allowance for Pearson Hospital. Mr. McClelland — 3777

Negotiations with Gottesman-Central. Mr. Gibson — 3777

Status of Indians on community resource boards. Mr. Wallace — 3777

Posters advising motorists of insurance contributions. Mr.

D.A.

Anderson — 3778

Involvement of Hart Kurn in political campaign. Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3778

Report on Highways conflict-of-interest case. Mr. Wallace — 3778

Debtor Assistance Act (Bill 77).

Report and third reading — 3778

Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 12).

Committee, report and third reading — 3778

Department of Economic Development Act (Bill 71). Committee

stage.

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 3779

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 3779

section 5.

Mr. Chabot — 3779

Mr. Gibson — 3780

section 8.

Mr. Gibson — 3780

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 3780

Report and third reading — 3780

Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act,

(Bill 146).

Committee, report and third reading — 3780

British Columbia Harbours Board Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

17).

Committee, report and third reading — 3781

Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

87).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. King — 3781

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 3781

Hon. Mr. King — 3781

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. King — 3781

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 3781

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. King — 3781

Report stage — 3781

British Columbia-Alberta Boundary Act (Bill 30).

Committee, report and third reading — 3782

Human Resources Facilities Development Act (Bill 82). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3782

Mr. Wallace — 3782

Community Resources Act (Bill 84). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3782

Mr. Schroeder — 3784

Ms. Sanford — 3787

Mr. Gardom — 3788

Mr. Wallace — 3789

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3792

Mr. McGeer — 3795

Mrs. Webster — 3796

Mr. Chabot — 3797

Mr. McClelland — 3797

Mr. Fraser — 3799

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3800

Mr. Gibson — 3801

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3802

Mrs. Jordan — 3802

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3805

Division on second reading — 3806

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, it's not often that

I have guests from the great riding of Cariboo, but today I

have my sister-in-law, Mrs. Watt, in the Members' gallery, as

well as director McCrea of the Cariboo Regional District,

director Spalton of the Cariboo Regional District, director

Jones of the Cariboo Regional District, Alderman Johnson from

the town of Quesnel, and Alderman Lon Godfrey from the town of

Quesnel. I would like the House to welcome them here. And I

assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will behave myself today.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought the Member always did.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to welcome some guests from a long way out of

this part of the province, from the community of Valemount. From the extreme central east part of the province we have 45

students from the Junior Secondary School of Valemount. With

them is their teacher, Orville Brown, accompanied by Harold

Maxwell, Mr. and Mrs. Gwyn Walters and Gene Osadchuk. Also, Mr.

Speaker, I'm happy to introduce to the House Mayor Doug Taggart

of McBride. I would ask the House to welcome all these

people.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I have the pleasure today of

introducing Mr. Lorne Dennison who is the mayor of Granisle

located on Babine Lake. Along with him is Mr. Gordon Berdan,

his village clerk. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

are 14 students from the Lower Post Elementary School. Lower

Post is located in the very northeast corner of the large

constituency of Atlin. To be more specific, it's at Mile 620 on

the Alaska Highway. With the students are the staff members,

principal William Stocks and his wife, Mrs. Stocks, who is also

Post last year. I ask the Members to join with me in welcoming

them.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, it's a

pleasure to introduce Mrs. Esther Jones who's in the Speaker's

gallery. She is a faithful reader of Hansard and she's

here for the first time to have a visual presentation.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the House to join me in welcoming two citizens from sunny Spences Bridge. Not

too many of you may have stopped over there, but I'm sure you've driven through.

I'd like to thank Mrs. Williams and Mrs. Lewis for bringing such a fine, sunny

day down to Victoria.

I'd also like to welcome one of Mr. Nunweiler's

constituents, Miss Cathy Sanssom, a former neighbour of ours.

Welcome.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, also I'm aware that Dr.

Kaller of the University of Notre Dame in Nelson is with us

here today and I believe some students are here along with him.

I hope everyone would welcome them.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I just wonder if we

missed anyone, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) I think we should bid

welcome to those who have not yet had welcome expressed to

them.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Kelly, Bill 156,

An Act to Amend the

Industrial Development Act, 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.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker,

I rise on a matter of privilege. In this morning's Province , there is a story

and a headline that says: "Bennett Claims Proof House Misled by Strachan." I'll

read the pertinent paragraphs:

"Opposition Leader Bill Bennett said Wednesday he has

documented evidence that Transportation Minister Bob Strachan

has misled the Legislature.

"Bennett said in an interview that Strachan claimed recently

in the Legislature that the government's insurance corporation

(ICBC) was prompt in its payments to body shop firms.

"Bennett says he now has evidence that at least one firm in

the central Interior has not been paid for either April or

May."

The words are not quoted directly that I had misled the

Legislature, and it's my understanding that the electronic

media used words and indicated that the Member had used words

stronger than that. Now Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, later on it says: "Strachan, Bennett

said, should resign because

[ Page 3774 ]

he has failed in his responsibility to tell the truth…."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I went to the Member's office half an hour

or so ago and asked him if he was going to raise the matter in

the House, because the Member for Victoria at least raised the

matter in the House face to face where I could answer it. He

indicated to me he was not going to raise it in the House. I

then informed him that I was going to raise it if he

didn't.

Mr. Speaker, I think the facts are these: The Member has said this outside

the House, making these accusations. I asked him if he was going to say them

in the House. He didn't.

The facts are these: of the three body shops in Houston,

there is only a problem with one; there's no problem with the

other. I have checked out the matter thoroughly. I find, and I

could go into the details of the claims, that the claims he is

referring to contain substantial items which are

unsubstantiated: some of them contain errors; some of them have

no claim numbers; some of them have been returned; and some of

them have been submitted as of June 3.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have said that all proper

accounts have been paid. I expect that all Members, especially

someone with a business background, would agree that no bill

should be paid that is in question, that is improperly

submitted, that is incomplete and that contains unsubstantiated

amounts or errors. That is good business practice. I thought

everyone would understand that. To the best of my knowledge,

every properly substantiated bill has been paid.

Mr. Speaker, the Member did not follow the normal procedure

of even checking with me or ICBC; to the best of my knowledge,

he didn't check with them to find whether or not the story that

has been told is true. I think that the Member should apologize

to me right now.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in

response to the Minister's point of privilege I would point out

that I didn't try to stop him as being out of order — as it was

quoted from a newspaper

article mentioned outside this House — because I don't mind him raising this point on the floor of

the House. But I wish he would get what I said correctly, and

that he wouldn't respond as if I spoke about a specific auto

body shop in Houston.

I was quoted as saying that I had documentation from auto

body shops while travelling in the central Interior, and I

have. I didn't say that the auto body shop was in Houston. Yet

I heard on the electronic media that the Minister quotes a

specific attack on an auto body shop in Houston, and that it

was his knowledge that this man happened to be a Socred.

I never thought that the government or ICBC wanted to know

anyone's political affiliation before they discussed whether

they had a claim or not.

I am prepared, when I make statements outside this House, to

answer outside this House. And at such a time…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. BENNETT: …during this session — because I've just

returned — as I am prepared to present this to the House, I

will. At such a time I will be accountable inside the House and

I am prepared to do so. Right now the Minister knows full well

that he has the opportunity of dealing outside the House with

statements made outside the House. I assured him — as I told him

in my office in a conversation that he didn't say he was going

to quote, but now I feel free to do so — that I would be

presenting it later. I had no intention of bringing it up

today, that's all.

Mr. Speaker, the information I have is fact that I discussed

in a speech in Houston. I found great concern about the actions

of this Minister with the people up there.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the question is set out on page

134 of May which deals with what are alleged breaches of

privilege or contempts committed against the House or the

precincts of the House. It also deals with newspaper articles

that attack or libel Members. I have raised to the House before

that a Member can send the

article to the Clerk-at-the-table if

he has a complaint about something in the paper. The purpose of

listening to both parties is to allow them to delineate where

they stand in terms of their complaints.

I don't know yet, from what has been said, whether the

article in the paper is a correct version and whet her the Hon.

Member who is complained against is the one to whom attribution

is laid as to any deliberate misleading by another Member of

the House. All I can say is that the newspaper

article from

which the Hon. Member, the Minister, read should be presented

to the table, which is the requirement of page 134.

As to what should go from here, it requires a motion. If no

motion is made, we proceed to other business. Each Member has

put his position to the House. Unless someone puts a motion, I

can't proceed any further on the matter. It's now been

heard.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, on the

point of order, each Member has not put his position. The

allegation is that the Leader of the opposition has accused an

Hon. Member of this House of (1) misleading the House, and

(2) of not telling the truth to the House. This is a breach of the

privileges of all of the Members of the House. The

[ Page 3775 ]

question that the Hon. Member simply didn't answer is: is he

maintaining that position? Is he accusing this Minister of

misleading the House and of not telling the truth to the House,

or not?

We as Members — and it affects all of our privileges — should

know. Are you maintaining that position?

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my position was made perfectly

clear. I said that the speech I made was made with fact. Those

who were there to hear it can testify to it that…. I have

the documentation to back up anything I said in the speech. I

stand by that. If I have a matter to raise in this House, Mr.

Speaker, I will raise it before the session ends.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that in this

House and in every House in the Commonwealth it is a tradition

that it keeps the system from deteriorating into a slander

match that we accept the word of Hon. Members and that we do

not…?

MR. J.R. CHABOT: (Columbia River): That has nothing to do

with what happens in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Whether you do it outside or inside, it

matters not in terms of being a Member of this House.

Interjections.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You call him a liar outside but

you won't do it here in the House. Is that it?

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Face to face. Come on. Are you accusing

him or not?

MR. BENNETT: I stand by….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: I will be presenting in the course of this

House….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you call him a liar outside call him a

liar in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Usually, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says to say

it outside the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR STRACHAN: I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker,

that yesterday at noon, when the Member was questioned about

this matter at a meeting in Houston, he dodged it and wouldn't

repeat it.

MR. SPEAKER: In the absence of a motion we proceed to orders

of the day. I think the matter has been stated on both

sides.

Oral questions.

