1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8709 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 64: minister's office –– 8709

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Ms. Smallwood

Mrs. Gran

Ms. Marzari

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 64: minister's office, $301,553.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It's a pleasure for me to appear before this House to do the spending

estimates of my ministry for the coming year. I want to make a few

remarks, and I'll keep them as brief as I possibly can, but because of

the importance and the size of this ministry it's only appropriate that

we spend a few moments outlining what we plan for the coming year and

some of the highlights of the past year. Joining me in the House today

are my deputy, Mr. Dick Butler, ADM Sam Travers and Mr. John Pickering,

the director of budget planning.

Substantial increases have

been allocated this year to enable my ministry to enhance its services.

In fact, the actual increases are just over 10 percent. This is indeed

a good news budget for this ministry. I'd like to highlight a few of my

ministry's major accomplishments over the past year and to tell you

about some of the initiatives and program enhancements planned for the

coming year. I'll start with the opportunities for independence and

income assistance programs.

My ministry is committed to

assisting those among us who are in need. We also believe strongly that

it is only by assisting people to achieve independence that our

commitment to these people can be met in a meaningful, permanent way.

We now have the most extensive array of employment initiatives,

incentive programs and support services that we've ever had. In the

month of April, nearly 13,000 persons participated in these programs:

native people, single parents, people who have been out of work for

some time, youths looking for a first job; and the list goes on.

During the 1988-89 fiscal year, over 4,000 persons benefited from the Employment

Plus program alone. This program provides wage subsidies to non-profit and private

sector employers to provide job training and work experience to participants.

To let you know what this type of help can mean to someone, I will relate some

examples of the program as we go through the estimates. I won't take the

time in the opening remarks, but as it comes up I'll relate some individual

cases to illustrate exactly what I'm talking about regarding Employment

Plus. Because these programs are so important, a $9.7 million budget increase

has been allocated to expand the program and to target groups who need it most:

single parents, youths, native people and older workers. As well, the forestry

enhancement program is now being administered by my ministry.

is important to note that British Columbia benefits from federal

cost-sharing on these programs. The $26 million Employment Plus budget

is matched dollar for dollar by federal employment and training

programs specifically for income assistance recipients.

I announced recently, we have also increased the income assistance

rates. This will give a larger measure of security to those on

long-term assistance such as the elderly and those with handicaps.

Those who are employable but need temporary assistance also receive an

increase in addition to expanded employment-related services. The

increases, effective July 1, 1989, have two components: the support

allowance has been increased by 5.6 percent; the shelter component has

been adjusted to reflect increased shelter costs. Increases vary

between 4.5 percent and 10 percent, depending on family size. These

measures will cost the taxpayers approximately $42 million annually.

I'm

also pleased to announce today that we have expanded our health care

program for income assistance recipients with hearing impairments.

Persons whose hearing range is less than 40 decibels and who require

hearing aids to obtain employment or who are the sole homemaking

support for adults with mental handicaps are now eligible for hearing

aids. Coverage is already provided to children, parents with dependent

children and persons involved in ministry training programs. We've

expanded our coverage so that people with hearing impairments will be

better able to care for their families and have a better chance for

employment. The program also meets safety concerns, as below 40

decibels people can't hear sirens, horns and fire alarms.

Day

care is essential for many parents to obtain or remain in a job. As you

know, the federal government has postponed a portion of its national

child care program worth $4 billion. Because many parents in British

Columbia cannot wait any longer, we have decided to move ahead with

provincial day care initiatives. As my colleague the Hon. Bill Reid and

I announced, lottery funds will be made available to help build,

renovate and expand day care centres.

In addition, day care

subsidies are being increased to more closely reflect the actual day

care costs. Income exemption levels are being increased so that more

low-income parents and students will be eligible for the subsidy and so

that the contribution required of those already subsidized will be

reduced. The increase in subsidy and exemption levels will cost

approximately $12.1 million.

Funding of approximately $1

million will be made available to non-profit agencies to recruit, train

and support informal day care providers, and an additional $350,000 has

been allocated for start-up grants to non-profit societies to equip new

facilities on a

[ Page 8710 ]

matching basis. Our government will also actively promote employer-sponsored day care.

The

future of this province lies in our children and families, and we are

committed to supporting families and to protecting children

effectively. These commitments are expressed in many ways, and I just

want to highlight a few of them.

The highly successful

family initiatives program was designed to promote nurturing parenting,

enhance services for children and families facing special difficulties,

increase local participation and support family independence. The

program is carried out in partnership with community agencies. Agencies

identify community needs; we enable them to meet these needs by

providing the financial means to do so. Projects include respite care

for families caring for handicapped children, support for teen mothers,

support groups for parents and the provision of over 90 family

advancement workers throughout the province.

The Reconnect

program for street kids is another extremely worthwhile initiative. Its

purpose is to prevent young people from taking to the street and to

reconnect those who are on the street with family, medical, residential

and employment support resources. It is delivered through contracts

with societies who employ specialized workers to reach out to these

young people.

A special Reconnect outreach program for

native street youth will begin this fall in Vancouver. The program is

funded in partnership with the Vancouver School Board, and grew out of

discussions I had with representatives of various native organizations

who raised it as an issue.

Our commitment to families is

reflected in several budget increases for this year. An extra $1

million has been allocated for expanded or new transition houses and

emergency shelters in communities throughout the province. These

shelters are absolutely necessary for families in trouble, and the

additional funding expresses our recognition of this need. An

additional $1.45 million has been allocated to enhance our family

support and rehabilitation resources programs.

The special

services to children program, which provides counselling for families

with children who have exceptional physical, social or behavioural

needs, will be enhanced to serve 260 additional families. The

rehabilitation resources program assists youth with social or emotional

problems which cannot be handled in a regular school setting. It is

operated jointly with the Ministry of Education and school districts.

Budget increases will be used to fund new programs and enhance existing

programs.

A new budget item of $1.69 million has been

allocated to provide special resources on an interministry basis to

children with exceptional needs These children may be substance

abusers, victims of abuse, multiply handicapped or severely emotionally

disturbed. The funds have been allocated to three ministries — Social

Services and Housing, Health, and Labour and Consumer Services — and

will allow us to provide the necessary services to these children

[10:15]

The budget for contracted residential child care resources has been

increased significantly. This will allow us to provide specialized

residential care for additional children whose needs cannot be met in a

regular foster home. The budget for foster homes has been increased in

order to allow us to raise foster home rates.

Other

budgetary measures include: an increase for our infant development

program to bring the total number of children and families served to

nearly 2,500; an increase of over $2 million for special needs day

care; an increase of nearly $2 million to provide respite care and

specialized residential care for children with severe handicaps; and

funding for the new in-home support program for children with

handicaps, which was announced recently, and the budget for that was in

the area of $15 million.

As well as taking these budgetary

measures, we are taking measures to ensure that our standards are of

the highest quality. These include a task force on standards of social

work practice and a task force on standards of residential care for

children and youth. We also updated the interministry child abuse

handbook to ensure that child protection efforts are coordinated and

effective. The handbook prescribes integrated procedures for these

cases in more detail and with more clarity than ever before.

These

support and preventive services are working. For the past several years

the number of children in care has not increased with the increase in

child population. Our prediction of caseload increase in line with the

growth in child population has not occurred. In fact, Mr. Chairman, for

the first time in the history of the province, the number of children

apprehended has gone down, while the population has increased. There

are about 1,200 fewer children in care than predicted. We are extremely

heartened by this trend, and it is the first time it has ever happened.

Just

a few words now, as I wrap up, about all these services. We do them in

partnership with the community. We contract with over 2,000 community

businesses. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I believe our ministry has more

contracts with the private sector — nonprofit societies, individual

professionals — than any other ministry in government. This is

cost-effective and returns service provision to our local communities

where it belongs. Because costs increase, we must increase contract

rates for our service providers. I am pleased to say that we have been

allocated an increase of $11.61 million this year to do this.

just want to conclude by saying a few words about our housing action

plan. As we have announced, our goals are to increase the supply of

affordable rental housing, to maximum the involvement of the private

sector in meeting rental housing needs, to help British Columbians meet

market-determined housing costs and, four, to assist in home-ownership.

Briefly,

our programs for achieving these goals fall into three areas. The first

is rental supply. These are aimed at increasing the supply of

affordable rental

[ Page

8711 ]

housing by making suitably zoned land available and

encouraging the involvement of the private and non-profit sectors and

other levels of government. The Housing Management Commission put out a

proposal call in June for 2,000 units of affordable rental housing, and

the response so far has been tremendous. There have been over 350

inquiries from builders, developers and non-profit societies.

The

second program area is rental assistance for those who require it.

Programs in this category include our social housing program and other

measures to assist low-income renters such as the enhancements to SAFER

and the GAIN shelter allowance.

The third group of programs

assists homeowners and buyers and includes homeowner grants, the land

tax deferment program, the second mortgage program, which is being

privatized and enhanced, and property purchase tax relief. With

cooperation from all the players involved — developers, non-profit

agencies, municipalities, the federal government and the province — we

will increase the supply of affordable rental housing for British

Columbians.

The success of our programs in serving the

people of British Columbia is due largely to the dedication of our

ministry staff and to the many community agencies who are our partners

in service delivery. I will end this address by expressing my

appreciation for all of their efforts.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

In the minister's introduction, if he wanted to prove that there is a

lot of money being spent or being thrown at people in need in this

province, all he would have to do is to quote the total amount being

spent by this ministry: $1.6 billion. The questions I hope to deal with

in this estimate are first and foremost, whether the money is actually

going where it should be; whether it is being properly spent; whether

it is being accounted for; whether this ministry is being accountable

to the taxpayers; whether it is alleviating poverty, supporting

families in need or, as this government has claimed repeatedly,

strengthening families.

The case I will make is that the

ministry fails desperately, that the money is not going where it is

needed and that families are being further torn apart by the system and

by the political system this government has set in place.

the outset I want to make two comments. First of all, I believe the

staff in the ministry are caring, dedicated people. I believe they are

doing an extremely difficult job under this government and previous

administrations. I believe that the community groups that are

delivering services for this ministry are not supported. The commitment

that those people have shown is an incredible commitment which can only

be continued because they care very much about the people they serve.

Every attempt to deliver those services has been frustrated by this

government.

I'd like to start by framing the discussion in a bit of a historical perspective,

and then I'll talk about the different areas I intend to deal with in the

estimates

Because

the ministry is perhaps one of the biggest bureaucracies in government,

I can't begin to touch on all the areas. The two major areas I hope to

deal with are poverty and teen and children's programs in this province

— family and children's services.

In putting into

perspective what is happening in this province right now, I think one

has to begin by understanding what went before this government and the

legacy this province is having to deal with. First of all, under the

so-called restraint program.... Let me go through the list of services

this province and this ministry has lost. There were 220 family support

workers before the restraint era. The support workers were to assist

families in crisis and help to maintain those families — help them stay

together. Those 220 family support workers were fired. Child care

workers in schools lost their funding. Regional coordinators for family

and child services were fired. Special teams and coordinators for

programs for children with handicaps were eliminated. Home care

services for new mothers were reduced through the elimination of 35

jobs. Universal Pharmacare for families and singles had its deductible

rates increased from $125 to $200. Physical education was made no

longer mandatory in grades 11 and 12. Cuts in legal aid programs,

particularly hard hit....

MR. CHAIRMAN : I interrupt

the hon. member for just a moment to remind her that we're dealing with

the estimates of the minister's office for this fiscal year, and the

member seems to be talking about things that happened quite a number of

years ago. Perhaps we could become just a little more relevant to the

estimates that we're dealing with.

MS. SMALLWOOD : As

I pointed out in my introduction, I don't believe you can deal with

what is happening in this province today without realizing what

happened to the system in the past. Many of the programs I'm talking

about were preventive programs, and I'll identify some of those for

you, Mr. Chairman. My argument is that with the neglect in the area of

preventive programs, we are now facing a crisis situation for families.

I think that will become clear if you will tolerate this line of debate.

the 1983-to-1985 restraint days, legal aid programs were particularly

hard hit, Women seeking to obtain and enforce maintenance orders from

deserting spouses were hard hit. Funding for planned parenthood was

eliminated. Preventive public health programs in nutrition have been

reduced. Dental care programs for young children eliminated. Family

first home grants were wiped out. Renter tax credit and personal tax

credits wiped out. There's a lack of services for disturbed youth.

Property taxes for lowincome homeowners have been increased by 60

percent in three years. Post-partum counselling for new mothers and

funding for the Vancouver Women's Health Collective was eliminated. All

of these programs were put in place to support families. They were

preventive programs that were cost-effective. I think most of the

studies done by professionals in the field point out that support for

preventive programs

[ Page 8712 ]

eliminates

the need for crisis intervention or reduces the need for crisis

intervention in the long run, and in the long run makes for a much

healthier society.

What we're seeing now in British

Columbia, I will argue during the estimates, is an increased cost to

the ministry because the ministry is now increasingly engaged in crisis

intervention because of the reduced emphasis on preventive and

supportive services to families. In this past year the minister has

begun to reinstate some of those programs, some of them under different

names, different titles, so that the majority of people are not aware

that the government is recognizing the error of its ways.

I'm

afraid that the introduction of some of these programs is done in an ad

hoc, knee-jerk way. There is not the kind of coordination, not the kind

province that is needed.

In the last several months I have

on several different occasions approached the ministry asking for

information. It's very clear that there is a need for accessible

information — information, I stress, that is not covered under the

confidentiality that is required for client relationships but

statistical information that will help in long-term policy development.

The ministry has been asked for several years to provide that

information. My requests are not new by any stretch of the imagination.

Unfortunately, the minister has not consented to providing that

information; therefore, the statistics that I use had to be accessed

through the Ministry of Finance and other research documents. I have

not got the kinds of overall information that I had hoped for.

looked at a couple of different areas. First of all, the budgets from

the ministry by region. In an attempt to be able to look at programs

that are delivered region by region I believe and have been told

repeatedly, by both professionals in the field and the people who are

relying on these services, that there is not the kind of universal

delivery of needed services that one would hope. All too often in areas

off the lower mainland people needing services find themselves having

to commute and having to house their family members in the lower

mainland to be able to access needed services.

[10:30]

I've looked at the overall ministry budget — and we talked about the

fact that the ministry has $1.6 billion. I was interested to find out

where the ministry has gone in the last nine to ten years in percentage

of the overall provincial budget, and perhaps the minister can help me

with this as we continue through the estimates. Numbers I have — and

this is from the Ministry of Finance — indicate that since 1981 the

ministry has spent increasing amount of the provincial budget: 1981-82

shows something like 12 percent of the provincial budget and 1988-89,

the last figure I have, shows 15 percent. It's very difficult to get

percentages because the government's books change from year to year,

and it's very hard to compare. With an increasing amount of the

provincial budget going to Social Services, one asks: why are we seeing

an increased percentage of family poverty in this province? If indeed

we're throwing so much money at family and children's services and at

the Ministry of Social Services, why is there an increase?

heard from the Premier... As the Premier gets up to leave, it just

jogged my memory. In the Premier's estimates yesterday there were all

sorts of glad tidings and good news about the economy and all the good

work that the government has been doing. I hope the Premier sticks

around for these estimates, because I understand the Premier cares

about families and children. Quite frankly, if you, Mr. Premier, were

in my shoes and had dealt with the people who have become victims of

your government and your ministry, you would have a very different view

of the record of your government and of what families have to deal with

in this province.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Well, the fact of the matter is that there are an increasing number of

families and children in this province who are living in poverty. The

number of families and children living in poverty.... We are the only

province in Canada.... We lead the pack in poverty statistics. In the

estimates I will explain to the minister and to the Premier what that

poverty means to families and children. I'll also point out to the

minister that some of the programs in place — due to the crisis

intervention nature of this ministry — are in chaos, because the

minister has been more interested in using tax loopholes than providing

services.