REASON FOR INCREASE OF ICBC

AUTO CLAIMS IN FIRST TWO MONTHS

MR. FRASER: Since we are discussing some ICBC business I

have some questions for the Minister of Transport and

Communications. I understand that there are 8,000 more claims

in the first two months of operation of ICBC than there were in

the same two months last year. Is that correct, and what is the

cause of it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Of course, we weren't in operation last

year. But as I recollect the records, there are more claims

coming into ICBC than was the case with the private industry. I

might say that this is not unexpected. Under the private

industry operation many people used to pay their smaller bills

themselves because they knew that if they were involved in an

accident, even if it wasn't their fault, very often their rates

went up substantially.

They know that we are fair, reasonable and just and that

they can safely put in a claim for $100, or $150 and have it

paid without their rates going up. That's the reason for

that.

MANITOBA WITHDRAWAL OF

MINERAL ROYALTIES BILL

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a

question for the Premier and House Leader. I was wondering if

he had noticed the wise decision of the Government of Manitoba

to withdraw their version of Bill 31 for further study, and if

he would take any lesson from that on behalf of the people of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of policy, but I don't

mind answering. My responsibilities are to the people of British Columbia, and

we intend to proceed with Bill 31 on behalf of the people of this province.

POSSIBLE NDP POLICY TALKS

ON WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

[ Page 3776 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Regarding statements outside the

House in the press made by Premier Schreyer that to control

inflation we need a system of selected control of both prices

and incomes, and in light of the fact that it is a national and

provincial problem, I'm wondering if the Premier has this on

his agenda for his meeting with David Lewis during his

publicized meeting of the coming weekend.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yesterday the federal election was

brought, for the first time, into the question period, and I

gave my answer. Considering the second question, I am now

reconsidering whether or not I will purchase that

underwear.

HAY STOCKPILING IN FRASER

VALLEY AGAINST POSSIBLE FLOODS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): To the Minister of

Agriculture. I understand that the government is buying up

large quantities of hay in the Fraser Valley area to stockpile

for flood purposes. Is this department making any provision to

ensure that private farmers and ranchers in that area have

adequate access to hay supplies as well? I understand that

there isn't very much available for them since the government

is buying it all up at fairly high prices.

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

the government is buying limited supplies to have ready for

emergency measures. We are being careful not to upset the

normal market.

The farmers know that we're doing this and I think they

appreciate our efforts to be ready for any emergency that we

hope we won't have to meet. But in the meantime, they are

competing with us in the purchase of hay, that's true.

MR. McCLELLAND: Could the Minister tell us what price the

department is paying and whether it's a different price than

was being paid, say, a month ago for hay?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The price of hay has been rising since

last September in the province. The price we're paying depends

on the product we're buying. We're buying different kinds of

hay; we're even buying pellets. We're simply laying in an

emergency supply. I'm surprised the Member opposite seems to

think there's something wrong with this.

MR. McCLELLAND: The thing that is wrong with it is that I've

had complaints from ranchers who can't buy hay. They want to

know what they're going to feed their horses and cattle.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If the Member has such names, I'd be pleased to have

these. I'd like to enter into some kind of direct communication. All I've had

so far is acceptance of this idea and praise that the government is taking this

action now rather than waiting for the emergency to fall on us.

ICBC OPTION

ON BURRARD STREET PROPERTY

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the other day I was asked a

question on June 5. I can't remember who it was. "Has ICBC

bought or negotiated property from Daon Development Corporation

at the northeast end of the Burrard Street Bridge?"

For $1, Daon Development Corporation granted the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia an exclusive option through

A.E. LePage-Western Limited, its real estate agent, to purchase

a parcel of land at the foot of Burrard Street. That option was

for a period of 12 days, with the option expiring on June 7,

1974. The corporation does not intend to exercise that

option.

RISE IN COST OF

HEATING OIL

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): That will explain why the Tory

signs are on it now.

To the Minister of Finance and Premier. In view of the fact

that there are 250 million-odd gallons of farm and home-heating

oil sold in B.C. and in view of the fact the price has gone up

approximately 20 per cent up to 36.5 cents on the average per

gallon, may I ask him whether he is planning to put in

proposals to reduce the tax on this oil or whether he is going

to devise a scheme whereby the homeowners can have their fire

insurance reduced to make up for the increase in heating oil

price? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm glad the Member is back, Mr. Speaker.

I want to inform him that these matters are being discussed in

front of the energy board daily.

PROVINCIAL ASSISTANCE TO

SAANICH WITH GLANFORD PROPERTY

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Highways. I wonder if the Minister has asked

his department or if he has reviewed the history of some seven

acres of Crown land lying between the Patricia Bay Highway and

Glanford Avenue, just a few miles north of here, to determine

if there is not some provincial responsibility in assisting the

municipality of Saanich in overcoming unsafe and, to a lesser

extent, unsightly conditions in the vicinity of that area

I've

[ Page 3777 ]

described.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I'll take

that as notice.

MR. CURTIS: While he is taking it as notice, Mr. Speaker,

I'd just also ask if he is aware that reconstruction of the

provincial highway some time ago, the Patricia Bay Highway, in

fact contributed to this situation which has been termed by

residents of the area as "an ugly death trap."

PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

FOR VETERANS' LAND

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources. On May 22 he took as notice a question I

asked and I would repeat it. Has the provincial government made

any policy changes with respect to preferential treatment to

veterans under the provisions of the agreement signed by B.C.

and Canada on July 1, 1946? If so, what is the present policy

on veterans applying for land under this agreement?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I'll review that further with my staff, Mr. Speaker, and reply at a later date.

TRANSFER OF STEVE DZIADUK

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Would

the Hon. Minister kindly inform the House whether it is true or

not that a Mr. Steve Dziaduk, whom I gather was the manager of

the Terrace office, has been transferred to Vernon? If so, what

was the reason for the transfer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to take that one as notice.

How do you spell that name again?

MR. GARDOM: Dziaduk.

SUMMER FEMALE STAFF

FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

MR. CHABOT: A question for the Minister of Labour. I

understand that Ms. Kathleen Ruff, the director of the Human

Rights Act has hired 20 students under a summer job

opportunities programme. Can the Minister advise why all the

students engaged are female? (Laughter.)

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I'll take that as

notice, Mr. Speaker. I have no way of knowing at the moment.

(Laughter.)

COMFORT ALLOWANCE

FOR PEARSON HOSPITAL

MR. McCLELLAND: A question to the Minister of Human

Resources. Regarding the new comfort allowance figures, could

you tell me whether or not Pearson Hospital has been getting a

different comfort allowance rate in the past than other

hospitals in the province?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Not that I'm

aware. I understood it was $28.50, but everybody will be

receiving the $25 as of the first of July. I will look into

that matter for the Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Under the terms of a comfort allowance, I

understand that it calls for a qualifying institution. Is there

any question about Pearson being a qualifying institution? Will

they qualify without any doubt?

HON. MR. LEVI: There isn't any question in my mind about it

qualifying.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH

GOTTESMAN-CENTRAL

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, he advised the

House that the contract between Ocean Falls and

Gottesman-Central was under negotiation. I wonder if he could

tell the House if those negotiations are now completed.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They are proceeding, Mr. Speaker.

INDIAN RUNNING FOR

COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARD

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human

Resources. Yesterday I asked him and sent him further

information as to whether a native Indian could run for office

on the community resource boards. I wonder if he has the

answer?

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to the case which you mentioned to

me, the person involved lives on a reserve outside of the area

covered by the West Point Grey–Dunbar Community Resources Board

and therefore would not be eligible on the grounds of

residence. That's all, because that is not included in the area

for that resource board.

MR. WALLACE: It's my understanding that that same person

did, however, run for office on the school board in that same

area. Would the Minister care to comment on the apparent

discrepancy that

[ Page 3778 ]

they can seek school board office but not community resource

board office?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, first of all, the boundaries are

different. My understanding is that the reserve opted out of

being involved in the resource board in that area.

POSTERS ADVISING MOTORISTS

OF INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Consumer Services, Mr.

Speaker. In view of the fact that all British Columbians and

non-residents who fill up their gasoline tanks in the province

are now contributing approximately 85 cents to 90 cents per

time they pull in to fill up the tank to next year's insurance

costs, will she take steps to make sure that the public is

informed by way of posters so that they know full well what

they're buying during the remainder of the year when they buy

gasoline?

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): We will take

that under advisement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

INVOLVEMENT OF HART HORN

IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I was asked the question the other day by the Member for Boundary-Similkameen

(Mr. Richter) in regard to a newspaper report that Hart Horn was a campaign

manager for a certain individual in this city. I was surprised at the question

because it is tantamount to suggesting that a public servant should be in a

second-class category and not be given the same privileges as other people in

making use of their own time.

In this case, from the information I have received, the

report was not correct and Mr. Horn is not a member of the

campaign committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: (mike not on) … the obvious

incompetence that prevails in the Mines department, could I

please ask the Minister to insist that he get on the campaign

so that that candidate doesn't do so well as he might otherwise

do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that is an insulting

remark that really….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I withdraw it, in that case.

Interjections.

REPORT ON HIGHWAYS

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CASE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General

if he could tell the House the conclusion he reached on the

study of the possible conflict of interest between the senior

Highways department engineer in the Alta Lake–Whistler area? He

did say he would report back to the House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it is in the hands of one

of the officers of my department, Mr. Gerry Cross. I was

expecting him to make a report to me. He hasn't done so as yet.

I'll ask him about it today.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to seek your

permission to distribute a document before we got into question

period but another matter intervened. It's a statement on the

Hog Income Assurance Programme. With your permission I'd ask….

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move we proceed to public bills

and orders.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The House has already dealt with the motion,

and it wasn't brought to my attention.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you say no?

MR. SPEAKER: We've already passed the motion.

I have a difficulty here, Hon. Members. I don't want anyone

to think that I don't listen, but I'm afraid I didn't hear

anyone object to the motion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's go — go ahead.

Report on Bill 77, Mr. Speaker.

DEBTOR ASSISTANCE ACT

Bill 77 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

SUCCESSION DUTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Dent in

[ Page

3779 ]

the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: 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 12, Succession Duty Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House on committee on Bill 71; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I appreciate

that we are getting more and more vague

definitions of the

duties of departments, Mr. Chairman, but I'm a little bothered

that the enunciated duties of the Minister and his department

under this

section make no particular mention of the

statistical function which is such an important and

indispensable portion of his department right now. I would just

like the Minister's assurance that there is not thereby

intended any downgrading of that function under the newly named

department.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Hon. Member's inquiry and I can assure him that

not only is there not going to be a downgrading but a vast improvement in the

Statistics Branch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LAUK: We are taking on new staff. We are going to

do more of our original surveys….

AN HON. MEMBER: When are you going to have a nice little

report?

HON. MR. LAUK: Can you keep Your Comrade in Order?

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's right!

The statistical function, therefore, will have original data

upon which to advise the government and private industry.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I notice this one deals

with the Minister's responsibility to file an annual statement

with the Legislative Assembly. We found it extremely difficult

with the Minister's approach and the Minister's attitude and

the Minister's sense of responsibility just last session in

tabling his annual report so that we could intelligently assess

the type of department he administered in the previous year….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are not considering the

administrative responsibility of the Minister, but rather….

MR. CHABOT: Oh, but we are as far as the submission….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce on a point of order.

HON. MR. LAUK: If filing an annual report, Mr. Chairman,

will ensure intelligent criticism on that side, I will do so

immediately.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's no point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order, but speaking to

the Hon. Member for Columbia River on my point of order — you

must speak to the

section rather than discussing the

administrative responsibility of the Minister.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you are not listening very closely

because I'm discussing the Minister's responsibility as far as

the tabling of an annual report in the House, and that's what

this

section is all about. I suggested, prior to the facetious

interruption by that little Minister over there, that he had a

responsibility to table an annual report. All I'm

[ Page 3780 ]

asking at this time, in discussing this section, is that

that Minister face up to his responsibilities as far as the

annual report is concerned…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: …and to ensure that the annual report is tabled in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would point out to the Hon. Member

for Columbia River that we are dealing with

section 5 of Bill 71, not with the actions of the Minister. Would the Hon. Member

continue with this section?

MR. CHABOT: Why should I continue when you don't

understand?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly share the

sentiment that I hope that the report of this department is, in

the future, more speedy than in the past. I think that is

essential to the proper functioning of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a problem to get them put together.

MR. GIBSON: And I would make a representation to the

Minister — I was going to move an amendment, but I will leave

it as a representation at the moment — that this report should

set a model for other government departments. It should set a

model of the fullest disclosure of the use of public funds in

the sensitive area in which he is operating, namely, assistance

to the private sector through the B.C. Development Corporation

and other matters under his department. Where such complete

disclosure cannot be made because of commercial

confidentiality, at least the matters involved should be

disclosed if not the exact amounts.

Section 5 approved.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman,

section 8 repeals the Department of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce Act,

chapter 104, statutes of 1960. A large

part of that Act relates to the confidentiality of statistics provided by persons

and businesses in this province to the Minister's department in the pursuance

of their statistical reporting. function. Confidentiality of this kind is, of

course, very important and I would ask the Minister how he proposes that it

should continue to be guaranteed now that the statutory provisions therefore

are apparently removed from the instructions and official responsibilities of

his department.

HON. MR. LAUK: It is my impression, that with respect to the

previous

section there was some suggestion that there be a

compellability on the part of people to provide information to

the Department of Industrial Development; therefore there would

have to be a certain statutory commitment to confidentiality.

In my view there has been no problem with the industry with

respect to providing information to the department. The members

of that department are of the highest character, and there will

be every commitment given and I'll give my commitment publicly

that the confidential nature of information gathered for the

purposes of statistical analysis will be held completely and

utterly confidential by the government and by this

department.

Section 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LAUK: 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 71, Department of Economic Development Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 146, Mr. Speaker.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 146; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LAUK: 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 146, Development Corporation of British

[ Page

3781 ]

Columbia Amendment Act, 1974 , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 17.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HARBOURS BOARD

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, British Columbia Harbours Board Amendment Act,

1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 87.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 87; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. GIBSON:

Section 2 (

b) in the second line refers to the

municipality and the person who is to do work. I am just asking

the Minister's

interpretation of this. Does a "person" include

a Corporation or is a "person" simply an unincorporated

business or an individual? How does he define that word,

exactly?

HON. MR. KING: It is my understanding that that includes a

corporation.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 3 as amended.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I make particular reference to

section 3 (2) (b). Yesterday we had an exchange of ideas. I

think the Minister misinterpreted what I said. I certainly

strongly believe in collective bargaining. That's not what I

was saying yesterday.

What I said — and what I said poorly — was that in

subsection (2) (b), I in fact interpret it as what amounts to

power in the hands of the Minister which infringes the

agreement nature of collective bargaining. It says: "The

Minister, by order, can prescribe manpower requirements and

conditions in respect of the contract."

I know the Minister gave me his personal assurance that

there would be, of course, consultation and that he was really

aiming at employing minority groups and fair play for Indian

labour and Indians seeking work.

We feel in our party that this is a degree of authority and

power to the Minister which is wide open to abuse. This is why

we oppose it.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 87, Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act,

1974 , reported complete with amendments to be considered at

the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 30.

[ Page 3782 ]

BRITISH COLUMBIA–ALBERTA

BOUNDARY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, British Columbia–Alberta Boundary Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 82.

HUMAN RESOURCES FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): This bill is

intended to broaden the scope of the Treatment Resources

Act , which will be repealed on the passing of this Act. It

enables us to develop facilities for a range of people — not

just young children — by giving grants to municipalities,

societies and boards, very much in the way we have been doing

under the general grant programme of the department.

I don't think there is very much more I need to say. I move

second reading.

MR. WALLACE: We would like to speak in favour of the bill.

As the Minister has pointed out, it enlarges the scope and the

mechanism whereby the Minister of Human Resources can provide

grants to a municipality or an incorporated society, in

particular with reference to the kind of services listed in

section 1.

I wonder if the Minister, in closing the debate, could give

a clearer description of how it is related to the community

resource boards and the Community Resources Act . Does

this legislation tie in closely with Bill 84, or is this a

separate goal of the department which they are trying to follow

in giving a wider and more flexible degree of assistance to the

municipalities and the societies?

There is one question which is a little bit in my mind. It's very difficult

to debate this bill without touching on the community resource board bill, but

perhaps the Minister could explain the little bit of a contradiction between

this bill going out and giving grants to municipalities and incorporated societies

when the community resource board bill is supposed to prevent fragmentation

and to have a coordinated, cohesive programme which all community resources,

in a social services sense, shall function through that board.

This bill in one sense puzzles me a little bit since it

appears to contradict the thrust of another piece of

legislation we'll be debating shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LEVI: In reply to the Member for Oak Bay, the Act

was introduced primarily to broaden the scope that was in the

Treatment Resources Act .

The mention of community resource boards is in there because

there will naturally be a transition period where we will be

using the mechanism of private societies, municipalities and

one or two, or whatever number we have going, of the community

resource boards. So this is all-encompassing, that's all. It

was put in there.

Bill 82, Human Resources Facilities Development Act ,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

COMMUNITY RESOURCES ACT

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in relation to this

bill will not be quite as brief as the previous one.

I would just like to relate how we came to the general

development of this principle. The Members will remember that

one of the first acts the government did when it came into

power was to announce that there would be the closing down of

the Willingdon Girls School. At that time I said that it would

be essential for communities to become involved in developing

alternate facilities, and that the function of the government

was to provide the assistance, staff wise, and to make the

money available so that these facilities could be

developed.

There was a reaction from the community that suddenly some

services in the community were going to have to become very

visible, particularly those in respect to children. As we

developed alternative facilities to deal with young women who

ordinarily would have gone through the institutional system, we

then began to zero in on a number of broad problems that

existed with other children and with other people in the

community.

[ Page 3783 ]

As a result of that we developed a programme called the

Special Services For Children. This programme is available

through the department and through a range of other departments

in the government in relation to delivering service to children

in their community, in their home or in their school, or in

whatever facility is available where children are being dealt

with. That programme has been a very successful one.

We've also in the past 20 months been involved in the

quadrupling of the day-care system — again which has involved a

great deal of community involvement and community

visibility.

I think that the primary function of the community resource

board is to give visibility to social services that has never

previously been there. At the present time we have a large

number of private societies that elect boards, but are in fact

somewhat private because they do not involve large numbers of

the community in the decision-making. But I will say this: they

do involve a large number of people in the voluntary aspect of

delivering service. But in terms of the decision making,

decisions are not generally made by what I characterize as a

representative group of people from the community.

One of the problems I think we've had with the delivery of

social services in this province is that we have spent large

amounts of money, and yet the government has not really had a

complete handle on some of the policy making. I think that

perhaps the best example is in the Vancouver area.

In the Vancouver area there's an average of $9 million a

month going into social services there, including the

social-assistance programme. Prior to January 7 of this year

the social welfare system was administered by Vancouver City.

The administration dealing with services to children,

protection, adoption and that kind of thing were being

administered by the Children's Aid Society and the Catholic

Children's Aid Society; and also a large range of other

services were being administered by private societies,

primarily relying on heavy subsidization by the government.

Yesterday I was looking at the figures in relation, for

instance, to the United Community Services programmes that are

funded in the greater Vancouver area. There are some $22

million worth of programmes being delivered, of which the

voluntary sector provides $4 million and the government sector

$15 million. All of this money and all of the decisions were

being made without an integrated reference to the aims of the

government, particularly of the department.

So since January 1 we have moved gradually towards an integration process of

dissolving the children's aid societies, and also taking over the administration

of social assistance. Now that we have a management group, it has been in a

position now to integrate the system — even at this stage it's just started

— and to also look at the problems of delivering services where they are needed

in a much more organized way without that tremendous overlap and with a territorial

imperative that goes with the continuing operation of different systems. That

always happens and always creates problems.

In the Vancouver area we will have to be involved in both

the delivery of statutory services — those services that we are

required to give by law — and non-statutory services. Those are

services that are given or have been given by way of grants to

private agencies and other groups who have been delivering

service.

Beyond the City of Vancouver we do not envision in the first

instance that resource boards will be involved in the delivery

of statutory services. One of the reasons for this is that

we've had a great amount of correspondence from almost 50

communities in the province. Some of those communities have no

services at all except for the statutory services.