I refer directly to the issue of foster care and

the foster care system in this province. The reality is — and we will

deal with it specifically — that the area of services to teens is in

absolute chaos. Many of the children who are under the responsibility

of this government will find themselves either back in very bad

situations or on the street.

I would like to start off with

the issues of poverty and the impact of government's decisions on the

people of this province. I'd like to start by relaying a story to the

minister. This was told to me by some anti-poverty workers. An

anti-poverty worker in Vancouver was meeting with a woman who is an

anti-poverty worker from Africa — a Third World country and certainly

Third World conditions. A couple of months ago these two workers were

comparing the skills and reality they were dealing with. They were

swapping stories about poverty and the situations of families.

they were exchanging stories, the woman from Africa said: "Well, let me

tell you what I tell the families and the women that I work with and

some of the skills that I share with them." Talking about the issue of

shelter, the woman from Africa said that when it becomes very hot: "I

tell the women to go out and pick up the donkey dung and spread it on

the walls, and it helps to cool the house down."

The woman

from Vancouver said: "Well, that's not the problem we face here. The

people who are poor here in British Columbia and Canada face problems

[ Page 8713 ]

cold, meeting the cost of heat and of being able to clothe their

children to protect them from the cold." So the woman from Africa said:

"Well, that's very bad. That's a very difficult situation. But let me

tell you what we in Africa tell our women and children around the issue

of food and nutrition. We tell the women to seek out some of the

natural plants in the area, bring them back and plant them around the

house, so that they always will have food, and they can always feed

their kids."

The woman from Vancouver said: "Most of our

poor live in apartments, rental units. Most of our poor don't have

access to areas where they can plant food. In apartments they are

surrounded by blacktop and they are unable to plant the natural foods.

It's very difficult for them to feed their children. We rely on food

banks here." The woman from Africa said: "You think we are poor, but I

believe that your poor in Canada are far worse off."

One

has to remember that when you're dealing with poverty, what you're

dealing with is the basic needs. You're dealing with food and shelter.

On those basic needs, our society has failed. When I heard that story,

it really brought home the reality of our so-called advanced society.

It brought home the reality of what families and children face here in

British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, I believe your system is a

punitive system. It is based on a feeling that the poor are not worthy,

that the poor are poor because of something that they themselves have

done, that they are poor because they are lazy. We have heard

repeatedly — and I'll quote some actual comments from the minister and

the ministry's documents that indicate this — that the whole premise of

your ministry is to discourage people from receiving welfare and to get

them back into the workforce, as if there was something wrong with them.

think that what you have to do as a government is begin to look at who

is poor. Only when you understand who is poor — what the bigger picture

is — can you begin to deal with that reality. I think that the

statistics bear out that women are disproportionately poor and that

native people are disproportionately poor. The statistics show that if

you are handicapped, you have a 60 percent chance of living in poverty.

If you are old, you have a disproportionate chance of living in

poverty. The statistics will also bear out that if you are young, you

have a disproportionate chance of living in poverty if you are

unattached. I think increasingly we are seeing that men over the age of

50 are becoming a group that are identified as being victims of poverty

due to the changing technologies in our society.

If you

start by recognizing that certain groups in our society face that

reality, then as a responsible government your policies must reflect

that and must start on the premise of dealing with those inequities and

realistically approaching them

Well over half of all

single-parent families headed by women are on welfare. Surely that says

something to your government. Surely it says that when you deal with

the issue of labour strategy, you must begin to deal with those

realities. If you are effectively going to end the poverty cycle — and

that is language that your government loves to use — you must deal with

those realities. The only way to do that is to begin to deal with those

inequities in society.

I believe there is evidence that the

only involvement your ministry has in labour strategy is one that

subsidizes business and gives short-term job opportunities to people.

It does nothing to end the poverty cycle, but instead is more

interested in giving breaks to business. I submit to you that with this

strategy you are not only not ending the poverty cycle, but you are

encouraging and supporting it and giving people that are living below

the poverty line no option. You are, indeed, closing doors.

want to talk about what child poverty means, because all too often your

government, as I said, when dealing with welfare recipients, encourages

and perpetuates the myth that people who are poor are unworthy. Let's

talk about the kids who are victims of your policies. Let's talk about

what poverty means to children. A child who lives in poverty runs twice

the risk of dying in infancy; that comes from StatsCan. It has a higher

risk –– 1.5 times — of being born premature, twice the chance of being

born on time but underweight or being born with birth defects. Being

premature and underweight increase a child's risk of various handicaps

and learning problems, risks that are higher still if a child is poor.

Those are Canada, U.S. and United Kingdom statistics.

[10:45]

In childhood, ages 1 to 14, a poor child has an increased risk of

death –– 1.5 to 2 times — and an increased risk of accidents — a 10

times greater chance of dying from fires, falling or drowning; a 7

times greater chance of dying as a pedestrian. Those are United Kingdom

statistics. A poor child has an increased risk of being hospitalized

and, if hospitalized, for 4 times more days than the child of a more

affluent family. A poor child has an increased risk of being considered

by parents to have chronic health conditions and only fair to poor

health. In those areas, the health problems are pneumonia, rheumatic

fever, diarrhea, tooth decay, lead poisoning, anemia, hearing loss and

learning disabilities.

The costs to the children in this

province of poverty are phenomenal. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, if you

don't care about those kids, the balance sheet alone, just the cost to

taxpayers of perpetuating this poverty, is exorbitant. The Ministry of

Health, in the last year or so, has begun to talk about holistic

health, to talk about wellness. My challenge to you, Mr. Minister, is

to look at your responsibility in the same way: to talk about social

well-being; to talk about the kind of social system that perpetuates

well-being, dignity, independence, and allows families to get on with

the process of being together, of raising children, of giving them

opportunities and chances in our society.

I believe that

many people in British Columbia have begun to recognize the fact that

the social welfare system in B.C. is causing poverty rather than

[ Page 8714 ]

alleviating

it, breaking up families rather than supporting them. In increasing

numbers we are seeing a call for a royal commission, an inquiry that

people in this province can have confidence in. I don't believe for a

moment that people support the actions of this government or previous

governments in the area of social welfare. I know the minister is aware

of this, and I'm going to talk specifically about church groups and

social action groups that have called for an independent inquiry.

I'm

going to start by quoting from some of the correspondence I've got. The

first letter is from the British Columbia Conference of the United

Church of Canada, and the resolution goes like this:

"Whereas God challenges us to do justice, to show mercy

and to walk humbly with our creator;

"Whereas this invitation compels us to develop

a society built upon a solid foundation that is measured by how we treat the

most vulnerable;

"Whereas

our present social assistance system is not working, the present

welfare rates for all categories of clients are substantially below

poverty levels, food banks are still essential for many people,

affordable accommodation is an urgent problem, and more children and

women are victims of poverty;

"Whereas there appears to be confusion in the underlying principles of the social assistance system;

"Whereas

we believe a royal commission can be a helpful way to have significant

issues studied publicly, and we are encouraged by the social assistance

review commission in Ontario;

"Therefore

be it resolved (

a) that the sixty-fourth annual

meeting of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada urge the B.C.

government to establish a royal commission to review and recommend changes in

the social assistance system in British Columbia...."

MR. CHAIRMAN : The hon. member's time has expired under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI : I would like to continue to hear the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley's estimates speech.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The resolution:

"...(

b) that this royal commission be impartial and broadly

based so as to include a significant number of people who have had actual experience

of receiving income assistance."

That resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority.

Secondly,

a group of religious communities that formed a social and economic

policy committee start off by providing information as to how different

religious groups have spoken out against poverty and against the system

that is now in place. It starts off with Pope John Paul II in Edmonton:

"The human cost of unemployment, especially the costs it brings to

family life, has frequently been deplored by Canadian bishops. I join

them in appealing to those in positions of responsibility and to all

involved to work together to find appropriate solutions to the problems

at hand, including restructuring the economy so that human needs will

be put before mere financial gain." The United Church, the thirtieth

general council: "...that the needs of the poor have priority over the

wants of the rich, the freedom of doirdnation must have priority over

the liberty of the powerful, and the participation of the marginalized

must take priority over the preservation of the order that excluded

them."

It goes on to quote the Mennonite Central Committee;

the Lutheran Church, "Poverty in Canada"; the Salvation Army; Citizens

for Public Justice; and the Unitarian Church of Vancouver. Group after

group has spoken out against poverty. I would again put the challenge

to the minister that if you care about poverty, you must take another

look at your ministry. Tinkering won't work.

The resolution

put forward by this committee for social and economic policy points

out: "At the same time we believe it is appropriate to declare that

unemployment and poverty are not just social and economic problems but

also moral and spiritual problems." If this government talks about

Christian ethics and morality, then this is a challenge on that basis.

If you will not acknowledge the fact that you are spending exorbitant

amounts of taxpayers' dollars and doing nothing to support or change

the realities that these groups have identified, then at least, for

heaven's sake, acknowledge that there must be something done on moral

and spiritual grounds alone.

"What is

required is an investment in people, with an emphasis on their

creativity and adaptability. Public policy must recognize these human

qualities. Problems of economic inequality must be addressed by a truly

progressive tax system in concert with an income maintenance system

that lifts people above the poverty line. The problem of unemployment

requires of the public sector a new commitment to job creation,

post-secondary education and retraining. At the same time, the private

sector should be encouraged to expand employment opportunities by such

devices as reduced hours of work and job-sharing. In addition, the

private sector can redistribute power by applying various forms of

industrial democracy, cooperative enterprise, profit-sharing and

employee share-ownership plans.

"The committee requests that the government and the House

of Commons of Canada and the government and the Legislature of British Columbia

take the lead in developing programs and in working with others to achieve the

objectives set forth in this petition."

The

petition is signed by the bishop of British Columbia, Evangelical

Lutheran Church in Canada; rabbi, Congregation Beth Israel, Vancouver;

minister, Unitarian Church of Vancouver; director, Mennonite Central

Committee; chairman, Canadian Society of Fiji Moslems; president,

Vishva Hindu Parichad; Citizens for Public Justice; Committee for

justice and Peace; the Presbyterian Church in Canada; pastors, First

Christian Reformed Church of Langley; and the chairperson of the

health, housing and social services working unit of the United Church

of Canada.

As we proceed through the estimates, I will

argue that the minister is tinkering in all of the programs; that we

need fundamental change; that that change must be broad; that you

cannot deal with the minis-

[ Page 8715 ]

try

in isolation; and that the Ministry of Social Services must be an

integral part of economic development. While the government is jumping

on the bandwagon of environmental change and embracing the Brundtland

report, the most fundamental point Brundtland makes is that unless we

deal with the issues of poverty in this world and with the issues of

equity and justice, there will be no change. We cannot deal with

catastrophic problems within the environment unless we deal with the

fundamental issues of justice and poverty. I would argue that this

minister needs to be part of that debate.

I've introduced

several different areas. I hope now to be able to talk specifically

about issues of poverty. But I'll give the minister an opportunity to

respond, and we'll deal with some specific questions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

There weren't any specific questions in there. Rather than opening

remarks for estimates, it was a political speech. All the rhetoric and

catch-phrases we've heard for years and years: "We, the socialists, are

the only ones who care about people. You don't care about children. You

don't care about families." We've heard the rhetoric for as long as I

can remember being in politics, and you've learned well. You've got all

the catch-phrases; every one of them is there.

You're

correct: we spend $1.6 billion of the taxpayers' money annually — and

we take that very seriously. We endeavour to spend it wisely and to get

value for our dollars. In fact, just to expand on that a little

further, in the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, which I chair, the

ministers on that committee spend in excess of 80 percent of the

provincial budget, and all of those expenditures are on people So when

we hear the rhetoric from the opposite side that says we don't spend

enough money on people.... How much is enough? If 80 percent of a $13

billion budget is not enough, then perhaps during the course of the

estimates you can tell me how much is enough. Your leader, making a

speech a year or so ago in Kamloops, said we were underspending by $3

billion a year. Maybe the target figure we should look to increase the

deficit by is $3 billion.

[11:00]

You

talk about family poverty. You quote statistics, everyone quotes

statistics, and we all have opinions on it. I guess you can sit over

there and tell us that the welfare or income assistance rates are not

high enough, but I'm just going to quote you some statistics from Stats

Canada — not our statistics, but the ones you were using from Stats

Canada. The Statistics Canada poverty line, in a city over 500,000, for

a family of three.... StatsCan says that the basic needs require

$11,950 a year. These are not my figures; they're Statistics Canada's.

Our current GAIN rates for that same size of family — one parent, two

children — with basic income assistance plus family allowance and child

tax credit, not counting medical, dental or other allowances, is

$13,210. So we're considerably above the basic needs.

strive very diligently to keep our income assistance rates in the right

area, and two criteria we use — only two of several.... Firstly, that

we don't want to be out of line with the rest of the country. We don't

want to be at the low end of the average welfare rate across Canada;

nor do we want to be way out in front and run the risk of becoming a

welfare magnet, as it were. We monitor that very closely, and at the

moment in most categories we are among the top three or four in the

country, especially when it comes to the handicapped, the elderly and

single parents. I think that's important.

The other thing

we must always bear in mind is that we don't want to get out in front

of the working poor in this province. We have an awful lot of people

who are just barely above the rate that some people have on income

assistance. In fact, we have some that are below, depending on the size

of the family, where they live, shelter allowances and things like

that. A single parent in British Columbia with two children receives

$974 a month plus medical, school start-up, Christmas bonus, tax

credits, earnings exemptions, etc. The potential monthly benefit for a

single parent on income assistance is somewhere between $1,340 and

$1,357 a month. There are many people among the working poor who don't

take that much money home each month, and I can cite examples of that.

If we were to put our income assistance rates much higher — or any

higher — we would run the risk of going ahead of some of the people in

the category of the working poor.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

don't agree with the member that this ministry is giving breaks to

business. It's not our purpose; we're not an economic development

ministry. But we do give breaks to people who are looking for that

first job or trying to re-enter the workforce. I quoted the numbers in

my opening remarks of how many people now have something on their

rsum that they have worked for a minimum of two months, maximum of

six. We have letters thanking us for giving them that first start. We

have kept a lot of small businesses in business with the program, and

if that is giving a break to business, then okay, I will admit to that.

went to Prince George recently, where some 125 employers have taken

advantage of our Employment Plus program, and several of them told me

that they would not have been able to stay open had it not been for our

program. So not only have we helped them, but we've helped several

hundred people in that area alone to obtain employment. Even if it's

just for the summer, it's better than no employment. It's teaching them

work habits, they feel good about themselves, and they have something

to put on their resume. In some cases it has helped mothers who have

been out of the workforce for 15 or 20 years to get back into the

workforce, so I don't apologize for that program.