There's a need in some of these communities for day-care

centres, for activity centres for seniors, for special-need

centres for handicapped children, and that whole range of

programmes that are available in the more developed areas.

Consequently, the greatest interest that's been evinced in

the province has been in those areas where they have a few

services or where they have none and they are interested in

getting access to them — and also interested in making

decisions about what services they should start with first.

The question of the participation of the government in this

process really goes to the balance of what a government can, in

fact, give up in terms of its power to boards like this and

what it must retain. As the Minister I am responsible to this

Legislature for the delivery of a range of services to the

people in the province. In the final analysis I will have to

answer for what goes on on the floor of this House. Therefore,

we have retained that amount of control that is necessary to

enable me to carry out my function and to be able to be

responsible and to answer questions in this House.

There have been suggestions that it is a fourth or a fifth

level of government. Really what it is is to make a visibility

to the services that we all have talked about for many years — to have people involved, not only because they want somehow to

be involved in decision making, but because the only real way

that you can deliver services to whoever needs them is to have

the community involved.

I've said many times in this House that we are never going

to be able to afford all of the services done by the voluntary

sector, and that is true. But what we have to do is to be able

to make use of the money that we have and deliver the best

service that we have. We are not looking to save any money;

[ Page 3784 ]

that's not possible in developing services to people. But

what you have to do is to make the best use of the money that

you have. You cannot do that where you have jurisdiction or

areas in this province, particularly the greater Vancouver area

which has literally hundreds of private agencies involved in

delivering service, each one somehow developing its own kind of

programme.

What we're attempting to do is to integrate the decision

making as well as the delivery of service. That can only come,

I think, if we involve the community and people. People have to

be involved in these things. After all, they are the

taxpayers.

All too often we get a lot of criticism from people who only

know about one-tenth of what is going on; but they are

listening to a lot of the generalized kind of criticism that

goes on about the delivery of service. So as they are involved,

they will have a much better understanding of this.

I'm very happy to see that the police in Vancouver are

extremely interested in this process and have designed a

project in the south Vancouver area that will fit in with the

kind of operation we are developing down there. It gives them

visibility and enables them to be part of the system. All too

often the people who are involved in the very first instance in

any problems that exist in our communities are the police. We

need this tremendous cooperation.

I met with the chief of police in Vancouver. He is certainly

a man who shows all the evidence of being able to deliver great

leadership, the kind of leadership that we've needed,

particularly in going into a new style of integrated service to

people.

That includes police services as well. They have picked up

on the kinds of things that we are trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the Members that I have

available, certainly over the last 16 months…because we

have discussed the principle of this bill for about 16 months

in the community. We have talked about community resource

boards and community involvement, and we have collected a large

amount of news clippings about what has been going on in the

community. It is really quite remarkable that it was picked up.

It has enabled us, in terms of the services that we deliver, to

improve and develop them even at this stage. For the first time

the large majority of people in communities have become aware

of why we need social services and programmes, and that they

can also be involved in the decision-making about these. That's

what is essential.

It is absolutely impossible for this government or my department to make decisions

about communities in this province, as I have to do every day in terms of the

granting mechanism. That is just not possible. Every day we are being approached

for grants for different programmes and we cannot continue to go this way. The

function of the government is to set the priorities in terms of the general

service parameters. One of the things we wanted to be developing now — and I

have indicated this — is services in the area for senior citizens, for children

and for the handicapped. Those are the three basic thrusts of the department.

As we will be discussing with the communities, we would like

to see that at least they give attention to those three basic

areas in the development of programmes.

The other function of the government is to see that money is

made available so that these programmes can be developed.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I have a few questions that

I would like to ask regarding the principle of the bill. The

questions are related to perhaps three different general areas.

One of them is the creation of the boards; secondly, the

operation of the boards; and finally, if time permits, the

financing of the boards.

It is understood that the local community boards are going

to be set up by local groups. Basically, in the original

intention of the establishing of these boards, it was to be

done by election. There is one of these boards already in

existence, as the House well knows, in South Vancouver. The

voter turnout for the creation of this particular board was

less than 10 per cent.

I'm wondering if the Minister is going to establish some

route whereby a greater turnout — a greater expression of the

local people — is going to be heard via the election so that a

greater percentage than 10 per cent will be heard from.

I also understand that only one of the 13 groups that are

planned for Vancouver is now in existence although some other

ones are presently being created.

Since the bill is not yet in effect, Mr. Speaker, I am

wondering under what authority these boards are being created

and what assurance the House has that they have been created in

keeping with the provisions of the bill.

One of the things that gives me some concern is the boundary of each of these

community resource boards — that is, the boundary of their area of responsibility.

I understand that the boundaries are to be determined by the local group in

conjunction with the civic or municipal officials. My concern is that we must

guarantee absolute coverage of the province by these community resource boards.

If we allow the areas to be determined by a local group it would be very easy

for a group to say that they will take all responsibilities for certain prescribed

boundaries. There may be an area that is undesirable which may be left out not

only by that community resource board but by the neighbouring community resource

board which has already determined its own boundaries and would leave out some

of these areas.

[ Page

3785 ]

An example of that, Mr. Speaker, would be one that came up

during question period today in which a lady who wished to run

for one of the community resource boards was not eligible to

run because she happened to reside in an area outside the

responsibility of the community resource board.

I can see the possibility of there being several areas

uncovered in the province. The problem then would be that these

areas would not have the advantage of the supervision of

services by the community resource boards.

I think that we need to be very sure, Mr. Speaker, that

these areas that are undesirable in the opinion of the local

boards not be overlooked. I think we need to be sure that

boundaries for community resource boards are common and

adjacent, making sure that every square mile of the province

eventually be covered by a community resource board.

Another area that causes some concern among the people with

whom I have discussed this bill is the suggestion that half of

the board should be composed of community service recipients. I

believe this to be a bit idealistic. It would be nice if we

could guarantee that these very same people — the same one half

of the board that is service recipient — have the expertise to

carry out the responsibilities that will be required of them on

these community resource boards.

I would question the logic of having one half of the board

being recipient. If you followed the same logic you would have

to say that one half of, say, the board of school trustees

should be students. I'm not saying that that is good or bad but

that this same logic could run you into some difficulties if it

was followed through in other areas.

I think that perhaps the primary concern should be that

these community resource boards be composed of people who are

well respected in the community resource board area. Whether or

not they be recipients should not necessarily be made a

prerequisite to their election.

There is a further problem. How can recipients be guaranteed

positions on these boards if these boards are to be created by

democratic election? Do we make it a prerequisite of a

candidate that he first be a recipient before he can even be

elected by the local people? There seems to be a clumsy

situation there. I am wondering how the Minister plans to deal

with it.

The next question in the creation of these boards is what correlation there

is in the creation of these boards with federal agencies who are also offering

certain services. The most difficult groups this correlation would be with would

be, I think, groups like the OFY and LIP which, although maybe some are continuing

and some are discontinuing, we have no knowledge of what is going to happen

in the future regarding these as far as the federal mind is concerned. I would

like to know what correlation there is between the services rendered by these

groups. There are others — for instance, student manpower. Is it to be correlated

with the community resource boards and on what basis?

There is another concern in the discussion of the principle

of this bill. That is the concept of the umbrella boards. The

umbrella boards, it is said, will not override the decisions

made by the local community resource boards. Yet the question

comes even from among candidates for the boards and from among

the members of the already existing boards of what is going to

be the pecking order. What is going to be the chain of command

in these areas? Whose decision is final?

According to indications by the Minister, Mr. Speaker, the

local community resource board has the right for final

decision. However, there is an umbrella board over him. Then

there is the regional board above them. And then there is the

department above all of that. At its head, I believe, should be

the Minister of Human Resources. There is some misunderstanding

out there in the organization as to what the chain of command

really is going to be. Will they be given any further assurance

that the decisions at the local board will not be overridden by

higher boards?

By the way, there is a great public aversion to appointments

to these boards. I think the bill, as it is set up, provides

that if candidates are not forthcoming — that is if they don't

offer themselves for election — then it becomes the

responsibility of the department and eventually the cabinet to

appoint people to these boards. There is wariness among the

general public and an aversion, to be quite frank with you,

toward the appointments to these boards.

Together with the fact that many consider the community

resource board — even though they can see the advantage of

there being someone close to the need — as someone who can

scrutinize the need and perhaps report that need to the powers

that be, there is a fear that the fourth or fifth level of

government will add to the bureaucracy. I appreciated your

remarks in your opening statement regarding this, but the

bureaucratic confusion they are anticipating is one again which

causes them to ask questions.

Secondly, the area of question in the field of the operation

of these boards. It's not spelled out clearly enough. As a

matter of fact, there is confusion in the boards that already

exist as to what their frame of reference really is. They need

to know why they exist. There is concern expressed that

direction is not coming from the department head — namely, from

the Minister, Mr. Speaker. Direction is not forthcoming as to

what their area of responsibility shall be and in what way they

are expected to operate.

As the Minister well knows, if this attitude continues to

prevail, these resource boards in their

[ Page 3786 ]

operation will be short-circuited; because how do you

operate when you don't know which way to run? Therefore, a

concern that was expressed to me was one of clarification of

the frame of reference — not only the pecking order, but the

areas of responsibility of these local community resource

boards.

They don't know whether they are to provide the services or

whether they are to suggest services to be provided. They don't

know whether they are supposed to be looking after the funding.

They understand that they cannot determine how much money is to

be distributed to what particular services. They are supposed,

sort of, to act as an appeal board; they are supposed to act as

a sort of an input department.

Nonetheless, they want to know who gets the services. They

want to know who determines how much service or how much money

will be provided in individual cases. These are areas of

concern with these community resource boards at the operation

level.

How much authority will the community resource boards have

regarding matters on education and day care? It was spelled out

in one of the communications from the Minister's office that

matters pertaining to preschool, for instance, were going to

fall under the responsibility of the Minister of Education just

like kindergartens. Yet there is a provision in the bill in

certain aspects, certain educational aspects, which would

normally fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of

Education, are going to be taken over by the parameter of this

bill.