Perhaps

as we progress through the estimates the members can let us know over

here what they think would be an adequate income assistance rate, and

maybe I'll get a chance to expand on many of the other programs that we

have put in place to assist

[ Page 8716 ]

people

to get off income assistance and back into the workforce. We have more

programs in place than we've ever had before. Last year we put $26

million into that effort specifically.

When we had a

conference in Victoria recently of the western Canada ministers of

social services, we found that we were out in front of most of the

other provinces in getting people off income assistance. Indeed, we had

a federal-provincial conference in Whitehorse, where we spent a day and

a half, and found that in most areas we were either equal to or leading

the rest of the country. Certainly in our programs, especially

Employment Plus and some others to get people off income assistance,

we're way out in front of the other provinces. In fact, two of the

provinces from central Canada asked if they could have all the

information on our programs, which we gladly gave to them, including

videotapes, how the program is put together, etc. I don't think we're

lagging behind the rest of the country. In fact, when it comes to

family initiatives, child care, employment initiatives and certainly

services to the mentally handicapped, we are leading the rest of the

country.

Since there were no specific questions, I'll just

respond to your opening remarks with that brief statement. A couple of

times in your opening remarks I think you were in danger of losing all

your credibility. If we read back in the Blues....

MR. JONES : What about your own?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'll worry about mine.

I'll

make a comment about remarks I heard from over there, and maybe I'll

circulate some of the comments comparing us with Africa. That will make

interesting reading back home. As far as I was concerned, you were very

close to losing most of your credibility, but perhaps we can get down

to some specific items from here on.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'll take that as a compliment, coming from the source.

The

minister says that he's not subsidizing business. The point that I have

made to you is that we need a fresh, new look at the economic strategy

of this province. What you're doing is subsidizing businesses that pay

low wages. You're giving $3 an hour to a business so that it can employ

a person and only have to pay $3 an hour. Once that subsidy ends, often

that person is again unemployed.

My argument to you, sir,

is that there is a need to deal with equities in the job market. There

is a need to deal with the issues of minimum wage and opportunities for

women. Again, I'll go back to the areas of who is poor, opportunities

for handicapped, opportunities for visible minorities, opportunities

for our native people — and real changes, not just stopgap tinkering.

What

we need is an increase in the minimum wage. What we need is wage

equity. What we need is employment equity. The reality that most of the

people who make up the poor in this country face is that there are no

opportunities for them to live in dignity within the employment market.

The majority of people on welfare are there because they don't have an

opportunity in the employment market. What you are providing is a

$3-an-hour job for them. What chance do they have? How can they make

ends meet? I'm sorry that the minister did not understand those

fundamental differences between our approach and the approach of his

government.

Let me talk a little bit about what it really

means to live on income assistance, what it means for the families that

your government says they care so much about. This is a budget for the

month of July for a single parent with a 14-year-old son. I don't know

if the minister has teen-age kids, but anybody that has to feed a

teen-age boy knows, even if you are middle-income, that it's a real job

to keep food in the house. This single parent is in a co-op and pays

$148 a month rent; hydro, $41; telephone, $16; cable, $15; her car

loan, $100; car insurance, $50; BCMP, $55; house insurance, $15; gas,

$80; entertainment, $100 -this is for videos and camping; food

expenses, $170; and nothing for savings. That adds up to $790. She is

working. Her salary is $397.76; tips are $160.24; family allowance is

$22; self-employed earnings, $200. Her income for that month is $790.

Another

one. This person is on a GAIN payment of $882; family allowance, $65;

child support, when she gets it, $50. The maximum a month is $997. This

woman has two dependents. Her expenses are: rent, $345, in subsidized

co-op housing; hydro, $93; phone, $15; food, $500 — she puts a note in

here that the food she buys is basic, not much meat but fresh produce

and unprocessed food to try to make ends meet; bus fare, $20; clothes,

$40; vitamins, $50; entertainment, $40, which includes cable for her

kids; kids' classes, $20. The bus fare, incidentally, is for doctor

appointments and kids' classes. The clothes just deal with the

necessities that she buys mostly at the second-hand store. The clothing

allowance is averaged over a year, and her kids' classes are also

averaged over a year and include swimming lessons and some sports. This

woman makes use of the school lunch program at $40 a month, which gives

her hot lunches and a snack at the school.

This woman

smokes cigarettes at a cost of $60. She puts on her note here that the

$60 goes to tobacco because for a stop-smoking program it would cost

her $100. Her child care is $10, because mostly she trades with friends

for child-care expenses. The total cost there is $1,283. I'm not sure

how this woman makes ends meet, because her maximum income is $997. She

says this does not include household appliances, carpet shampoo,

furniture, bedding, towels, pots and pans, etc. These things are

replaced second-hand or are given by friends. There are no holidays or

trips. The child tax credit pays for unpaid bills and large purchases.

She says: "If I was working, I would be paying much more for

transportation, clothes and child care. When I was working I paid for

these things at $9 an hour, a full-time job, and earned $1,040 a month."

That's what the options in this province are for those groups that I identified: single women with

[ Page 8717 ]

families; disproportionately, women in general; handicapped people; native people; seniors.

[11:15]

Here's another one. A single parent with three kids of ages three,

six and 11. Her income assistance: shelter allowance is $525; support

is $435; child support, which is not regular, is $100; family allowance

is $98. The total there is $1,158. Her rent is $471 — that's co-op

housing, and as I read this, I wonder, since she's getting subsidized

housing at $471, if that means that welfare keeps part of that shelter

allowance? I've got to ask that question. Even in the previous budgets,

where we see that these people have managed to obtain affordable

housing, they are not representative of the poor in the housing market.

The rent for this woman is $471; the shelter was $525. So that means

Social Services keeps a portion of the shelter allowance; she doesn't

get the whole amount. Hydro is $75; cable is $13; phone is $20. That's

probably where she picks up the rest for her shelter, with her Hydro.

Her laundry and soap is $30, non-prescription drugs are $10; sundries

are $50; transportation, $30. One-night entertainment for mom — she

says child care, $15 — actually amounts to $10, an additional $10 for

that night. The clothing is $70 for four kids; most is second-hand

except for the shoes for the children. Food is $425. The total is

$1,114 a month. Incidentally, this particular family, this family that

has the mother and three children, has been diagnosed as being

malnourished.

Another budget. This is a single mother. She

has two children, six and 12. Her income is $1,042; her rent is $450;

phone is $21; Hydro, $45; food is $350 clothes are $50; transportation

and gas is $30; insurance is $50; maintenance is $50; vitamins are $20

entertainment, $30; sundries, $20. A total of $1,116. Her expenditures

exceed the amount of money that she gets. This woman had to quit her

job to support her children, as one of her children has cancer. That's

the reality of supporting a family in this province.

One

final budget. The income is $704. This woman does piecework; she gets

$107 a month. The total is $811. Her rent is $147 because it is

subsidized; the market rent in her unit is $471. Hydro is $36; medical

is $35; telephone, $20; dental is $105; food is $208; her loan payment

is $68; her clothing is $40; her transportation, $40; entertainment,

$40. The total is $811. This particular woman has one child.

These

are not exceptions, Mr. Minister. This is the reality of a history of

Social Credit, the reality that this government refuses to deal with

with the fundamental principles of justice; the reality brought about

by a ministry that throws money.... I did not say put more money into

the system, because I think we have to look at your priorities. I

believe that before we look at how that money is spent, given the

record of this government.... We'll talk about some of those other

details later on in the estimates. How can all that taxpayers' money,

$1.6 billion, be being spent when we're seeing a constant group in this

province, throughout the last 30 years, living in poverty? What the

ministry says is that for these people this government cannot afford

justice, cannot afford equity, because it will become a welfare magnet.

We can't afford to be fair to families; we can't afford, as a province,

to begin to deal with poverty because of what will happen if we deal in

a just and honourable way.

I have argued that the minister

needs to deal with an employment strategy. There is legislation that

the minister can encourage through his government that will begin to

deal with some of the people who are the working poor, that can begin

to deal with the reality that many people on welfare face should they

move off welfare. The minister answers with simplistic rhetoric and

refuses to recognize the reality as we have read out here in the

budgets.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I don't think there was a specific question there, but I must clear up a few things that are totally in error.

One,

the member started out saying we're providing $3-an-hour jobs. She

couldn't be further from the truth. We are providing incentives to

people to go to work for an employer where we will pay half the salary,

up to $3.50 an hour — that's our half, provided the employer is paying

$7 an hour. We will pay up to $3.50 an hour if the employer pays beyond

that, and many of them do; they are paying $8, $9 or $10 an hour, and

they have to or they couldn't attract people to work.

In the Vancouver Sun

yesterday, July 18 — current news — there was a good

article by Gordon

Hamilton about employers not being able to get people to go to work at

$10 an hour. I mean, read it. Two thousand jobs are going begging in

Vancouver because employers can't get people to go to work at $10 an

hour.

If the employer can show us where he can use someone

off welfare and is not replacing another employee, we will pay up to

$3.50 an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER : Are they lining up?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The people are not lining up at all; that's what I'm telling you. They can't get people to go to work at $10 an hour.

For that member to say that we're putting people to work for $3 an hour is totally false. I had to clear that up.

The

member quotes an awful lot of examples of single-parent families. In

the first one, one parent and one child, where the mother is making

$790 a month, she's entitled to partial support; she's entitled to a

top-up, because at our rates a single parent with one child gets $837 a

month.

You mentioned the one parent, two children, where

the rate is $997 but her budget is beyond that. How does she make out?

I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps she has a support payment from

a spouse who has long since departed. That brings up another program we

have brought in: the enforced maintenance program, which not only will

ensure that that single mother receives the maintenance payment due her

from her errant spouse that the court has ordered but also ensures her

security when

[ Page 8718 ]

she

does get a job and gets back into the workforce; that maintenance

payment will be there. So if she gets a low-paying job at $1,100 or

$1,200 a month and her support payment is $400 a month, she will get

it, and she will be able to make it on her own because we have ensured

that she will get the court order that was provided to her.

guess we could all quote example after example of what people are

getting on income assistance. But I go back to StatsCan again. They say

the basic needs for one parent and two children is $11,950 — say

$12,000 — a year. Again, rates in British Columbia for that same family

provide for $13,210, so the basic needs are met. That doesn't include

medical, dental and other allowances. Plus there is an opportunity

under our enhanced-earnings exemption for that parent to enhance that

income and boost it up to $18,138 by working just a very few hours a

week at a very part-time job.

I should inform the member

that the budget for the whole ministry is $1.6 billion. But the GAIN

budget — which we are talking about at the moment — is $939,300,000. We

apportion that out to everyone who requires income assistance: those

who will be on income assistance, through no fault of their own, for

the rest of their lives and those who are on temporary income

assistance who are anxious to get back into the workforce.

Believe

it or not, Madam Member, by far the largest percentage of people on

income assistance don't want to be there. They want to get back into

the workforce. That is why we have put into place the programs that we

have for many millions of dollars — $26 million last year — to get

people back into the workforce. It's a demand-driven budget. The GAIN

budget is demand driven. We must respond to whatever the case is.

say again, I think we pursue the spending of this budget with great

diligence to make sure that we're putting it in the right place, that

we're getting value for the dollar for the taxpayer — for this $939.3

million. I'd be interested to know, if you think, as you have said,

that we are spending this money in the wrong place — this $939 million

— where you would cut the budget, and where you would spend it. You

said you wouldn't increase it. I'd be interested in hearing which group

you are going to cut and which group you are going to give more money

to. I'll wait to hear that. I'm sure that the groups out there would be

interested in knowing which one is going to be cut and which one is

going to receive more.

MRS. GRAN : I've been sitting

here listening to the debate on the minister's estimates. I can't help

but stand up and make a few comments. In the two and a half years that

I've served in this House, I've listened to the NDP talk about social

programs, in particular, which I have a special interest in. I've

wondered what the difference is in our philosophies, because I often

find myself in agreement with some of the things that they say.

The

bottom line in the difference in our philosophy is that there is no

obvious philosophical view on the NDP side of the House that has

anything to do with individual responsibility The constant call for

more government intervention in people's lives and more government

intervention in curing all of the ills that people are afflicted with

has simply taken the place of human kindness in our society.

People

who go door to door collecting money, even children, for charitable

organizations will tell you that at the door people say things to them

like: "Look, I pay enough in taxes. I don't need to put out any more

money." Quite frankly, I think the philosophy that is currently

espoused by the members on the NDP side of the House is old-fashioned

and out of date. It no longer applies. I believe that the people, not

just in British Columbia but the people in Canada, have a bigger heart

than in any country in this world. They expect in return for people to

practise individual responsibility.

The member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) went through some of the

expenses that people incur while they are receiving social assistance.

One of them that stood out in my mind was cigarettes. I ask that

member: do you really believe that the taxpayers of this province feel

that they need to pay for someone's cigarettes? I was a working single

parent myself. One of the first things that I did was quit smoking,

because I could no longer afford to smoke. When I had to make the

choice between nutrition for my children or transportation money and

cigarettes, there was no choice. Do you know what that comes down to?

It comes down to individual responsibility.

[11:30]

When you take that individual responsibility away from a society,

you end up with a society that we currently have today that simply

demands more and more money. The member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley

said it herself: "More money won't solve the problem." The way we deal

with it needs to be dealt with ' and individual responsibility is the

only answer.

I want to talk about a program that I was

involved with in Langley: our Christmas hamper program. For seven years

I've been involved in it, and for three of them I ran it. What I

noticed was that the workers that came forward were particularly women

who had been on social assistance, and they were grateful for that

help. They were making it on their own, they were extremely grateful

and wanted to give something back.

But there was another

thing that I noticed. I noticed a dependency on social assistance that

frightens me. It doesn't just frighten me; it frightens a lot of people

in this society. I remember a young man of 19 years from a family of

five children, and they had been on social assistance for all of his

life. He came to see me because he wanted his own Christmas hamper. He

still lived at home, but because he was 19, he had a right to his own

Christmas hamper. That's the kind of thing that constant giving without

any responsibility breeds. It breeds people who have no understanding

of their own responsibilities. The members have to start thinking about

that in the

[ Page 8719 ]

NDP.

We're not serving people well to simply hand them money, to hand them

help, without expecting them to have some responsibility. That's the

total difference between the philosophy on the Social Credit side and

the NDP side of the House.

I want to talk a bit about

women, because women with children, in the main, are the recipients of

social assistance, and it's often talked about. I've talked about it

myself. But I want to ask the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley a

question: should we legislate that men be responsible?

MS. SMALLWOOD : Yes.

MRS. GRAN :

The member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley says yes, we should legislate

that men be responsible. Well, I want to see a copy of that kind of

legislation.

MR. WILLIAMS : We brought it in.

MRS. GRAN :

We've got legislation that says that men should pay their fair share in

child support, but we don't have legislation that really works, because

you cannot force people to do what they don't want to do. If a man

decides that he doesn't want to pay his support to a woman, he simply

vanishes or he works at a job where he receives cash and on and on I'm

saying that you cannot legislate people to be responsible, but you

certainly have to give them the opportunity to be responsible.

see the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) here, and I want to

talk about a statement that that member made that's been bothering me

ever since she made it in this House. She called the Social Credit

government the biggest child-abusers in this province. I am very

offended by that remark, because she is saying that the people of this

province are child abusers. We are the government voted in by the

people of this province and we represent them. By saying that we are

child abusers, the member is accusing this entire province of being

child abusers Madam Member, I believe that you should apologize to the

people of this province.