The questions out there are: what part of education, what

part of day care, what part of preschool is going to fall under

the scrutiny or the jurisdiction of the community resource

boards? Will they have responsibilities in these areas?

They understand that the board or the members of the board

are not supposed to be responsible for case-by-case decisions.

That's to be made by legislation and certainly by regulation of

that legislation. They're not to be making decisions on a

case-by-case basis, yet they are to provide as many services as

possible; and they are finding this frustrating.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

They also want to know in what capacity they will be acting

as an appeal board. It has been suggested that one of their

responsibilities will be to be close not only to the need of

the service, but to be close enough to act as an appeal board

between the various levels of these community resource boards

and the actual service recipient.

There is one other area that is a little confusing — that should actually come

under the financial area — and it is that the boards are to be volunteers. In

their operation they are to be volunteer members, although they are elected,

and out-of-pocket expenses, I understand, are to be paid for them. Nonetheless,

they are to be unsalaried. However, they have the authority to hire their own

staff as such.

There is a problem. They don't really know how much

authority or power they are really going to have, being

volunteers; yet they have placed in their hands the authority

to determine their own staff, to hire their own staff and,

supposedly, although it has never been said, to fire that staff

should it not be operating to their satisfaction.

My question to the Minister is: will the board be primarily

responsible for the provision of facilities and salaries for

board employees, rather than the actual social assistance? I

hope I've got that clear.

If this is the way it is to operate, there will be some

frustration on it. Here we've got community resource boards

right near to the need; and someone appeals to them for a need.

They can see, being right close at hand, that the recipient

must be cared for. Yet they have to wait for some other

provision, for some other authority, for that assistance to

come. I can see an area of frustration over and above the areas

that I've already mentioned.

Another question I have for the Minister is: how wide a

responsibility will the members of these CRBs have in the capacity of

advisory…? Will they become advisers, for instance, in family court

matters? Or will they just strictly be there to lend an ear and perhaps

act as reporters? These questions are very real, particularly in the

people's minds who are thinking about running for these community

resource boards as members.

Another question I have is how the other benevolent

societies will operate after these boards take over. For

instance, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind — the

services that they are offering: how will they be correlated

with the services supervised by the CRBs? What about the

Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society, or maybe United Good

Neighbour?

I've just selected a couple so that you understand what I

mean. These are what we call independent benevolent societies,

who raise their own funds, who operate many times on grants,

some of them sponsored by the provincial government. How will

this be correlated? Will they still receive grants from the

provincial government, or will they be, as you might say,

swallowed up by the community resource boards?

Their job description — the job description of the CRBs — goes something like this: they are supposed to make decisions

and they are supposed to receive funds — that is funds

designated to them by the department; they are to allocate

funds, but it has not been spelled out to them what category of

funds they are to allocate. Some of them still believe that

they will be allocating actual assistance funds.

[ Page 3787 ]

A further point under their job description is that they are

to be advocates or go-betweens, intermediaries. But it doesn't

say intermediary between what point. What is point A and what

is point C or point Z? Whose advocates are they to be?

They are supposed to evaluate progress, which is very good,

but under F— "F" under job description — they are to hold open

meetings. I find it's rather strange that the meetings held so

far by these community resource boards have been closed

meetings, secret meetings almost. I'm wondering what the

Minister has to say about when these open meetings are to be

held and whether they are needed to be secret meetings. Why

were there secret meetings in south Vancouver when particularly

the job description clearly spells out that the meetings are to

be open?

Another question — of course, naturally, for these community

resource boards in their function — is what security they have.

What continuity or independence do they have? Does their

effectiveness depend on whether they have good dialogue? Being

elected members, they are worried about how soon they can be

replaced and what kind of tenure they enjoy. Does it depend on

good dialogue that they may have with their neighboring CRBs?

Does it depend on good dialogue with the municipalities? They

want to know what kind of continuity can be assured them.

Under the area of finance, again I'm concerned about the

approach that we've seen in the Education department, that

we've seen in the Finance department, and here again it crops

up in the CRB establishment. It's a tin-cup approach again for

funding. The community resource boards establish their needs

and they go begging to the regional resource boards.

The regional resources boards sort of collate what the needs

are for the region and they go begging to the umbrella board;

the umbrella board goes begging to the provincial government.

Here again at various levels, the tin-cup approach. I'm

wondering whether or not they shouldn't be given a budget upon

which to operate, which the provincial government has the

responsibility to prescribe for them, to operate within that

budget if possible, and make recommendations beyond that kind

of funding.

The way it is established now, the community resource boards

state the need, ask for the money, have no assurance and can

give no assurance to the recipient that that need will be

provided. But they have to go through the long, bureaucratic

begging process, and I'm wondering whether the Minister

couldn't come up with a better format for financing.

The costs of meetings are to be provided for on these regional boards, but

all the other boards are strictly voluntary. And I see a problem here because

half of these community resource boards are going to be recipients, community

service recipients. Some of them are going to be receiving what in the olden

days we called welfare payments, yet those people receiving welfare payments,

living on a bare minimum budget, are going to have to pay some of their own

expenses. I understand this was in answer to a question asked by one of the

organizers who was out in the Surrey area. He suggested that the costs of meetings

would be provided for regional boards, but that all other boards would be strictly

voluntary and that people who were recipients of community services and living

on a bare-bones budget would be left to pay their own expense of meeting.

I think that, likely, is not fair. I don't think that it is

practical, and I'm sure that this is not what the Minister

intends. Likely, even in closing the debate on the bill he can

clarify this, because I am sure that we have the wrong

answer.

There are other questions we may wish to ask during third

reading, but basically those are the areas, not only of my

concern, but those of people with whom I've discussed the bill.

Thank you very much.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Although I have congratulated the

Minister before on the concept of the community resource

boards, I am pleased to do so again because in Comox riding we

have one of the earliest community resource boards established,

in Campbell River.

The Minister is right — the community resource board concept

is one which is involving people, which is creating a great

deal of interest in the services that have been provided in the

past to the people of a given area, and also has served to

point out that this bill is very much needed. There has been

such a duplication of services, overlapping, and lack of

communication between the various groups that were attempting

to do a good job in providing services for people in various

communities, but the problem is that there just was no

communication and there was too much duplication.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Is this going to

solve it?

MS. SANFORD: I think it is going to solve it, Mr. Member.

The question was asked whether or not this was going to solve

the problem of the duplication and the overlapping of

services.

I attended one of the meetings of the community resource

board in Campbell River at which time representations were made

to the board. I was impressed by the way the board handled the

request for these particular services. They asked to meet with

other representatives from the two groups which were there that

evening. They asked how they could work together. The groups

were reluctant to share facilities, they were reluctant to be

tied together in name, but

[ Page 3788 ]

they were willing to work together in order to ensure that

the overlapping didn't take place. Those two groups are now

housed in the new facility in Campbell River, which has been

rented by the board, and they are sharing a phone and they are

sharing a supervisor, and it is working.

Now that does not mean that it's been easy, I think that the

problems which community resource boards are facing, and will

be facing, are going to be extremely difficult. It's not easy

to determine who should be providing which service or where the

overlapping should take place. It's not easy to try and get

people to communicate and work together, and I think you would

realize that too, Mr. Member.

But I think also that through perseverance these community

resource boards are going to solve the problems of avoiding

duplication of services and providing the best possible service

to people for the money that is available.

I would also like to inform the Minister that an interest

has been expressed in Courtenay, and a steering committee was

established there in order to set up the first community

resource board in the City of Courtenay.

While the steering committee was drawing up a constitution

and was preparing for the public meeting which would elect the

first community resource board there, other meetings were held

to discuss the bill, to discuss how the community resource

board in Courtenay might work. I would like to point out that

representatives were at those meetings from the low-income

group which has been organized in the Courtenay area. There was

a representative from the non-status Indian group there. We

found a great deal of interest in the legislation, and contrary

to the suggestion made by the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder), we didn't find any aversion to appointments to the

overall board that he was talking about.

They did ask a question, though. I passed this question on

to the Minister on a previous occasion, and I would like him to

comment on it today in the House. One of the points that the

people at the meeting raised had to do with an appeal

procedure. They felt that even though the community resource

board would be elected from the community, they would like to

see some sort of an appeal procedure, which again adds to the

bureaucracy, I know. I would like the Minister, when he is

summing up, to make some comments because I understand that

others have also made requests similar to that.

Finally, the City of Courtenay, last night, at a meeting

which was attended by some 100 people, I understand, chose its

first community resource board. I congratulate them, and I am

very hopeful that they too, will be successful. Thank you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A couple of comments, Mr. Speaker.

On the face value, this would appear to be a very

well-meaning statute, but one has to question very intensely as

to whether or not it can perform, or is it just an experiment

that would have been better arrived at by agreement as opposed

to statutory compulsion.

Once again we find within the bill extremely wide powers and

very large discretions. It is rather a classic example, I'd

say, of committee philosophy which we find so prevalent in the

socialistic ideology — to make a pod, then just hopefully see

if all the peas will fit into it.

I see that the bill certainly stresses community

representation but not necessarily community expertise, nor,

for that matter, fiscal responsibility. In the past, there is

no question that there have been difficulties with the — what

will I say — the competition between agencies for the human

resource dollar, and in many instances those produced rather

intensified degrees of efficiency, and in some instances they

did not. It could be looked at from both points of view.

But one thing is very certain: under the specific approach

to the matter, the specific-interest people certainly

intensified their efforts and their activities. They honed and

they emphasized all their specialties into one central end.

You will find different people in life who are prepared to

go ahead and put in enormous amounts of effort for a specific

project because it interests them, and you do not find those

people who are prepared to go ahead and look at the problem in

the general sense. This, to me, is one of the largest

criticisms of the bill, I have to ask whether de-structuring

is, in fact, that good because specialty does produce

expertise, and even though it may be in a narrow field, they

are willing, they are prepared to do their work, they are

prepared to volunteer all of their intelligence and efforts to

a good and productive end.

There is assurance that those same people will be prepared

to do this within the generalities that can be afforded them

within the embodiment of this statute.

The Minister talked a little bit about statutory and

non-statutory services. One

section which really and truly

affects the spirit of the whole of the bill — therefore, I'm

going to refer to it, Mr. Speaker — is

section 2. Under

section

2 I would certainly wish to ask the Minister as to which

agencies today this statute would not apply.

It says: "Notwithstanding any other Act, except as otherwise

provided in this Act, this Act applies to every agency" — save

those that are excepted. And you only except three, one of

which is: "to benevolent activities principally supported by

public subscription."

[ Page 3789 ]

So I suppose that if we have a benevolent activity that

receives 51 per cent of its dollars from a provincial source, a

municipal source — and when I say source I'm referring to

government — or a federal source, it would come within this

statute. Otherwise, the only sources that will come without the

statute are those who receive 51 per cent of their funds from

private subscription.

Now does that include the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Central

City Mission, the Boys' Clubs of Canada, to name a few? Are

they going to fall within the ambit of this Act or are they

going to be outside of it? I would like the Hon. Minister to

comment on those three exceptions that are covered within

section 2.

Another fear that has been expressed is the tremendous

amount of control that we find under

section 7, whereby the

director can just put his thumb down immediately and cut off

grants if he reaches a conclusion that the programme and

quality of services provided by an agency is not satisfactory.

Essentially this is a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head

of every agency at any particular given point of time.

It is hoped that the director would exercise his discretion

in an intelligent and proper manner. But then again, that may

only be a wishful hope.

The fear has been expressed in the community, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Hon. Minister, that the boards could become

a political instrument. This is a very valid fear in the

province of B.C. today because this government is, without any

question of a doubt, building the biggest in-House political

base that has ever existed in this province. Make no mistake of

that fact. And since the provisions that we find within this

bill have not been able to be incorporated by agreement, but

have to be brought about by statutory compulsion, one can

perhaps only assume that these fears have some very valid

foundation.

It's also been stated, Mr. Speaker, that it could serve to

erode the interests and the activities and the powers and,

certainly, the fiscal responsibilities of so many people who

have devoted their time and their efforts and indeed their

intelligence to this area of help to his or her fellow man,

woman or child.

I'm afraid that with the incorporation of this statute we're

not going to find the same flood of volunteer effort that we've

had in the past. I'm afraid that they are going to not fall

into line with the bureaucratic guidelines that are set forth

in here. I think it's going to be most interesting, but I

question as to whether or not it's going to be a workable

experiment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think there's little doubt, from our committee

travels last summer, that social services and indeed health services in the

province and around the province require a greater degree of integration and

coordination. I don't think that's in dispute at all.

Since this seems to be — in fact, not seems to be but is — the thrust of the bill, then that is good. But the way in which

the matter has been handled from that point onwards is, I

regret to say, in our opinion in this party, very much a mess.

There has been a sorry mess.

HON. MR. LEVI: What sort of mess?

MR. WALLACE: Mess. M-e-s-s.

MR. McGEER: S-o-r-r-y. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I say this not facetiously but with some

regret, because I know that we've discussed many areas…. I

have discussed this subject with the Minister different times

off and on and I know how well-motivated he is with this bill.

But it really is a mess.

I don't want to repeat other Members' statements, but, first

of all, I really would like to echo the question of the Member

for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) as to why the provisions of this

bill started to be implemented in a completely haphazard,

ill-organized fashion here and there in the province before we

had even had time to debate the bill and possibly amend it to

make it a better bill.

Certainly the first election which took place in Vancouver

South to create the community resource board was indeed a scene

of great confusion in regard to who qualified for a candidacy

and exactly what the function of the community resource would

be and many other very important facts.

Indeed, we've received a fair amount of correspondence from

different parts of the province which showed clearly that the

individual citizen who was following this issue as best he or

she could was in a great degree of confusion as to the exact

purpose of the boards and how they were to be set up and the

very manner of their functioning.

Just as an interesting example of that, Mr. Speaker, I would

just like to quote from quite a sizeable headline that appeared

in The Province on April 11. It's entitled "Voter

Qualifications Reduced for Resource Board Election." I think

the Minister perhaps can clarify this, but I'm only trying to

demonstrate a very serious degree of confusion which

exists.

Here we have the setting up of boards which will have a very

considerable amount of power to spend public money, and they

will have a considerable degree of authority over the lives and

interests of individuals and institutions. So in qualifying

people to hold office on such a board, I think we should be

very clear as to what the qualifications are. This

[ Page 3790 ]

clipping from The Province of April 11 starts off

this way — and I hope the Minister can clarify this:

"Voters in elections for community resource boards in

Vancouver need not be Canadians, the Vancouver Resource Board confirmed

Wednesday. The only qualifications to vote or become a candidate should

be that individuals must be 19 or older, the board decided in, setting

guidelines for elections proposed on June 20."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not true.

MR. WALLACE: Now the Premier interjects that it's not true.

This is the point I was raising, because in

section 40 it makes

it very plain that every person of the age of majority who is a

Canadian citizen or a British subject qualifies to be elected

to the board.

The Premier interjects that the clipping I've quoted from is

not true, but the fact is that this apparently is the

information being propagated by the Vancouver Resource Board

after inquiry. Where they were inquiring or where they were

getting their information, I don't know. All I'm trying to say,

Mr. Premier through you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a great

deal of confusion even to the basic fact as to how you qualify

to become a candidate.

I've quoted the bill and I agree with the Premier that

they're wrong. All I'm saying is: why are we having elections

amid confusion when we haven't even put the bill through the

House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's what Stanfield's trying to

get into office with: the confusion that….

MR. WALLACE: Don't distract us from the subject, Mr.

Premier. What Mr. Stanfield does in his campaign is something

very unrelated with what we're dealing with in Bill 84. I think

the Premier's showing his edginess and his real concern that

this is not a good example of good government.

When the Premier starts chirping and interjecting and trying

to smokescreen with federal election campaign issues, we know

that under these circumstances he's trying to divert the

attention of this House from the issue.

I think that that's the first point that is worth being made

on this particular bill. If the Premier feels that all the

mistakes lie with the citizens who can't understand the bill,

that is not surprising since it hasn't had the public exposure

that it gains when you debate it in this House.

It was always my impression that before public money was spent it had to be

authorized, particularly if the money is being spent under the aegis of a bill

or under the powers of a bill brought into this House. The Premier can shrug

his shoulders all he likes, but the fact is that this seems to me a very unusual

precedent being followed in relation to the setting up of community resource

boards.

Whether or not the boards themselves are a good idea or

whether it is being done well or badly, I just don't quite

follow why this haphazard initial setting up of boards here and

there should have been embarked upon before the bill was passed

through the House, possibly with amendments to make it a better

bill.

As far as we in this party are concerned, it unquestionably

is another level of government.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: It is another level of government; it has to

be. You have elections of citizens who have the power to spend

public money. If that is not an authority and a control and a

degree of power, and if that doesn't define another level of

government, I don't know what does.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: It may be participatory democracy, but the

point that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is missing is

that we in this party would be happier in Canada and in British

Columbia if there was less government — not more government. We

just don't accept the premise that the only way in which these

services could have been coordinated is by this particular

further level of government. Obviously we have an honest

difference of opinion. The Minister of Labour is obviously very

happy with this bill. He is smiling. He seems, in fact, a great

deal more contented than the Premier about the whole thing.

HON. MR. KING: If you want less government, tell Stanfield

to withdraw.

MR. WALLACE: He's got more seats than David Lewis, so maybe

David Lewis should withdraw. The weaker ones usually go to the

wall first.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Good point. Why do you think I do so much

talking in here? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Right. I'm trying, Mr. Minister. In fact, it

shows a measure of interest in this bill, Mr. Speaker — it is

the first day this week that we have had such a substantial

attendance of the cabinet benches. That is to be commended.

The whole election process by which these boards

[ Page 3791 ]

are to be set up is certainly a matter of confusion. The

publicity that was given to that first election suggested that

certain persons were in a very easy position to vote more than

once and that the supervisory aspect of the voting, in general

the whole atmosphere of uncertainty and confusion which

existed, really takes away from the credibility and kind of

confidence which taxpayers would, I think, naturally have in

such a poorly and badly organized new level of government.

We've talked about ministerial power in many bills. I think

the Minister was being very honest with the House today — when

he introduced the bill and said that he was certainly retaining

a fair measure of power because he was responsible to this

House for the spending of public money. Nevertheless, he does,

indeed, have a great deal of power. I notice one

section gives

him power to set aside this election. If the elections are as

badly managed in the future as they have been to this point, I

think the Minister is going to be using

section 12 quite often.

And maybe with good reason. I maybe have to reconsider the

question of ministerial power as far as

section 12 is concerned — maybe it is a good idea when things are in such a mess out

there in the ridings. I shouldn't use the word "ridings;" I

should use the "the areas designated as boundaries for

community resource boards under the Act."

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: We have welfare in Oak Bay, Mr. Premier. That's

not a matter for you. We have a lot of the people who are on

welfare in Oak Bay.

I think that the powers and duties of the officers and the

boards, generally speaking, are vague and not very clear. The

outline of the duties and functions is very general. There

again, it would seem to me that if more time had been taken to

implement the bill, and postponement of the setting up of the

community resource boards, we would have had a more specific

direction and the people of the province would have a much

better idea of exactly what the function and thrust of these

boards is to be.

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, it is a little difficult

to criticize the principle of the bill without, at least in

passing, referring to sections. We are most uneasy about

section 55 which very clearly further dilutes the power of

local government.

The thrust of that part of the bill is that any one Minister

of the cabinet can delegate responsibilities in certain areas

of service, including education, to be carried out by the

regional or the community resource board.

This part of the bill appears to contain provision for the

transfer of authority to these boards for certain services or

actions which presently now are clearly under the jurisdiction

of the Department of Education. There is similar mention of public health, social

services, mental health service, correctional services,

manpower and employment Services, public education and

community recreation.

Mr. Chairman, that covers a very wide swath of territory. I

think it is important that we at least place on record that the

B.C. School Trustees Association is very concerned about this

particular principle in the bill. It is quite true that each

school board will have a representative, under the terms of the

Act, on the regional board. Nevertheless when we are

criticizing the bill on the basis of ministerial power, I think

section 55 certainly has to be the very clear example of the

fact that local government, particularly in its relation to

public education, is left wondering just how much or how little

the Minister, in his position of power, might choose to

delegate to the regional and community resource boards.

As far as the Vancouver resources board is concerned, I

would like to make a comment or two and ask the Minister to

clarify one or two points. As I read the bill there is only

provision for out-of-pocket expenses for members, but it is my

information that, for example, the member from the federated

anti-poverty group, whose name I believe is Mr. Mel Macdonald,

has put forward to the Vancouver resources board the motion

that members be paid $600 a month. It is my information that

this has not been approved by the Vancouver resources board as

yet, but I think the motion was tabled at the time and was to

be given further discussion.

I wonder if the Minister would make note of that and comment

on it because there again, as I have tried to point out, is the

confusion that exists between the understanding by the public

as to the candidacy for election and the fact that the bill

says something else very clearly. Here we have the bill saying

very clearly that the members can only have out-of-pocket

expenses, yet we have what will be one of the most important

regional boards, namely the Vancouver resources board, coming

up with motions that the members be paid $600 a month. If this

is to become a policy, I think we should know about it at this

time. Again, it may be simply an action by that particular

board that is certainly quite wrong in relation to the

legislation.

One of the feelings that has been expressed to me, and again

I would like the Minister to comment, is that there is a real

danger that these resource boards could become dominated by the

vocal militant minority — to use a popular phrase that we have

in our society today, some very vocal minorities who can be

extremely militant and the degree to which this….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm referring to certain citizens

[ Page 3792 ]

who, I think, participate in this area perhaps with good

motives. I'm thinking particularly of one example recently

where a community action group in the guidance of an advocate…. I don't know if we should go to the trouble of defining

advocates and asking the Minister to describe the method by

which they're chosen.

In this general area of social need and social services I

had a case the other day where a mother, in the breaking up of

the home, certainly had her civil rights seriously transgressed

as a result of the action of one advocate. One swallow doesn't

make a summer; I'm not suggesting this is a general tone of

behaviour of these people. Nevertheless, these are examples

where an individual or a small group of individuals with a very

strong and militant approach to this kind of problem could

readily dominate this kind of well-motivated arm of social

services. I wonder to what degree that tendency will impair the

good will of volunteers or citizens who might otherwise wish to

become involved in the community resource board

organization.

To return for a moment to the first election that occurred

in Vancouver South, I think there is a real danger that these

resource boards could become the political tool of this or any

other government. When we're talking about community social

services, I just happen to believe that whole area should be

devoid as far as possible of political involvement. We try to

keep municipal government reasonably neutral because of its

particular function at the local level. This particular

community resources bill, I think, is something of the same

kind of level of government.

I think it would be disastrous if any one political party

attempted to run a slate of officers, as was attempted in the

Vancouver South election. Certainly, the results of that

election suggest that the public are a little smarter than we

probably give them credit for. They really clobbered all the

NDP candidates in that election and I was delighted — not

because they were NDP candidates, but because there were any

kind of political candidates. I think, when you're providing

this kind of service to people and social need of one kind or

another, the last thing these people need is to have their help

or their assistance or their advice tainted in any way by

political motivation by the person providing the service,

whether the person be a citizen, a social worker or

otherwise.

These are some of the general points, Mr. Speaker. I think

there will be other questions as we go into committee. I wonder

if the Minister would care to respond.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on this

bill, More as a social worker and as a MLA rather than as a

cabinet Minister.

For some years in North America there has been growing concern with the pattern

of the development of social services — that is, between the private agencies

and the public agencies. For the most part, the public agencies had been doing

the pioneering work, although there was a myth around that the private agencies

had been extending the services and doing the experimenting. But for the most

part in North America the pattern was over the last 15 years that the public

agencies would do the pioneering work while the private agencies became more

and more entrenched in past patterns.

My friend, the Member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), will find

parallel situations in the medical field where certain medical

private agencies, to raise funds for certain particular

illnesses, became entrenched with those illnesses. The

illnesses disappeared but the bureaucracy didn't, nor did the

fund. You have a case of continuing bureaucracy not adjusting

to a new situation.

A case in point of one which has attempted to adjust is the

tuberculosis fund, which at one time was an important

ingredient in North American health care. Its role has been

altered by two factors: (1) the extension of public services;

(2) the control of the disease of tuberculosis. That society

has moved into the field of emphysema and focuses on other

special health problems.

It takes a while to respond and to adjust that bureaucracy. I'm sure through your medical experience you would

agree that there are some medical funds in North America,

particularly in the United States, which perhaps have long

outlived their usefulness but still exist because there are

jobs involved, there are commitments and, quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, a certain amount of social status. In North American

society there is a social status attached to, "doing charity

work." It's just as prevalent today as it was at the turn of

the century although its form takes different roles in

different cities.

In the City of St. Louis, they have a ball every year where

all the hoi polloi of the community go who will be identified

once a year with charity and charity needs. As a matter of

fact, it's a great social thing to be listed on a number of

charitable things. Many people do it with great intent and with

great service, and their efforts are more than welcome. But, in

some instances, the actual purpose of the agency has become

less and less one of serving the community and more and more

one of social structure and social acceptance.

Now, those agencies that were needed to continue, that

became absolutely necessary, couldn't over the years be funded

out of private funds. You have the anomalous situation of an

agency perhaps like the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver

which at the turn of the century was the only agency in the

field involved in direct care with children. There was the

[ Page 3793 ]

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and there

was the society for the prevention of cruelty to children. A

cynic may say on occasion that the Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals had more influence than the society for

the prevention of cruelty to children. Certainly in North

America there's enough evidence to indicate that may be the

case. I'm not saying in British Columbia.

In the British Columbia case we have the Children's Aid

Society as an example. As the province's social services grew,

it became obvious that there was no private agency that could

possibly function outside of the lower mainland on a private

basis to provide child care. Under the last, unlamented

coalition government and, preceding that, a Liberal

administration in this province, there were some outstanding

Ministers of health care and welfare administration who did

pioneering work in the health and welfare fields. We almost had

Medicare in 1936 under a Liberal administration, but it was

almost like all other Liberal promises: why ruin a good promise

by doing something about it? As a matter of fact, the

legislation was actually introduced in this House, passed, but

never proclaimed.

Nonetheless, there were a number of people in the Liberal

cabinets and in the coalition cabinets who set an atmosphere of

progress in the child welfare and social welfare field. One of

the persons who carried over from the former coalition

government into the Social Credit administration was one, Ruby

McKay, an internationally-recognized expert in child welfare.

Her role in attempting to update child welfare in British

Columbia was met with a dismissal by the Social Credit

government.

Those of you who were in the House at that time will recall

that the former Minister of Highways, who then became the

Minister of Welfare, one P.A. Gaglardi, that self-proclaimed

expert on social services, decided that Ruby McKay was giving a

professional opinion. So Ruby McKay was fired.

We have no real progress in the social services in terms of

establishing patterns between private and public agencies under

the last five years of Social Credit; none whatsoever. We

inherit what was once, under Liberal and coalition

administrations, some of the most progressive social welfare

legislation in North America. We inherited a department that

had been allowed to wither. As a result, the private agencies,

because of their presence and because of the vacuum, were

forced to fill a service.

While child welfare services were built up all through the province, the private

agencies were asked to continue doing the direct child-care work in the City

of Vancouver. This is the kind of situation we had: 99 per cent of the budget

of the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver was paid for out of the public purse

— this Legislature — but it was controlled by a private board. Now, Mr. Member,

when you talk about public representation and the need for this Legislature

to be involved, I don't think you can justify having an anomalous situation

in one particular area, and in many other cases, of the Children's Aid Society

of Vancouver, a private agency, receiving 99 per cent of its funding from the

provincial government and yet their policies determined by the board….

MR. WALLACE: I wasn't talking about that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, this is what is leading to this

legislation. I'm trying to get across to you the necessity of

this kind of legislation and the experiments that are part of

the history of this province.

What this Minister is doing is really an extension of

experiments started in the 1930s and the late 1940s and died in

the late '50s and mid-'60s. Until the advent of that

administration, British Columbia had been recognized as the

leader in social welfare services.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Huh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You say huh. You're the people who fired

Ruby McKay. You're the ones who led the department….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. We have a difference of opinion. I

happen to express my opinion — one that fortunately, after all

these years, I am able to express from this side of the House

because we have Pharmacare now, we have Mincome now. These are

things that would never have come out of that outfit — never.

The handicapped, the blind and the crippled have a guaranteed

minimum income. And why shouldn't they? But it never came from

that outfit.

The purpose of this bill is to allow the community itself to

have some say in what kind of resources are developed. While

the arguments are going abroad that this government is taking

away people's rights and eroding freedom, in actual fact in

this particular bill what we are asking is that community

become more and more and more involved in their own

neighbourhood lifestyle and their own community problems.

Far too often we have adopted the attitude in social

services of "let the private charities worry about that

problem" when the problems are essentially community problems.

There is ignorance, a lack of information, a lack of awareness,

and a lack of participation in other human beings' problems in

our multi-complex society.

You can go into some of the suburban areas of

[ Page 3794 ]

large urban areas and talk to one person in the house, and

the person next door — they may live beside each other for five

years and have no more communication other than saying hello or

good-bye in the evening or in the morning.

The whole purpose of this bill is to get the community

itself involved in its own lifestyle. To continue a pattern of

private agencies being financed 99 per cent by public funds

when the board of directors of that agency never reflected the

clients of the agency…. They were wonderful people; they

were well motivated people, and I don't intend to criticize

them for their very sincere efforts. But what about the people

who are receiving the service? What was the direct access of

the foster child, the unwed mother, or the father of a broken

family, with placing a child in care? What was their access to

the board and the policies? None. And vice versa, what

responsibilities did the board have to the government, other

than their good moral commitment? Those board members could

have flown off in a million directions. Most of them didn't;

most of these people who served on these boards have done an

outstanding job.

But in the meantime, while our old pattern continued to

grow, a whole new awareness and a whole new series of demands

arose in our societies. The poor wanted to be heard. We had the

rising of welfare rights committees throughout all of North

America. In the United States the phenomenon was essentially

associated with the black community who were at first involved

in citizens' rights organizations. This spilled over, as all

other groups spill over, into the Canadian pattern. We had it

in Ontario and Quebec, on the Prairies and in British

Columbia.

If we wish to preserve the kind of social structure and

political society that we have, then we should allow more and

more people to participate. I happen to believe in

parliamentary democracy. I believe that more and more people

should participate. The way of getting more awareness and more

participation is to give access to decision-making to as many

people as possible for those things that affect their

lives.

If I am on welfare or a Mincome recipient, I don't want the

idea of somebody making the absolute decision in Victoria or

city hall without my having my input with some degree of

authority. These boards that the Minister is proposing to set

up have been advocated by research for the last 15 years in all

of North America. It is an experiment really, but it is an

extension of all of the research that we have been able to put

together from common experiences in North America.

There are bound to be problems. With anything that is brand new there are bound

to be problems. But I just can't understand the reasoning in terms of the kind

of blanket condemnation of anything new that the government does as wrong, as

inadequate, as fumbling, as taking away liberty and as destroying democracy,

when the opposite is the case.

No one knows how successful these boards are going to be

because no one has tried them. But that shouldn't be the reason

for us not to try them. Surely to goodness, if any of you are

ever in a condition where you would need social assistance, you

would want to have access other than to your politician, your

MLA, or someone else, or the Minister. God help us, we may get

one back like the one we had before, and to appeal to him as

your last answer…. Surely you would want some

part in your

own community.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I won't attack you either. You weren't

responsible; you had no more power than he did. You had less

power than he did in the cabinet.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Some of the Socreds disassociated

themselves….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you endorse Mr. Gaglardi's policies, go

right ahead. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) disassociated

himself just in time to get himself re-elected.

The point I am trying to make is that this bill allows

people who are on welfare, who are in need of social services,

who are part and parcel of communities, to have direct

involvement in decision-making in the communities. One of the

problems in our urban society is the fluidity and the anonymity

that exists in our urban centres. One of the ways of bringing

people together is through a board like this. It's not going to

be perfect, but to label it as a political device or an

insidious political machine to gain control in certain regions

of cities is sheer nonsense. Sheer nonsense.

Do you know something? I know constituencies that have

political organizations in them established for one purpose — to gain power so they can elect MLAs. What about that! If you

want to talk about political power, there are MLAs in this

chamber, Mr. Speaker, who have organizations in their own

ridings whose only purpose is to get them re-elected so they

can have power. You talk about politics! That's political

politics.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Name names? I have a political

organization in my riding; I think the

[ Page 3795 ]

Liberals have a political organization. As a matter of fact,

in every election campaign every party says they are the best

organized and they are going to win the most seats. Talk about

ones being paid — what about old Gracey running around last

year getting the leadership for young Bill? (Laughter.) We paid

for that out of this House, Mr. Speaker, and that was political

politics of the worst kind — seeking power.

I know how difficult it is for the Tory party to get a

meeting together in a phone booth, but nonetheless, if that is

what you want, there is no question that that is what you want

to do.

MR. WALLACE: You're twisting my words.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not twisting your….

Oh, you see, Mr. Speaker, now he is interrupting me and

accusing me of interrupting his words, when I was casually

trying to interrupt him and he misinterpreted my interruptions.

(Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That should thoroughly confuse everything,

which is the real skill. Would you repeat that, Mr.

Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I will.

We are dealing with some of the arguments that have been

raised in criticizing this bill. One of the arguments raised is

the labelling that this could be a political device. The

political devices that exist by these Members are already out

there in the community; you don't suspect everybody's motives

because they are a Tory; you don't suspect everybody's motives

because they are Liberal. You try not to suspect everybody's

motives because they are Social Credits. It's not a question of

the person's political label; it is a question of interest in

the community. The same way as municipal office.

This is a vehicle to allow an experiment to take place to

permit those people who rely on these services all their lives

to have some small say in the development of those services. If

it is good enough for a university, if it is good enough for a

Legislature, surely it is good enough for a community to have a

say in the development of those services.

This bill has excited the interest of the welfare community

of all of North America. I want to commend the Minister for the

way he has handled it up to this date.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I won't take more

than a minute or two of the time of the House to raise a point

or two about this bill. First of all, I want to wish the

Minister well in his experiment. It is something new and it is

in the nature of an experiment. I agree with the Premier that

this deserves to be tried.

At the same time, I think a word or two of caution offered in the sincerest

way might be in order. The Premier, though he claimed the boards of private

agencies like the Children's Aid Society were really very fine people, was subtly

condemning them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No way.

MR. McGEER: You were, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's the system.

MR. McGEER: Well, whether you're condemning the system or

not, the point I'm trying to make is that the New Democratic

Party is always finding some fault with society, taking what

exists for granted and assuming that by introducing their new

system they will not harm anything that now exists.

What I've found as a result of this bill is dismay on the

part of many agencies that are functioning well and are making

an important contribution that we cannot afford to be

without.

On the other hand, the attempts of the Minister to establish

community resource boards have met with indifference. There is

no reason at all to believe at this stage that we're replacing

the people who are performing now in our community with people

who are either more interested or more competent. Mr. Speaker,

no matter what system you may introduce, performance depends

upon ability and commitment.

I'm worried, about the effect this bill is having right now

on agencies that are critical to bringing effective social

services to the people of B.C. I am not one bit encouraged by

the results the Minister has obtained to date in attempting to

get his new system started. It may be ultimately that he can

replace what we now have with something better. I would be the

first one to say to that Minister that on paper what he has

looks better. But sometimes, what looks good on paper isn't

very good in practice.

HON. MR. LEVI: Like Trudeau's housing?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): There's a

perfect example.

MR. McGEER: I agree with you. I think it is a perfect

example and I want to mention one or two other examples. One is

OFY and another is LIP. There were some good things about

those, but the capability of the federal government to

administer them was so dismal that the advantages outweighed

the advantages.

Perhaps in criticizing my own party and some of the schemes

they had which looked good on paper, it might be the best way

of suggesting some way that the Minister can have his programme

move only at the speed that people can usefully accept. While

you're working towards bringing this along, if it

[ Page 3796 ]

works well, bring it along fast. If it works badly, let it

have a peaceful death. But don't try and take what works now

and break it down.

That's the only reservation I have. Perhaps the Minister, in

closing the debate, can give us a little bit of

reassurance.

I certainly think the system we have had, for all its

faults, has brought forward a great deal of professional

capability and dedication. If boards like those of the

Children's Aid Society are to pass in power and influence, it

won't go unnoticed by me that they have done an extremely fine

job. Anyone who attempts to take their place has their work cut

out for them.

I disagree with the Premier that these boards have somehow

represented a faulty system or have been derelict in taking

into account the wishes and needs of their clients. I think it

was unfair of the Premier, in promoting his new scheme, to

leave that assertion. I disagree with that.

Having said that if the Minister, in his capacity as being

responsible for these services, and the Premier, as a social

worker and now No. 1 man in the province, can conceive of a

better way and prove to those agencies that now exist that it

is a better way, by all means replace them. But let them work

in competition for the moment and see which does the better

job.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I feel I must get into

this debate for a few minutes. I think one of the problems with

probably all of us, not only here in this assembly but

throughout the community, is that we fear change. It reminds me

of Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem in which he says:

The old order changes, yielding place to new;

And God fulfils himself in many ways

Lest one good custom should corrupt this world.

I think that is as true as it was at the time when the poet

wrote those words. Every once in a while a system that was

working very well becomes so institutionalized that, even

though the people might not have been corrupt, the system

corrupts itself because of its ageing tendencies. We have

reached this stage now. These things have to change.

Right now we live in an era where people are expecting participation. That

has become the slogan of today: "people participation." We have seen it in very

many other phases. For instance, in Vancouver, at the time when Marathon Realty

started on Arbutus Village, they realized the importance of people participation

because a great number of other subdivisions that had been created had been

created badly because they didn't fit into the neighbourhoods. So Marathon went

back to the people in the community and showed them the plans they had. They

went back to them six or seven times until the area around was satisfied with

the type of development that was going to be put in.

The same thing happened in the Champlain Heights area. When

the first Champlain Heights development started, the

Killarney-Fraserview area formed a council of volunteers; it

wasn't a council of professional or paid people. Anyone who

wanted could come to that and have input. As a result, they

were able to develop some things that were satisfying to the

surrounding neighbourhood. They were able to cut the density

down and were able to put in such improvements as a shopping

mall that wasn't an eyesore and have the kind of schools and

churches and other amenities — small, pathway parks and things

of that sort — that they wanted developed in it.

We're trying to do exactly the same with community resource

boards in that we want people to be able to participate and to

be able to do it in such a way that it is satisfying to

all.

Of the people who were elected to the community resource

board in the Vancouver South area, here is a quote from one of

those members:

"Most people have not had anything to do with social services so they're not interested."

With the community resource board, more people will become

interested. People are already asking, "What can the CRB do?"

Here is another quote:

"I am terribly disappointed that there are no consumers of services on this board."

We are so used to electing people whom we feel have high

qualifications. Sometimes these qualifications aren't the sort

of thing that really are the important things. Maybe it is

communication with people that is more important.

Here is another:

"I am not concerned about consumer representation on

the board. We can always get ad hoc advice from them. So they've

realized that they must go out to the community, to the people who are

going to be getting those services, to say: 'Now, what is it you want

and what is it you need?'"

That is the idea behind these resource boards. I think, with

this type of experiment right now in Vancouver South and

Vancouver Killarney-Fraserview area, this is a pilot

project. We have to say to ourselves: "Let's see what's

happening here."

There are information centres set up in relation to them. I

understand they are working very well and they are delighted

with what is happening in the community.

I highly approve of this and I am very happy this bill has

come before the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3797 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few words about

this legislation. I'm not going to heap as much praises on the

legislation as the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster)

because I find the legislation to be bureaucracy in full bloom.

As if we don't have enough bureaucracy in British Columbia now

after 18 months of a socialist government where we have 8,000

new civil servants. We find the Minister introducing the

Community Resources Act , the most bureaucratic piece of

legislation to be introduced this session. He's going to have

political hacks in every community of this province.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: How many? How many will you have? What are your

projections for this legislation, Mr. Minister, as far as the

hiring of people and phony elections throughout the Province of

British Columbia? When one looks at the results of Vancouve