While I'm on my feet, I want to

compliment the minister on the job that he's done. He has run that

ministry better than most ministers in any party — including the NDP —

without overruns and with respect. He has the support, by the way, of a

lot of people in the field out there.

So I would suggest

that in the continuing debate on the minister's estimates, you put

forward your ideas. I heard the minister ask the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley how much money she thought we should pay out,

and I'd like to hear that member now answer that question. How much

money should we pay out in social assistance?

MS. MARZARI :

I enter this debate as the critic on status of women, and I find that

the minister and the member for Langley have raised some interesting

points. .

The minister has carefully shopped for a poverty

line, and he is trying to tell us — this is the first time this

statement has ever been made in this House — that our welfare system

actually meets the poverty line. The minister carefully selects the

Statistics Canada poverty line as the one which his ministry is abiding

by, when he says that the real costs — by the Statistics Canada

definition of running a family of two children — is around $11,000 or

$800 a month.

I would suggest to the minister that there

are many faults with the Statistics Canada poverty line, and that he

might want to look closer to home at the Canadian Council on Social

Development that has tried to break down its poverty line across the

country, and at the SPARC poverty line — Social Planning and Research

Council of B.C. — which actually does a market-basket approach and

looks at the real costs of living in British Columbia today.

the SPARC poverty line, the minister well knows that our welfare rates

range between 20 percent and 60 percent below subsistence levels.

Speaking as a critic for women, I can see that we are dealing with many

families. In fact my colleague the second member for Nanaimo quoted

from a report put out by the Canadian Council on Social Development not

so long ago which said that 20 percent of our children are, in fact,

living in poverty, that we are the only province in this country where

the poverty gap is widening rather than narrowing, and that we have a

very serious problem of poverty in our midst — something which the

minister has overlooked.

To answer my colleague from

Langley for a few moments and the minister, I should say that four

budgets of single-parent families which my colleague from

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has just handed me, two with two children and

two with one child, are all headed by women. I have four budgets in

front of me. Those budgets range between $747 a month and $1,078 a

month. This is below the poverty line by anybody's definition. Even

Stats Canada could not deny that fact.

The minister has

asked where we would cut. The member for Langley has reiterated that

question. Where would we cut? What would we look at? Should we

legislate men's responsibility? Anybody looking at these budgets and

understanding what women are living on with their children has to admit

to themselves and the rest of the community that this is not

responsible. It is not responsible for government to allow families to

be raised with these kinds of budgets, these kinds of incomes, this

kind of poverty.

Where do we add? Where do we cut? I

suggested this in my throne speech debate: these statistics just

further convince me that it actually costs our society, our Social

Services ministry and our taxpayers to keep women in this kind of

poverty. It costs us to do it. It's not a question of saving money by

not giving it to mothers with children on welfare. Where do we save? We

are actually spending money to keep women — this is perverse and quite

bizarre — on welfare and in subservient positions. It's quite

remarkable.

[ Page 8720 ]

AN HON. MEMBER : It's like legislated pregnancy.

MS. MARZARI : It's like legislated poverty.

Here's

another budget. This is just one of many that we could come up with. If

we accept the statistics — which it is becoming easier and easier to

accept — that one in four children in our country is abused at some

point in their life, that those children very often grow up to be

abusers themselves, that in fact we create not only a poverty cycle but

a cycle of sexual and emotional abuse.... Let's look at the actual

costs to society of keeping an abusive parent at large on the streets.

Let's make that abusive parent a father, since that seems to be 95

percent of the abuse in our community. What are the costs of keeping

that man at large and not legislating against him?

Let's

look at the police calls to the home when the woman is first being

beaten in the home. Police are called sometimes, and when they are

called, I would guess — I'm venturing here — that if you broke that

down to an hour call with the paperwork afterwards, it would cost the

community perhaps $200. Let's say that it's one call a year.

Let's

say that one night this abusive father, for example, is thrown into

jail. The costs of staying in jail for a night, by the time you break

down the unit cost.... I've put $600, because that's perhaps what it

costs to keep a guy in with the wardens, the amortization on the actual

building and keeping the bars strong.

Let's talk about the

court costs. I've been very conservative here. Bringing in an abusive

father to court, whether on a driving charge or a drunk charge or

whatever, because alcoholism and abuse sometimes go together, as we

know from the literature.... I'm putting $1,500 here for that court

appearance or the court costs around a complaint against him. I think

that's very low.

Let's talk about a transition house: ten

days in a transition house for that woman who has been beaten. That's

$400, because I think our per diems, the real costs, are probably close

to $40 a night.

What about the family counselling, if this

woman and her children are lucky enough to get family counselling? I

know that your ministry won't do it in the transition house, but say

she goes to the community and gets some family counselling from the

Salvation Army or from a church group that gets funded by you under

your family strengthening program. Let's say that family counselling

costs about $500.

Let's look at the health costs of keeping

that guy on the street. I'd say over the year the costs of going to the

doctor, getting drugs, dealing with the need for special pills, perhaps

the woman is depressed.... Society is paying perhaps $1,000 for special

health needs because the woman and her children are abused.

Case

conferencing between all the ministries when they get together to worry

about this family together — one case conference conservative estimate:

$500. Hospitals costs for an abused child — perhaps a broken arm, a

broken leg, a broken rib cage, brain damage, assessments, x-rays —

$1,000. I'm not counting ICBC here, because we're assuming that those

costs pay for themselves; but a drunken, abusive father could well run

us into some money there. Let's not even count that. We're looking at

$5,700 in the course of one year. Divided by 12, we're looking at

potentially $475 a month just to keep an abusive, alcoholic father,

parent, on the street, in the community.

Mr. Minister, you said: "Where do we cut back?" I say we cut back

that $475 a month by properly enforcing responsibility, by properly dealing

with the problems of child sexual abuse in our community. I haven't even

for a moment talked about the hundred thousand dollars a year it takes to keep

someone in jail. I haven't for a moment talked about the costs of those

children growing up without treatment. This is cheap, when they get treatment.

I haven't talked about the costs of what happens when a kid grows up, dealing

with memories that might flash back at any time in their lives, when things

go wrong and they end up in jail. I haven't talked about the statistics

on the number of kids who end up in containment facilities that keep them hidden

away from society, perhaps simply because they have been sexually abused.

Keeping

an abusive, drunken, alcoholic parent on the street costs as much as

twice the food bills for any one of these families. It costs as much as

half — more than half — the average family income for a single mother

with two children. Look at those numbers. Think about those numbers.

That's what we're talking about when we say it costs this government to

keep women down, to keep them poor.

[11:45]

A question. One of my major themes in this session has been

connections that we have to make between our ministries to start

treating women as whole human beings; to start treating families as

whole entities; to start understanding that there are new

definitions

of family life. I wanted to talk first about connections between

yourself, Mr. Minister, and other ministries and functions, such as the

training function. If we really want, as you say, to get women off

welfare and into society as part of the economic mainstream, why is it

that although your act tells you clients are entitled to two years of

upgrading and training, and you are to provide that and those dollars

and to seek those dollars to provide your clients with two years of

upgrading and training, there is literally no money this year? This

summer there is absolutely no money going towards the upgrading and

training of women on welfare. Why is it that all we have right now is a

wage subsidy program going on — no training or education program? Why

are all rehabilitation workers at this point out there in the province

simply marketing a wage subsidy program? In other words, the money is

going to employers to subsidize wages up to $6 an hour, as you put it,

or up to $7 an hour. You are subsidizing $3 an hour, and not one woman

is being trained or upgraded. Not one woman is being helped with her

literacy or college or simple job training.

[ Page 8721 ]

Why

is your act, which is a last-resort act that talks about giving two

years of upgrading and training, not doing that very thing? Is the

minister not concerned that some woman isn't going to come through the

courts and insist that the minister live up to his act?

This

is a UI transfer program. This wage subsidy program simply takes women

off welfare temporarily, puts them in $7 an hour jobs with a little

subsidy and then slides them into UI. You slide out of your obligation.

You've found your loophole on this one. It's just like you've slid out

of other responsibilities too, Mr. Minister.

I'm quoting

from some research done by a labour market productivity centre for the

CEIC task force on training: "Of all jobs created between 1986 and the

year 2000, 64 percent will require 12 years of education and training,

and one-half of them will require 17 years of education." I'd like to

know why we are looking towards lower levels of economic employment,

wages and training in your ministry in an era when higher training,

more years of training and more intensive training are absolutely

required for the future of our province and for the well-being of our

citizens; I mean women.

I find it fascinating that the wage

subsidy program is the route we are taking, especially after we went

through the PREP, and especially after we went through this Hewett

Group $5 million training program, in which I gather that the only jobs

truly created were the ones actually working for the Hewett Group — the

70 people. There was no accounting for that $5 million at all after the

fact Why are we going that route of job subsidization and matching

people to jobs, rather than doing the training programs required by

your statute? We are not creating new potential jobs; we are just

sliding into UI, Mr. Minister.

Perhaps you can tell me

something about the so-called job training programs you don't have.

Talk to me about how many long-term jobs you expect to get out of this

exercise of job subsidy and perhaps how much you intend to put into job

training this fall.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It's

difficult to respond to someone who has the blinders on. Madam Member,

that's as kind as I can be. We have come up with one additional program

called Employment Plus, and you have it in your mind that's all we're

doing now, and that we've scrapped everything else. That program is in

addition to everything else we are doing We haven't quit providing

training for people.

You made the statement — and the Blues

will show it — that not one single person has gone through a training

program. Last year we provided assistance to employment through

training and education of 21,900 people. You stood there a few minutes

ago and said none.

MS. MARZARI : This year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

That's 1988-89: 21,900. But I want to point out to you that the

Employment Plus is an addition; it's an add-on to everything else we're

doing. You're saying it's our whole focus now, and that it's the focus

of the ministry. What nonsense! It's an add-on to everything else we're

doing.

MS. MARZARI : This year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It happens to be an add-on this year. That doesn't mean we've scrapped

the other programs we're doing. It's an add-on: 21,900 people. You

should get up to date on your statistics. I increased the amount of

training we would do last year from two years to three years because

some courses are three years long. We've improved it. The act doesn't

say two years anymore; it says three.

MS. MARZARI : So how many are taking it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I just told you: 21,900.

MS. MARZARI : This year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : What do you want — next year's figures?

MS. MARZARI : Yes.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Next year's figures aren't here yet. This is '88-89. At this time next

year, I'll tell you what we did this year. It'll probably be up from

that.

In addition to Employment Plus, education and

vocational training services to assist single parents to become

independent, single parents may receive assistance for the cost of

educational and vocational training programs designed to prepare income

assistance recipients for employment if no other sources of funding are

available. They would continue to receive their regular IA benefits

while participating in the training. This is as close as we can get it

for you. It would indicate that about 51 percent of that number I gave

you were single parents.

The ministry provides work

experience opportunities through the incentive program, as well as an

allowance to assist with costs related to participating in the program,

such as transportation or clothing costs.

The ministry

provides job search technique training to income assistance recipients

through the job action program. Preliminary statistics indicate that

1,004 single parents participated in the program.

Employment

Plus, which we already talked about — we estimate that 1,227 single

parents participated in Employment Plus in '88-89.

Employment

supports for single parents who are employed — the ministry provides

supports so they remain employed: enhanced earnings exemptions,

transportation allowance, day care surcharge allowance and medical and

dental coverage. We've added all of these things to assist people into

the workforce or to stay in the workforce.

[ Page 8722 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I don't like to take the time of the House reading individual cases. I

know that members opposite have done that. We have numerous success

stories of people who have written to us about Employment Plus and what

it's done for them. A large percentage of them stay working with the

employer that they go to. I can't give you an exact percentage.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm just talking about Employment Plus. I've just covered the training.

I'm going to come to Employment Plus. There are numerous success

stories from the employees and from the people who were on income

assistance — welfare, if you like — who have had that first job. Some

of them are staying with the employer they've gone to. I don't have a

percentage to give you at the moment. But so that you don't feel that

it's all we're doing now, that we've taken all our eggs and gone to

Employment Plus, that's not true. All the other things are still there,

plus more support services than we've ever had before. Employment Plus

is just an add-on. It's one more tool that we have to work with.

For the month of April '89, some 8,200 are in classroom training and 1,200 in job action programs.

MS. MARZARI : At this moment?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : That was the month of April — the latest stats I have. I don't have stats for June or July; it may be less.

just want to cover another couple of things. The member says I

conveniently use the StatsCan statistics. I don't conveniently use

them; they are the statistics we happen to have. And yes, we have the

SPARC report, but SPARC does not take into account outside earnings or'

family maintenance that the minister exempts through the earnings

exemption program. Twenty percent of our income assistance clients have

additional income exempted each month and SPARC doesn't take that into

account in their report; nor do they take into account the value of

medical, dental, drug, crisis grants, subsidized housing and other

benefits. When they set their poverty line vis--vis what we pay, they

don't take into account a lot of these things. They continue to use

CMHC shelter costs to determine shelter shortfalls, and these are

higher than what most GAIN clients pay. They don't pay CMHC rates in

most cases.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

CMHC is an amalgam of the mortgages of everybody in the province,

including some mortgages that are $1,200, $1,400 a month and beyond.

It's hardly fair to lump that into what people on income assistance

would be paying.

The final thing, when we come back to

training, is that we were the first province to sign a SARs agreement

with Ottawa, which has assisted an awful lot of people back into the

workforce.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I am intrigued by the debate, and I will comment on the interjection by the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran).

found something quite humorous, actually. We're talking about the issue

of poverty and about social services in the province. It's interesting

to look again at the history of social services generally. I know that

we're very close to the lunch adjournment, and I just want to add this

to the morning debate, perhaps to cap it off. Up to 1536, charity in

England had been dispensed by the Catholic church. In 1536 to 1539,

Henry the VIII expropriated the monasteries, which forced the

government for the first time in history to take a positive

responsibility for public relief.

Just to close up the

session, I think it's particularly fitting that the Premier of this

government lives in a castle, and that the Social Services ministry of

the province is advocating a return to the responsibility of the church

in delivering social services: a return to charity, a return to

individual responsibility. Perhaps this is the completion of the full

circle.

I would argue that it is a retrograde move, and as

the estimates continue, we will talk more about what your ministry does

to people. The minister says that he doesn't like to take up the time

of the House talking about individual cases. These cases — the real

lives of people in the province — are the direct effects of the

legislation and the inaction of a government that doesn't deal with

real lives.

[12:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

As the lunch hour draws nigh, I guess there are many comments I could

make about what was just said. The member says we are advocating a

return to the church delivering social services. I don't ever remember

anyone on this side of the House saying that. I certainly haven't, nor

has anyone in my ministry.

AN. HON. MEMBER : The Premier has.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

No, I don't think that he ever has. I don't ever remember anyone on

this side of the House saying that. That doesn't mean that churches

shouldn't be involved; indeed, they should. But I don't think anyone

here is advocating a return to the 1500s or whatever you were talking

about, so we should try to remain relevant.

I too have many

more comments to make about what has been said and not said this

morning, but in view of the time, I move that the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1989, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada