1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th 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)

MONDAY, MAY 29, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 11

[ Page 14597 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Prayers.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House a group of about 30 members of the families of Slesse, including Andy and Karin Kleven, who are our guests for an announcement that we'll be making shortly on the future of Mount Slesse. Also present for this event from the Chilliwack forest district are Murray and Judy Sluys, Jim McMillan Murphy of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans' Association, and Morley Eldridge and D'Ann Owens-Baird of Millennia Research. I'd ask the House to please bid these very special guests a warm welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today we have some very special guests in the members' gallery. His Excellency Alfonso Lopez Caballero, Ambassador of Colombia to Canada, and His Excellency Alfredo Crespo, Ambassador of Ecuador to Canada, are visiting British Columbia from Ottawa. Accompanying the ambassadors are Josefina de Lopez, Cecilia Gonzalez de Crespo and Beatriz Hernandez de Horry, honorary consul of Colombia at Vancouver. Would the House please welcome them.

R. Neufeld: On behalf of the member for Peace River South, I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Rose from Dawson Creek. He is also here to take part this afternoon in what the Minister of Forests talked about -- the Mount Slesse announcement. Please make him welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery are 60 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, one of the two grade schools in my constituency. Present with them are Mr. Ron Boulding and Ms. Eleanor Whyte. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. J. Cashore: We have two constituents from Coquitlam in the gallery today: Joe and Ria Smeets. Accompanying them is Joe's mother, Juria Smeets, who lives in The Hague in the Netherlands. Please join me in making them welcome.

F. Randall: In the precincts today are 85 grade 6 students from Clinton Elementary School in Burnaby-Edmonds. They're accompanied by Mr. Jacobsen, their teacher, and some other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

MOUNT SLESSE COMMEMORATIVE SITE

Hon. A. Petter: I rise today on a matter of significance to British Columbia, to make a ministerial statement, one that concerns the final resting place of 62 people who perished in a plane crash on Mount Slesse on December 9, 1956. This tragic event devastated families and friends of the victims and touched sensibilities in every part of Canada. When the scene of the crash was finally discovered, the wreckage was found covering a vast expanse of rock and ice in a high mountain reach. The site was deemed so remote and inaccessible, and the devastation so complete, that no further attempt should be made to bring down the remains and that Mount Slesse should remain their resting place.

The course of time has belied the hope that Mount Slesse would remain a remote and inaccessible wilderness. It has also revealed that an important promise made at the time -- namely, that this place would be dedicated to the memory of the lives it had claimed -- was never actually carried out. This disturbing fact has renewed the distress of families who believed a special status had been conferred in recognition of their loss. All members of this House feel compassion for the anguish this has caused the families of Slesse. Today it is our privilege to fulfil a commitment that will give them comfort.

On behalf of the province of British Columbia, I would like to acknowledge the oversight and say to the families of Slesse -- many of whom are with us in the gallery today -- that we share your wish that this place be dedicated to the memory of your loved ones.

I am pleased today to announce the creation of a Mount Slesse commemorative site covering approximately 582 hectares on the mountain's east face. The crash site and debris field are now formally recorded as a heritage wreck in the B.C. archeological site inventory and are thereby protected by statute from damage or desecration. Consistent with the families' wish that the site be managed for quiet contemplation of its grandeur, a protective zone is now placed around the debris field.

Within this area, by means of orders-in-council passed under the Land Act and the Forest Act and by ministerial order under the Mineral Tenure Act, intrusive uses have been prohibited. At a future date modest signage will be placed to identify the nature of this special scene for the hikers and mountaineers who happen upon it.

[2:15]

It is our sincere hope that by these actions we can finally lay to rest a troubling memory and thereby initiate a process of reconciliation that is long overdue. There will be an opportunity for members of the House to join with the families of Mount Slesse at a reception following question period in the Ned DeBeck lounge, and I invite members to do so.

W. Hurd: The opposition is pleased today to join with the government in endorsing this caring and compassionate decision to dedicate this as a memorial site for those 62 people who tragically lost their lives back in the 1950s.

We know that in most cases every effort is made to recover the remains of victims of air disasters, but with the type of terrain we see in British Columbia and the inaccessible areas, that sometimes proves to be impossible. I know that the families will be comforted by the government's decision to make this special effort to dedicate the site as a reminder of the perils of air travel in British Columbia, but it is also a beautiful site at which to recognize the families and the people who lost their lives. We hope and know that the memory will live on. It's indeed a caring and compassionate move by the government.

R. Neufeld: On behalf of the Reform Party of British Columbia, we would like to join with the government and the

[ Page 14598 ]

families who are represented in the gallery today, in setting aside some 582 hectares as a heritage site for the crash that took place in the mid-fifties and took 62 lives. We agree with the government that there had to have been some kind of oversight, and we apologize along with them and hope that what is done today will finally meet the needs and desires of those people who are here today watching.

Oral Questions

DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE

G. Campbell: Since last Thursday, members of the Upper Nicola band have been blockading the road to Douglas Lake Ranch. I understand a court injunction was issued last week, and an enforcement order was granted on Saturday. Since then, telephone lines have been cut, ditches have been cut across the road, and today school children did not get to school. Tour groups have been forced to be cancelled, people have not been able to get to work, and activities of the community have not been able to be carried on.

Can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs inform the House today when the Douglas Lake roadblock will be dismantled so that kids can go school, people can get to work and the normal activities of the community can be restored?

Hon. J. Cashore: As we meet, there is a meeting taking place involving the chief representatives of five ministries of government and others who are involved in this issue. As a provincial government, we have been playing an effective role in seeking to mediate this dispute between parties. We are very disappointed over the failure of the federal government to recognize its responsibility with regard to this issue.

Since I'm sure that all parties in this House would want to see this issue managed with cooler heads prevailing, I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to talk to his cousins in Ottawa and encourage them to take their full role in participating in bringing this to an appropriate dispute resolution, especially since it's the federal government that holds lands in trust.

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental, Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: In spite of what the minister may feel about my party's lineage, we have no cousins in Ottawa. We do have, however, a provincial government that has some responsibility here. What I would....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. I'm sure we would all like to hear the question.

G. Campbell: British Columbians are concerned that a double standard seems to be being set by this provincial government. Today children did not get to go to school and people did not get to go to work, because an enforcement order has not been carried out. Can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs explain why the government was willing to enforce an appropriate injunction in the Clayoquot Sound but is not willing to enforce an order which requires public access to be restored to Douglas Lake? There should be a single standard for all British Columbians so that they can understand and all work together for resolution of these issues.

Hon. J. Cashore: I, for one, appreciate the fact that the RCMP exercise wisdom and caution when it comes to enforcing such an action.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL SUIT AGAINST B.C. TRANSIT

D. Symons: The wrongful dismissal suit of Frank Dixon v. B.C. Transit comes up for trial next month. I understand that there are discussions about an out-of-court settlement that could be as high as $1 million. Will the minister commit today to assuring the people of British Columbia that the terms of any out-of-court settlement will be made public and that there will not be a gag agreement on a settlement that could cost B.C. Transit and, subsequently, transit users and taxpayers a great deal of money?

Hon. G. Clark: We're working very hard to achieve a settlement. There is a court date set, so I have no further comment at this time.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Richmond Centre on a supplemental or a new question.

D. Symons: In Mr. Dixon's statement filed with the court, he says that during job interviews the minister indicated his desire to bring the transit union into closer support of the NDP. Would the minister agree that reference to generating support for a political party is totally inappropriate during interviews for executive positions of government agencies?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE

R. Neufeld: My question is for the Premier. For nearly a week now, the government has sat back and done nothing to remove an illegal blockade at the Douglas Lake Ranch. Local residents are so furious at the Attorney General's gutless response to this illegal blockade that they are now threatening to take matters into their own hands. Why has the government sat idly by and allowed the blockade to continue instead of enforcing the Supreme Court injunction?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The provincial government is involved. Senior officials from the Attorney General's ministry, from Forests and from two other ministries are actively involved with the parties in trying to seek a peaceful resolution. We are of course guided by the advice we get from the policing authorities, the RCMP, who have much experience all over this country in these matters.

Their advice at the time was that it would have been imprudent to have attempted to enforce the order yesterday when there were over 250 people on the blockades, and it was their advice that we should go back and negotiate a settlement to this particular issue. If the member has other advice, I await it with interest.

R. Neufeld: The government should be sending out a clear message that native militants will hamper, not help,

[ Page 14599 ]

native demands at the bargaining table. The Apex fiasco sent precisely the opposite message, and that's why other bands are looking to militants as a bargaining strategy. Why doesn't the government crack down hard on illegal native blockades instead of rewarding the militants responsible, and why doesn't the government prosecute the Douglas Lake blockaders with the same vigour it did the Clayoquot protesters?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will just simply say again that we are working very closely to try to bring a resolution to this, so that those who are being disrupted can have their transportation corridors restored. Second, you should go and talk to the leader of the Reform Party about the two months of dithering and then walking away with his tail between his legs at Duffey Lake that he had when he was the Minister of Native Affairs. That's certainly not an example.

ALLOCATION OF HEALTH CARE FUNDS

L. Reid: British Columbians learned this weekend that Alzheimer's patients are forced to occupy acute care beds, often under inhumane circumstances. These acute care beds cost $900 to $1,000, yet top-quality care is available at Delta View for less than half that cost per day. Why is this government allowing this two-tier system to exist when a proper allocation of health dollars could save taxpayers money, eliminate the two-tier system and give patients the best care available? To the Minister of Health.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to see a warmup for estimates debate taking place during question period. We are indeed, I think, funding appropriately and making sure that priorities are there. As the member opposite may know, the budget for long term care facilities for this province has risen from slightly over $345 million, when this government took office, to $409 million last year, with a further increase expected this year. We are concerned about the seniors in our society; we are very concerned that they get appropriate care.

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental, Richmond East.

L. Reid: I would ask this minister to talk to the families in British Columbia. Indeed, 55 beds awaiting public funding at Delta View could accommodate British Columbia families today, but because this minister would choose to spend three times that, rather than put those dollars into community beds.... Indeed, this is the same government that said that moving resources from the acute sector to the community sector was their goal. Why has this minister not moved on that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite should be leery of letting the media do her research for her. We currently fund 57 beds at the Delta View facility.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND CANADIAN FORCES MOVE OUT OF B.C.

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Premier. It is in reference to CFB Chilliwack. I'm tabling today another

summary of 21 more communities and regional districts that I have received letters from, raising concerns about the safety of British Columbians in times of natural disasters and what sort of federal assistance we will get from the Canadian army based in Alberta after the closing of CFB Chilliwack. Some officials say we will just fly forces into Vancouver or Abbotsford, but they may not be there to land. The Premier has indicated that he is willing to work with municipalities and myself on this issue.

I am wondering if this matter and other matters involving cuts by Ottawa to Victoria shouldn't be before a special committee of this Legislature for consideration. What is the Premier's comment on this suggestion?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have talked with the member for Chilliwack about this particular matter. It is of grave importance to British Columbians that we have the Armed Forces here in British Columbia, able to play their role in an earthquake or a disaster of some sort. I'm very sympathetic to what the member is saying. I have informed him that it is before cabinet right now; it is a matter that has been considered by cabinet. I will keep him fully informed.

He speaks for his community well on this matter -- and for all British Columbians, who want to see the capability to deal with a disaster here in British Columbia. Most likely the best facility is already there in Chilliwack, rather than having to fly in from Calgary.

HOSPITAL BUDGET OVERRUNS

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Health. We learned this weekend that the Peace Arch District Hospital and Langley Memorial Hospital budgets are $2.7 million over their allotment, caused by the lack of a firm commitment by the government. The proof is in a regional health memo, dated May 24, that criticizes the government for these delays, which have increased construction costs. In an era of limits on dollars for health care, what possible justification can the minister offer for a one-year delay, causing a $2.7 million budget overrun at these two hospitals?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a fascinating performance on Health by the Liberal opposition. On the one hand, we have this member saying that we're not spending enough, and on the other hand, this member says that we should spend those capital funds faster. This must be a first for this session: we have a Liberal member saying here that the capital allocation for Health is too small. It's good to see you stand up there, hon. member. I hope your colleagues will do a similar thing.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock on a supplemental.

W. Hurd: The health committee memo says that the government spent $2.7 million to sit on its hands for a year. That $2.7 million would buy 5,000 days of patient care at Peace Arch District Hospital and Langley Memorial Hospital. What possible justification can the minister offer for the delay of one year, at a cost of $2.7 million -- for no useful purpose? Not one patient was treated in British Columbia for that money.

[2:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: All members of this government are doing debt management within the plan that the Minister of Finance announced. Therefore we are asking a variety of facilities to work with us to make sure that the facilities are

[ Page 14600 ]

constructed and come on line in a manner that the taxpayers of this province can support. It is again fascinating, hon. Speaker, for the first time in this Legislature, to see a Liberal member stand up and urge more capital spending.

PLACEMENT OF USED GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS IN SCHOOLS

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Government Services. Given that the Education minister recently made an announcement that his government was going to make a $100 million commitment to put computers in classrooms, can the minister tell us how many used computers the province sells each year through public sales and auctions, and how much is raised through this process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll take that question on notice.

Deputy Speaker: The question was taken on notice, member. Do you have a sup?

L. Fox: The fact of the matter is that nobody knows the answer to the question, because the government...

Deputy Speaker: I hope there is a question, member.

L. Fox: ...doesn't keep track of that information. Thousands of used government computers are sold each year for a fraction of their worth. Why aren't those computers being used in the classrooms today where they would be most highly valued? Why don't we first utilize these surplus computers before we commit $100 million in the buying of new ones?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, the suggestion is extremely good, on the face of it. I'll certainly look into it.

BAIL FOR ACCUSED IN VIOLENT CRIME

J. Dalton: For the Premier. Last Wednesday a man accused of the first-degree murder of Tiffany McKinney of Quesnel was released on $150,000 bail. The accused was in custody until that time. We know the Crown opposed the application to release, but as the Premier well knows, it is most unusual for someone accused of first-degree murder to be released under any conditions. Will the Premier ensure that the Crown appeals that decision?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is certainly a question that I will take up with the Attorney General. It is a very important issue, and I will take it on notice for the Attorney General to get back in touch with the hon. member.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

The member for Chilliwack on what point?

R. Chisholm: Leave to table documents, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I table documents of support from the ity of Langley, the region of Vanderhoof and various other communities throughout the province, which brings it to a total of 38 communities and regional districts that are in support of CFB Chilliwack.

Presenting Petitions

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: On Saturday night I had the privilege of listening to Dr. David Bellamy, the internationally renowned expert on bogs. It was an opportunity for the Burns Bog Conservation Society to give to me a petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in Legislature assembled, this petition of British Columbia voters and other concerned citizens humbly showeth:

whereas Burns Bog, the last major domed peat bog on the west coast of North America, contains a tremendous richness of animal, plant and insect species, and is an island of valuable wilderness in a rapidly developing lower mainland, therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned British Columbia residents and others, request that Burns Bog become an ecological reserve. We humbly pray that your Honourable House may be pleased to pass the necessary legislation to preserve Burns Bog, and, in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

This, Mr. Speaker, is the third series -- 10,000 signatures were tabled by the Hon. John Savage, 5,000 by my friend the member for Delta North, and there are a further 5,000 signatures here.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply. In

Section A, I call the Ministry of Health estimates, and in

Section B, the Ministry of Social Services estimates.

The House in Committee of Supply B; S. Hammell in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 53: minister's office, $402,165 (continued).

V. Anderson: I wanted to thank the minister for her responses to one of our members last Friday in Social Services estimates. I've had an opportunity to review those and found them extremely interesting. Perhaps I will refer to them at a later time.

Just to indicate the process, first of all I would like to go through the transfers of programs into and out of the ministry so that we might discuss those, and then, having done that, work through the various functioning areas of the ministry and the programs within them. I would like to thank the minister and her staff for the opportunity of meeting with them and having the opportunity to get an initial introduction to some of these areas and concerns.

There were nine areas of transfer either in or out of the Social Services ministry to other ministries within government, which I think is probably more than usual. So I would gather there's a larger reorientation, integration -- or

what-

[ Page 14601 ]

ever the proper word might be -- between Social Services and other ministries. I'm wondering if the minister might comment generally on the reason for this fairly wide scope of transfer, and then we might deal with each of them in turn.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour received $40 million from our income assistance budget for a training initiative for young people between the ages of 19 and 24. We received from the Ministry of Health $35.31 million, including 50 staff -- 50 FTEs -- for the Services for Community Living. This is for families and children with mental handicaps. As the member is probably aware, we have a substantial division ourselves for community services, so we are integrating the two programs.

We received $2.46 million from the Ministry of Education for staffing and operating the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. It was previously run by the Ministry of Education. We received $2.06 million from the Ministry of Finance for wage annualization, the pay equity settlement for direct government employees. We received $0.31 million -- $310,000 -- from the Ministry of Government Services for the social program renewal secretariat that was dealing with the renewal of the social safety net and the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living.

We received $0.47 million and eight FTEs from the Ministry of Government Services for freedom-of-information services to British Columbians. We received $0.34 million from the Ministry of Women's Equality for rape relief contracts. And we turned over to the Ministry of Attorney General $0.4 million for legal services related to family and child services.

V. Anderson: With regard first of all, then, to the one of Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, could the minister explain why there were no FTEs involved in this transfer? Were those FTEs doing that program just absorbed within the ministry, and so it added to her number? And were they transferred into other areas of the ministry? How many FTEs would have been involved in that undertaking?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The staffing responsible for the youth strategy is carried out by what used to be called rehabilitation officers under our ministry, and are now called training consultants with the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. That transfer of staff took place under last year's budget.

V. Anderson: You're saying that the transfer of staff took place under last year's budget, but the transfer of money took place under this year's budget. Just to clarify that confusion, how did the staff get paid last year if these were done in separate years?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The staffing of government employees who are responsible for training initiatives for people who are unemployed and relying on income assistance was carried out formerly by rehab officers, now by training consultants. So they have had their duties increased with the transfer of responsibility from my ministry to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. Thirty million dollars of that transfer is for training and living allowances to support youth under the age of 25 -- those between the ages of 19 and 24 who are currently in classroom training programs.

The remaining $10 million is for full-time students who may be eligible for student loans but are currently on income assistance. This is only a first step, and the intent is to remove youth from dependence on the welfare system and place them in a much more supportive environment that will lead not only to training but to employment. This is a first step of a much larger initiative that our government is contemplating.

[2:45]

V. Anderson: Could you explain the nature of that training initiative, why you think it's better done under Skills, Training and Labour, and why it is a better program and more effective by having been transferred over? What is the rationale and what means is there to verify that it will be more effective? I have heard a great deal of concern in the community that people are caught in between -- that neither Skills, Training and Labour nor Social Services is now meeting their needs.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no question that the public of British Columbia wants the income assistance system to move to a much more active system where people are able to be employed and not rely on income assistance. This initiative begins that process toward an active system in assisting employable people back to the workforce.

The logic in transferring young people who are currently on training programs into the ministry of Skills, Training and Labour is one of integrating them into the ministry responsible not only for the delivery of training programs but for the community skills centres, which is the basis for finding jobs and working in partnership with the business community to employ the unemployed in British Columbia. This begins the integration of government support through training allowances into a much closer connection with the real world of work.

V. Anderson: Is the minister indicating that under the previous program under Social Services there were many shortcomings -- that people were taking programs that didn't really lead them anyplace, and that now you have transferred them over...? What is the exact nature of the training programs available to them that would lead you to transfer the authority and the responsibility outside the ministry? What is the new type of program and what is the advantage? What is the addition to the program over what they had previously?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that as the economy of British Columbia changes and grows -- and as we know, it's in a substantial period of growth right now -- programs of training and employment need to keep up with the changing economy. Programs that in the past may have been appropriate have been evaluated. Some have been carried on; others have not. That in no way indicates past success or failure, but it has behooved us to have reviewed those programs for their current usefulness.

What does make sense is to have a seamless web for people who are now unemployed -- a seamless web of services -- so that there is no chance for them to slip through the cracks or to fail because of bureaucratic red tape. That's particularly appropriate for our young people, who may not have the skills, which you and I have had through experience, of manoeuvring our way through government bureaucracies. There are many programs of support for young people through the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. There are many -- as you know, tens of thousands of -- young people on income assistance who may be unaware of those programs.

So this is a transition period to assist in matching up the appropriate unemployed person with the appropriate

con-

[ Page 14602 ]

tracted service. We have co-located many of our Social Services offices with the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, where spacing and staffing permit that. We've made significant computer changes to provide the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour with consultants -- the former rehab officers with my ministry -- and the access and information they require to deliver the employment and training services with the least disruption to clients. Of course, our office has continued to make referrals to the employment and training services.

V. Anderson: I have a two-part question. The minister has indicated that there's roughly $40 million here, $10 million of which goes to student aid and $30 million to other program training. Could the minister, on one hand, indicate approximately how many young people are in that area that would be served by this program with those kinds of funds? And does she also...? When these persons, who presumably are under Social Services, enter into this program under Skills, Training and Labour, are they still receiving social services benefits as well as training benefits in the skills program?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Over the course of a year, approximately 20,000 young people between the ages of 19 and 24 would access training initiatives in the Ministry of Social Services. I have to give you the number of bodies; that's not the equivalent of 20,000 full-time, because some may access it for two weeks and get back into the workforce, and others may require six months. They receive one support allowance -- one food and shelter allowance. It would be called a training allowance.

As the member opposite is aware, I'm sure, there are other supports for which people in a training program are eligible. Single moms may need child care services -- payment for child care -- and in some cases, books, clothing support for the minute they get a job, etc. So there are other supports. But they don't receive two food and shelter payments.

V. Anderson: I think I understand how a young person who is under Social Services and has come forward would then be referred to this kind of program. Would the referral come in the opposite direction as well? Would someone who has gone to Skills, Training and Labour to get onto a program that they might offer but who does not have the funds for daily living be referred to Social Services? They might go to Social Services in order to have a living allowance in order to take the course. Is the referral now going both ways?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there are some examples of that; however, eligibility is always a criterion.

V. Anderson: In this particular program, could you comment on what the rules of eligibility would be for young people? Are there residency requirements, for being in the province for a certain period of time? Are there requirements that one has to be unemployed for a certain period of time? What kinds of finances, backgrounds...? What kinds of requirements are necessary for this new program?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The rules of eligibility are that they have to meet the eligibility tests that they would meet for regular income assistance: asset levels, employability, looking for work, etc. However, this program is the beginning of what we hope will be larger initiatives. It's much more proactive. Once they've reached that threshold of being eligible for our assistance, there is a much more engaged test of eligibility: remaining in the course, ensuring that they work with us for active job searches, and participating in partnership programs.

It has even been suggested by many community members with expertise that where life skills are necessary in order to become eligible to work -- for instance, getting off substance abuse -- that should be a mandatory requirement.

V. Anderson: What kind of method of evaluation will be in place for this transfer? I commend the two ministries for working together on doing this. What kind of evaluation will be in place in order to see what effectiveness this is really having, and to know whether this should be continued or if changes should be made to it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We and the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour are working out that evaluation process. We are working toward a very rigorous evaluation process for the very reason that I think you were hinting at in the beginning: there's no sense in putting a program in place that doesn't meet the needs of our young people, or that leaves them vulnerable or on a treadmill of training programs that lead to nowhere. As that evaluation mechanism unfolds, I'll make sure to keep you informed.

R. Neufeld: The minister commented on the changing economy. I certainly agree that the economy is changing. There were some programs eliminated, and some were substituted to take their place. Just to bring me up to date, maybe the minister could tell me what programs were eliminated because they were redundant in today's economy, and what programs have been put in place to match today's economy.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I won't shirk my responsibility; I'll give you an answer. But I'll also advise you that a program-by-program evaluation is available under the estimates of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, because those programs were transferred in last year's budget. That information will be available under his estimates. This is the second year running that we have not had direct responsibility.

My understanding is that in the range of training programs -- all of which were evaluated -- approximately 5 percent proved to be immediately in need of conclusion, and others were re-evaluated to change the focus. But that information.... I'll make sure that the minister is prepared for you on that question.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

V. Anderson: That raises the question I was going to ask -- and I'm glad the member raised it -- about how long the programs.... This is the second year, yet the minister says that the program evaluation is just now being planned. It's my understanding that for evaluation to be effective, it would have had to be in place from the very start of the program, because you would have to know very clearly what had been happening, and the results or failures of the programs it was replacing, and then you could evaluate the new programs against the criteria that previously existed. I hear the minister saying that the evaluation process, even though we're into the

[ Page 14603 ]

second year, is still being developed. I'm wondering if I understood her properly, and if there really was no evaluation before to compare against the new system, and if that base still has to be built.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The evaluation process we are establishing now is the active approach for people between the ages of 19 and 24, where they are required to participate in a training program. The evaluation I spoke of before was an evaluation of the standard, in-place programs in the Ministry of Social Services for all employable people. At the time of transfer of those employment programs to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour -- 18 months ago -- we went through a full evaluation of the current programs.

Actually, I do have the statistics available, and I don't mind sharing them with you, but I might be stealing the thunder of the Minster of Skills, Training and Labour on that.

V. Anderson: I have two questions. I understood the minister to say that she had the evaluations of the previous programs, and that she'd be willing to share those with us. We'd be happy to see the evaluations of the previous programs, because that would enable us to then compare them with the evaluations of the new programs through the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. I would be happy with that.

Also, she said that people aged 19 to 24 would be required to take these programs. I'm wondering if the minister might explain what she meant by being required to take these programs.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not clear if you're asking for the evaluation of the programs prior to them being transferred to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. That would be back before 1993-94. We can make note of it. But that would be for your use in the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

There is a report called "Routes to Independence," which is the evaluation of the programs prior to their transfer.

The requirement for participation in the new training program is that if you're able to work, you participate.

[3:00]

V. Anderson: I still am not quite sure if the minister is saying that if you're able to work, you must participate in the training program. Is there a compulsory requirement that you must participate in the training program, with the implication that you would not be able to receive the living allowance -- which would be the normal Social Services allowance -- unless you were in a training program? Am I hearing that there's a requirement here for a training program?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When a person comes into an income assistance office and they are able to work, they have to fill out an individual opportunity plan, which requires them to make a commitment to participate in a training program as one becomes available -- and that's what the $40 million is all about. But in the meantime, if they're not eligible for a training program immediately, they have to be out looking for work. When that doesn't occur, they are no longer eligible for benefits if they are declared able to work.

V. Anderson: Two question arise that follow up. As they are available, what percentage of young people between 19 and 24 are there presently programs for: 10 percent, 25 percent...? How did the number of programs match with the number of persons who would have needed them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll give you an example of one month so that you can get a snapshot picture of this. This isn't broken down by employability, but we can work back from there. In the month of March of this year, for instance, there were 20,000 single men between the ages of 19 and 24, 10,000 single women and 1,200 couples that fell in that age group. I will have to break those down further. That's the overall, but it could fall under unemployable or a person with a handicap as well. It does not include single parents, though.

V. Anderson: Just in passing, how does the situation differ for those who are 19 to 24 than for those who over 24? Is there a factor of opportunity here for those 19 to 24 that is not available for those 25 and older? What is the difference between the opportunities for those different age groups?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The criteria are the same no matter what your age if you're declared employable. But the whole thrust of our government's initiative is to emphasize and make it much more active for those who are just entering the workforce and not to have them in a cycle, very early on, of writing them off, so to speak. That is what the youth initiative and the expansion of the youth initiative will be all about. It will be much more proactive, so that we are not writing off a generation.

R. Neufeld: For instance, in March 1995 -- the stats that you just gave us -- 20,000 employable men were....

Hon. J. MacPhail: Single men.

R. Neufeld: Just single men seeking support. To get that support they had to attend a training program or actively be looking for work or both? Is the training program designated by the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour or does the Ministry of Social Services have any input -- and if so, into what training that person would take?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just walk you through; we're just trying to clarify that. I want to reiterate that that 20,000 includes all the categories. Of those single employable men in that amount in March 1995, the person would come through the door and first of all have their eligibility determined -- and some may not even be eligible to get any assistance. If there is eligibility for assistance and they are determined to be able to work, then they have to start working immediately. They are then referred to the Skills, Training and Labour centres for the individual opportunity plan that I referred to earlier.

It is there that the assessment is made -- while they continue to look for work -- of appropriate, if any, training. In some cases -- I know that the member is familiar -- it's merely a temporary situation. Many, many people on income assistance find their own work. It's not a matter of training; it's a matter of a job search.

[ Page 14604 ]

R. Neufeld: As I understand it, then, the Ministry of Social Services does not direct, in any way, what training this person would be looking for, if that was the ultimate goal; that is strictly up to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. There's just a referral, and then obviously, I guess, there must be some tracking between the two ministries as to what's taking place. Can I ask the minister what would happen in a community like Fort Nelson, where there is no Skills, Training and Labour outlet? The nearest one, I believe, would be Dawson Creek or even Fort St. John -- that's 50 miles away.

What happens in those cases when that single, employable person -- whether they're male or female -- is referred, let's say, to the skills training office? How do they get from Dawson Creek or from Fort Nelson to the skills training office to be placed or to follow up?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's a very good point. As one leaves the larger centres, and certainly as one leaves the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island, the issues facing us become very different -- sometimes much more difficult to resolve, but not always -- and many communities take up the challenge quite well. The Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour is in the process.... Again, I hope that you'll ask the minister this question of having travelling consultants.

Certainly we are working very closely together, as I said earlier -- a shared computer system, etc. -- to try our best, and we are doing an admiral job, I think, of not letting people fall through the cracks merely because of geography, etc. Certainly these are appropriate questions to ask the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour.

R. Neufeld: Specifically, I think the question is fit for this minister -- Social Services. I understand that once they go to Skills and Labour, it's Skills and Labour that will determine where they go to train and what they're supposed to train in so that they can, hopefully, get permanent work. But the Minister of Social Services must be responsible for referring that person from a community, let's say like Fort Nelson, to a skills training centre, which is Dawson Creek -- that's 300 miles one way. How do you do that through a computer?

Or is that done by someone actually in the office in Fort Nelson -- because there is an office in Fort Nelson? Would Social Services actively try to place that person in work -- try to find work for them -- or work via a computer with Skills? If that's the case, obviously the minister has some responsibility with her ministry for what kinds of programs these people are going to go into -- not just referring them to Skills and Labour.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is our responsibility to refer; there's no question. I think what the member is getting at is to refer in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible. I know that there are programs developing in small communities -- partnership arrangements with small businesses for on-the-job training. There are certainly new programs for distance education that don't necessarily require a person to travel. We have to do an individual assessment of each particular case and support them in the most cost-effective way possible with tax dollars.

V. Anderson: Following up on that same discussion and picking up from the smaller community -- following that same line of reasoning for the kind of training that would be available in the city -- I presume there would be many options through Skills, Training and Labour for those opportunities to be there. But, as has been mentioned, there presumably wouldn't be the opportunity for those programs in many of the small communities. Does Social Services then pick up travelling and relocation costs for that person to be able to access the skills training opportunities that are available in another community?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Each case is individually assessed, but there are allowances available in order for a person to exceed in the area of transportation and education.

The Chair: Shall vote 53...? The member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: Optimist -- it's early in the day so far.

I appreciate the minister indicating that it would naturally be an individual assessment. I would hope that it would be, and I think that's what the other member was trying to get at: who does the assessment in a community where Skills and Training offices are not available, and what is the nature of that assessment? How is that assessment undertaken? How is that assessment transferred to Skills and Training and the opportunities made available? What is the process?

I presume that if you're in the city, and particularly where you have integrated offices, you send them next door to the Skills and Training office and then they move back and forth between them. If you're in a rural area, it's not as easy to do that. So what is the process by which a person actually works through the opportunity to discover what the assessment is, how the assessment was made, what the opportunities are and how they get into that process? Do you do that with the local social worker, or is it with a finance worker? Who is actually doing this where there is not a Skills and Training office person available?

[3:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll try to make it clear about what it meant when the program was transferred, so that the members can ask the questions at the appropriate estimates.

I didn't say this earlier, so it's not your fault, but in addition to continuing many of the training and employability services transferred from my ministry to the skills development division of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, that division is refining existing programs and developing new training and employability program models that hopefully will, and that I expect will, increase the opportunities for income assistance recipients to access training that's actually relevant to today's market.

Those models include assessment and referral, community-employment-based training, workplace-based training and institution-based training, as well as partnerships with business, labour, community agencies and post-secondary institutions in communities across the province. During the process of assessment and referral to the right program, the training consultant would determine what supports are needed to achieve success.

V. Anderson: I understand that, and I appreciate that the program is in development, so it doesn't have all the final answers either on its strengths or its weaknesses at this point. But in the small community where there isn't a Skills and Training office, I'm still not clear how that process.... John comes in. John is 20 years of age and unemployed, and John

[ Page 14605 ]

would like to have the opportunity of getting into this kind of program. Who does the assessment for John in Fort St. John or even in some of the smaller communities where there is no Skills office, and how is that process implemented for the small community?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is quite right that there has to be range of supports available, depending on the community need, and these are actually being worked out community by community, and in many communities have already been worked out. By June, next week, there will be 61 Skills, Training and Labour offices -- skills division offices -- opened across the province.

Many of those offices will co-locate with our ministry, but where those offices are not open, there may already be in place community-based agencies that can take a direct referral as a contracted agency for the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. Right now the assessment of how that unfolds across the province, and to fill all of the gaps, is part of the responsibility of the Ministry of Skills so that people are not falling through the geographic gaps, literally. But it sounds to me like they're well on their way to blanketing the province.

V. Anderson: Part of the reason why we pressed this a little is that we are aware of many people who have fallen through the cracks over the last number of months -- ever since this switch has been taking place. They have been falling through the cracks. If that process is not in place in a given community, who in Social Services -- because that's the person they have come to in that community -- takes the responsibility? Is it the financial assistance worker who meets them who takes that responsibility? Is it a social worker? In a local community where the other facilities are not available, who takes the responsibility for filling the gap until those facilities become available?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, it depends on an individual case, but certainly it is.... We're in an awkward situation always in our estimates in that so many of the individual cases that we may talk about are wrapped in confidentiality rules. So I can't lodge a complaint that you are being hypothetical, because you have to be hypothetical. But in the few cases where the community may not meet the needs of a person who seeks temporary assistance, it is the requirement in order to maintain eligibility.... It is the relationship between the financial assistance worker and the income assistance recipient to determine continuing eligibility.

R. Neufeld: The statistics that the minister gave earlier for March, I believe -- just so I have my numbers right -- were somewhere in the area of 20,000, 10,000 and 1,200 couples between the ages of 19 and 24 who had come to the office and requested monetary help. I know the minister also said that a number of those are for help usually only for three months. Can the minister tell me what percentage -- just a ballpark percentage -- of those people who applied in March would be those who fall in the category of just needing help for three months?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We keep annual statistics; we graph them annually. Some 75 percent of people who apply for income assistance need assistance for between three to six months only.

R. Neufeld: I would assume, then, that those 75 percent are trained in some form of work and are employed, or maybe they're just off because of seasonal work. Would that be a correct assumption?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, there is a litany of reasons why people need income assistance. Of course, it does vary from community to community, because many of our economic factors are affected on a community basis. Certainly we have lately been greatly affected by unemployment insurance regulations, where people have worked but are not eligible for unemployment insurance.

R. Neufeld: So the 25 percent, on average, that are left would go over to Skills, Training and Labour for some kind of training. They would have to either actively look for work or take training. I find it difficult that we can't ask the minister what kind of training. That's the difficulty I have with some of these programs. Some of the training is not always for what's happening in the real world in today's time. It's training to just take up time for.... Let's say that they need social assistance for three months. They go to school for three months and take some courses that may not help them in the future, and that's some of the difficulty I have.

Maybe the minister could explain a little bit more to me about the couples -- men and women between the ages of 19 and 24. We all know of cases -- I know a number of them in my community -- where we have young mothers, 16 or 17 years old, with one or two children, living with a male of the same age, and both are collecting social assistance. How does the ministry go about dealing with those people? They're both employable, presumably. Do you send them both out to training, or do you just pick one to go to training? How is that determination made? Because obviously that must be made within the Ministry of Social Services.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I sense the frustration of the members opposite in not being able to ask me questions about training, but the fact is that that responsibility was transferred. I'm sure your frustration will disappear the minute that the minister arrives here, and I know you'll engage him in some pretty good discussion.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, he won't refer them back to me.

Let me just clarify the stats again. I gave you the statistics for all people again. However, the 1,200 couples that I referred to are couples without children. There are no children in that; they are employable, childless couples. Their eligibility to stay on income assistance is treated individually. They both have to search for work and/or be trained, and the income earned, if any, while on social assistance is treated as a family unit.

V. Anderson: One question arises. I believe that the minister indicated that it was the financial assistance worker who would be working for those people when they come and reviewing either that they were looking for work or that they were eligible for training, and then would refer them for training. Because of this new process -- I should have asked this question before -- what kind of training was given to financial assistance workers to enable them to make those kinds of decisions? And what kind of additional or new

[ Page 14606 ]

training has been given to financial assistance workers to help them to tie into this new process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The financial assistance workers are obligated to participate in core training. That core training changes, and has changed, in order to cope with the new system of referral; it's part of the ongoing update of their training. But I'll also say that I visited many offices where they engage in in-service training in the office to make themselves familiar with the services available in the community, because the referrals may change, depending on the client. It may have to be a referral to a mental health agency, or whatever. So the financial assistance workers receive continuing training in this area.

N. Lortie: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

N. Lortie: In the gallery up here we have another large group of students, from North Delta Senior Secondary in -- guess where -- North Delta. They're led by their teacher Mr. King. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: What is the nature of the core training that they receive? What's the nature and length of the core training, and what's the automatic nature of the upgrade of these on a regular basis? This question will come up more often now, because, as we discovered on the Gove inquiry, the core training for social workers was very limited, and the upgrading of in-service training for them was non-existent almost. So for the financial workers, who are the front line and therefore the key people in this process, what is the core training, and what is the automatic nature of upgrading?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm glad you asked. First of all, we're very committed to providing the training for our financial assistance workers, and I hope to be able to convince the member opposite that that's true of social workers as well. The mandatory core training for all new financial assistance workers has been in place since 1986. It consists of an on-the-job training package and two one-week modules of classroom training. The on-the-job training package has been expanded from 20 to 27 workdays over the years.

The topics covered include roles, functions and responsibilities of an FAW, programs, policies, procedures, ministry principles, values, philosophy, assessing and determining eligibility, referral procedures, knowledge and understanding of community resources, and caseload management skills.

[3:30]

After four to six months of job experience, the first week of module training is taken. It covers the GAIN act and regulations, appeals, audits, other ministry program areas, caseload management and the ministry's computer information system. After ten to 12 months the second module is taken, and it covers communication and interviewing skills, effective service delivery and working within the community. It covers the economic environment of the day and managing change and stress.

A third week of centralized core training for FAWs with more than four years' experience was started last year, the 1994-95 fiscal year. As of the end of last fiscal year, March 31, 1995, 205 experienced financial assistance workers had been trained. The topics covered under that new module include values and objectivity, prevention, compliance and enforcement, advanced communication and interviewing techniques, and occupational health and safety.

Training for financial assistance workers is revised on an ongoing basis to ensure that it's consistent with current trends and research. Trainers are senior financial assistance workers themselves who have been selected by their area managers. They undergo one week of specialized training before assuming the role of instructor. All financial assistance workers have access to the ministry's central library, and that contains an extensive collection of current materials and the capacity, via computer, to research most issues that could arise in the field.

The ministry is involved in ongoing discussions currently with community colleges with regard to their curricula in the social service worker programs, one of which is financial assistance workers. Just so you know, because workload is an issue with financial assistance workers -- and I know you've spoken eloquently on that issue -- we do backfill during training.

V. Anderson: She takes my question before I ask it. My next question was about the backfill, because I know that was the problem raised with social workers in child abuse cases: the opportunity to have backfill.

How many financial assistance aid workers do we have in total in the ministry at this point? I noticed that you mentioned 205 who are in the fourth year. How many of those have continued? Is there an approximate number in each...? How many years have they been working in financial assistance? In other words, how great is the turnover, and how consistent are the people in those positions?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have 911 FTEs in financial assistance work. We have a relatively small turnover rate for all employee groupings; it's under 6 percent. For financial assistance workers, the turnover from the previous year to the last fiscal year was 3.1 percent.

V. Anderson: This is the last one on financial assistance, following that stream. I presume that there is a process of ongoing evaluation. How much opportunity do clients have to be part of that evaluation? Is there a process whereby clients...? If you go to McDonald's Restaurants or some other places, there are opportunities for you to say that you've had good service or bad service. Is there the opportunity to compliment a particular worker, and say that this worker has really done an excellent job? What is the opportunity? Is there a regular base for client feedback in the evaluation of the FTEs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Surprisingly -- you wouldn't know this from the public's mind, although it's not their fault -- I get many letters of commendation to staff from clients, etc. I also get a share of complaints as well. It's kind of scary, but we now have a complaint coordinator. We have a new complaint procedure available, which is handed to each and every client for their input: complaints and/or suggestions on the basis of service. I also try to make myself readily available on a continuing basis to community groups that advocate on behalf of income assistance recipients in order to hear their concerns and act upon them.

V. Anderson: I would hope that the supervisor is not called a complaint supervisor, but that we have a more

posi-

[ Page 14607 ]

tive name, so that compliments and complaints and suggestions.... A lot of the good suggestions that we all hear can come from the person who's receiving the service. I would hope that there's a more positive terminology than that, that there's an opportunity for people to know that their feedback and suggestions are welcomed, and that it's not: if you don't have a complaint, you can't say anything. I think that would be unfortunate and would bias.... I would say the same thing if it were only a process for compliments, and there were no opportunity for complaints.

The process of people knowing that it's open and fair and balanced, and that you really want their suggestions for improvement as well as their complaints for bad service -- as they see it -- is important.

I wanted to come back.... When the ministry took out that service to those aged 19 to 24 and transferred it to Skills, Training and Labour, that left those persons who are aged 25 to 95 still in that area. Have there been any like changes...? I don't want to go into this in detail at this point, because we will come back to it. Just in passing, have there been changes that would affect that group, or is that group -- and we'll come to it later, if so -- simply business as usual? That's not negative or positive; that's just saying that it's business as usual.

I'm just saying that since we've moved one category out, has it made more time, more energy and more resources available for the other sections of the population?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is quite right about the name of that person. I was in error -- sorry. The person is called the client services coordinator, which probably makes him or her much more popular than I suggested. He's quite right about how we identify people.

It's a bit.... I won't say that it's business as usual for 25-to-65-year-old people who are employable. They haven't had the same substantial change as the people who participate in the $40 million program right now. I've had some very interesting recommendations made to me by.... I've got a Minister's Advisory Council on Income Assistance. They've made some excellent recommendations in that area, as has the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living. All of them are being considered now in terms of a much more proactive system for all unemployed people. Those are under consideration by cabinet now.

I would also say that we are more greatly affected by the off-loading of the unemployment insurance system onto the income assistance caseload. We can no longer sit passively by and assume that some other system will take care of unemployed people. Eventually, those who are unemployed come to us. The unemployment insurance system has really been made much more ineffective. Of course, all of these training programs are being reviewed as we review the demise of the Canada Assistance Plan.

I will take this opportunity to say that we made a change on Friday concerning people who are part of our system. We made a substantial change in the area of people who receive benefits for the handicapped. On Friday our government announced that we're coming into the nineties as opposed to keeping people with disabilities in the thirties and forties. We're changing the definition. They no longer have to declare themselves unemployed in order to be eligible for benefits. I'm extremely pleased with that, and the community itself is very pleased with it. We're also looking actively at....

The government has made a decision to remove people with disabilities from the state welfare system and provide a separate system that is much more inclusive, much more coordinated, and that actually meets the needs of the vast majority who want to be in the workforce.

V. Anderson: I won't pursue that. I appreciate the information from the minister. If you could provide us with that information in some detail, it would be most helpful. It may have come across my desk, but so far I haven't seen it. I would be happy to receive it, and I'm sure others would be happy to receive it, too. Then we could discuss it. It may help us with some of the questions that will come up later on. So I appreciate that very much, and I hope we can receive that before too long.

I would move on to the next category, and as I understand it, that is transfers from the Ministry of Health into this ministry of the Services for Community Living branch, and of families with children with mental handicaps. Could the minister comment specifically on the focus of that? Why was the transfer made from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Social Services? Why is there that difference between people with mental handicaps and people with mental illnesses? Why the transfer over, and why one rather than the other?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The community of people with mental handicaps would probably reply by saying that they require continuing and ongoing support not only of a physical nature but of a staff nature as well, in terms of the level of immediate care required for people with mental handicaps. While there are grades of support required by people with mental handicaps, some of whom become quite independent, it is in no way similar to people with mental illnesses, who are subject to episodic illnesses and many times, as you and I know, are not incapacitated at all.

The other thing, of course, is that there is recognition by the community of people with mental handicaps and their families that the medical model isn't necessarily the answer. They often need extra medical support for their physical limitations; the solutions available for improvement are not medical solutions but very much support solutions. That isn't necessarily so of the community of people with mental illness. Often, medical support is the answer.

V. Anderson: The minister has indicated that there was $35 million transferred, plus 50 FTEs. Could she indicate briefly the kind of programming or services that are now being undertaken by the Ministry of Social Services? Are they different from what they were when they were under the Ministry of Health? Or has there simply been a transfer with the same thing happening, or because of the things the minister has mentioned, are these different programs with new things happening as a result of this switch?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are realigning the services for people with mental handicaps because the services provided by both ministries were the same, with the exception of the head injury program that remains with the Ministry of Health. Indeed, the similarity is a direct overlapping between the services that our ministry provided and the program in the Ministry of Health, so we are rationalizing for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. There will therefore be more services within the tax dollar amount available to support the families. The benefits of realignment are immense. They allow for the maximum integration of people with a mental handicap into the community.

[ Page 14608 ]

[3:45]

I must say that everywhere I go, self-advocates speak to me about how I have to find a new term for "people with a mental handicap." I fully agree, and I've got lots of them working on it right now. The self-advocates are going to bring forward their suggestions to me.

The realignment will also ensure that the changing needs of the individuals can be met. It's limiting the jurisdictional overlap, and there is also easier public access to the services, in that families and self-advocates don't have to search through the bureaucracy to find the service they need. We are also maximizing the use of the physical and economic resources, as I said, and I think the services will be much more operationally viable and able to secure adequate resources.

Again, I say that the community living branch of the Ministry of Health provided exactly the same services as we do in our community services division, save and except for the head injury program. The process for realignment began in October last year, but it will continue over the full course of a year from October 1994. The realignment steering committee is very effective in overseeing the work of the realignment.

V. Anderson: No doubt we'll come back to it under the community program for mentally handicapped adults, but just in passing, am I to understand that this program has been added to that particular branch? Or does it include adults, children and families, like...? To whom is this transfer limited, this $35 million? Does it cover families, adults and children, or is it an inclusive program?

What program is it added to? Is it added to one particular program in the ministry, or is it dispersed among other programs in the ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The funding is added to one of the three divisions of my ministry called community support services. That division in my ministry, community support services, provides services to adults, children and families.

V. Anderson: We'll deal with that in more detail when we come back to that program.

The transfer from the Jericho residence, from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Social Services.... I know somewhat about the Jericho program and the Jericho residence. In transferring it over to Social Services, has there been a change -- or is there a change in process -- in the nature of the operation of the residence because of this transfer? Was there a reason, particularly, for doing it from Education to Social Services?

How does this coordinate and tie in with the educational program? As I understand it, all the students in this residence will still be involved in the educational programs. They're all students who are involved in educational programs. So why is it taken out to be separate? If so, what's the coordination? And what improvement results from this?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the transfer from the Ministry of Education to my ministry is in keeping with the ombudsman's 1992 public report No. 32. The report was on the Jericho Hill school. The ombudsman's report recommended that the residence be operated by an authority with expertise in residential services for children. That's the Ministry of Social Services; we have that expertise in the province.

Our ministry is working closely with the parents, the staff and the deaf community to provide a very safe and high-quality residence for the children. We have a parent's advisory committee and established training for staff on child care and reporting of abuse, and written communication is provided. There's greater openness and involvement between parents, children and the community -- encouraged, of course.... Report No. 32 went on at some length about how the parents of these deaf children were basically not involved at all in their care from Monday to Friday.

The Ministry of Education remains responsible for the education of the children. We take responsibility for the current residence as it exists at the old site, but we're also responsible for the development of new, group-home style, residential facilities.

Anyway, we're also going to make sure -- besides the openness -- that there are firm policies and procedures in place for the residence of deaf children and that we have quality assurance in place both from a short-term and a long-term point of view, all based on the best interests of the child.

V. Anderson: Two things come into that. One you've already mentioned. We're all very aware that there are going to be some changes with the Jericho lands in that area. An assumption would be that it will affect the residence. What is the planning and the process of a new facility for residents that the minister referred to, with the presumption that the Jericho lands are going to disappear? In transferring over, did the lands, the building and the assets, as well as the operation of the school, come over to the Minister of Social Services?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We accumulated land in Burnaby very near the school to build the residences. It's going to be a residential-type situation -- homes, as opposed to a dormitory barracks kind of concept. The land was accumulated, and we are working with architects and the community itself to design the best residences possible to meet the needs of the children from a point of view of what makes sense for deaf children who have to be in residence for a large portion of their lives. Of course, the advisory committee is working with us. The process will probably be complete in 12 to 18 months.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister might just clarify. When you say 12 to 18 months, is that the planning process, or the planning and the building process to completion?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The planning is well underway. The children will be in the new residences 12 to 18 months from now.

V. Anderson: Many of these children come from around the province, and I'm wondering if there is consideration of providing better facilities and transportation and assurances for them in the amount of travel. Is there also built in the new system a better opportunity for families to keep in touch with children during the week as well as when they go home or when the parents come down? That gap of being away all week could certainly facilitate....

Perhaps it could be taken into account in the planning to have modern communication methods built into the new building to make that kind of continuous interaction between parents and children more effective than what we've been able to do in the past.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those are good points, and that's exactly what the parent advisory committee is established for

[ Page 14609 ]

-- to work out those important communication links, Monday to Friday. I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Education is providing funding for children to return home each and every weekend, which, of course, didn't take place before. I think that's good news for the kids. But your point about communication between their parents and themselves while they're there is important. We will have a full-time social worker at the residences who will be able to communicate with deaf children.

V. Anderson: The other part of that -- and I would stress the family side of it as well as the children's side.... Like all families who have children with one difficulty or another, the children may cope better than the parents do. To serve the best interests of the child may be to give the parents the opportunity to have more interaction and support, particularly parents who live in isolated situations and don't have the opportunity to interact with other parents. I'm wondering if some of that planning is in the process as well.

I trust that there has been some interactive video or TV planning, maybe with guidance from Knowledge Network people, so that families can visually communicate by television from their home to the school. Within a very recent time, particularly for deaf children, that visual communication is so fundamentally important and would be helpful to everybody. In looking at this, not to research that area I think would be an oversight. So I'm stressing the opportunity of the growth and support of the family, which is a very important support to the children as well.

If we focus just on the children, we may miss the new opportunity,

whereas if we focus on the family and what we can do to help the parents interact on a regular basis -- through TV, visible communication, as well as others -- it would be very important.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member opposite makes some excellent points. I'll make sure they're investigated.

V. Anderson: I'll move on to the next one: the Minister of Finance and the wage annualization payment of $2 million. Just in passing, could the minister explain what the effect of that was? Who benefited most from it? What was the result of that? Within her ministry, what was the particular need, that equalization required, of that $2 million transfer into the ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure the member opposite is aware that the pay equity process was implemented to address situations where job categories which were occupied predominantly by women were deemed to be undercompensated. The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations put forward this initiative and is represented in this equalization process by the Public Service Employee Relations Commission. We participated fully in the pay equity process, which was concluded October '94.

How it affects my ministry is thus: an interim adjustment was made in January '92 to pay-grades 1 through 7; a second adjustment was made in April '92 to pay-grades 2 through 11; final adjustments totalling approximately $25 million were negotiated in October '94; the '95-96 annualization adjustment value to my ministry, including institutions, is $4.3 million. This money is to assist in payment of that obligation.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that explanation. In reviewing the pay equity, was there also a review of categories themselves and an updating of description of categories and of actual workloads, and bringing it up to date? Many of our categories are outdated and would no longer apply, whether it was men or women or whatever else. Just the categories themselves are unequal. Has there been a review of the categories, and have those been rationalized?

[4:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. In order to facilitate the pay equity, ministry employees were involved in the design and development of a gender-neutral job evaluation plan, both as representatives of the employer and as union nominees in a joint union-management process. That plan ensures that compensation is based on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Those principles will be applied to all job classification in the future, to ensure ongoing equity. That means a general classification system will be in place that ensures equitable compensation, regardless of gender composition. The new plan will commence in the fall of 1995.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that. I'm sure there are many out there who would be happy to hear the categories that are involved in that and to realize that this is taking place. If I understand the minister, this process is complete -- at least to its new stage -- as of the fall of '95. Thank you very much.

From the Ministry of Government Services, the social program renewal

section was $31,000. I'm wondering if you might comment on the nature of that transfer and its significance. Again -- while I'm asking the question -- there were no FTEs listed in that section, and I wonder why that might be.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This will be a very important issue over the coming months, about federal-provincial relations in the area of the social safety net. This money is to provide for particular targeted research and evaluation and -- I don't want to use.... Well, I will, because I can't think of another, less touchy-feely word. It's also for outreach in the area of working with the federal government in ensuring that British Columbians aren't affected too adversely by the change in the federal-provincial share of social programs.

So the government has allocated this money to us under the income assistance division to work.... We have a federal-provincial relations division, small though it is, and this money will be specifically targeted to the new initiatives that will be required as CAP changes and as change in federal funding occurs.

V. Anderson: I think the federal-provincial discussions are extremely important. They always have been and will continue to be important as we readjust within Canada between provincial responsibilities in every area of life and federal, with provinces wanting, in some areas, to take on more responsibility and in other areas to take on less. We talk about forest and land and water and fish. There's a reallocation in every facet of our federal-provincial relations.

When you mention the federal-provincial task force, I wasn't sure if that was an interministerial task force of which Social Services is a part, or whether the minister was referring to a Social Services task force primarily to deal with the social services issue. If so, it would be helpful if she might elaborate a little bit on what the nature of that task force is.

[ Page 14610 ]

V. Anderson: That's primarily within the area of income assistance, the CAP program. But does it cover at the same time the Health and the Education facets of that, or is it listed only to the Social Services portion of that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our staff, the staff I mentioned, while liaising closely with those other ministries, are solely responsible for income security issues. Those other ministries do have similar departments.

R. Neufeld: I missed out here. I want to go back to pay equity, if it's all right with the minister, and just have her explain to me again: do I understand that this fall you're going to pay the staff by merit? You talked about experience, effort and ability. Are people going to be paid, then, on a sliding scale rather than so much for each position? Could the minister maybe just explain that a little bit more for me, please?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There will be classifications according to your responsibility and, actually, the job that you perform. But this governmentwide initiative is not just particular to my ministry; this is across all ministries and direct government service employees. The way one evaluates the work one does.... No one is changing the work that is being done, but the evaluation for determining the money you receive for doing that work is based upon evaluation criteria of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Those four criteria are actually quite standard in any job classification process, and well received both in the business community and the public service community.

V. Anderson: Continuing with the social program renewal section, which is the federal-provincial discussion, perhaps the minister could help us to understand what she sees as the main issues or themes that are up for discussion within that area. What are the issues, primarily, that she feels British Columbia has to offer within that discussion? And what are the main requests or concerns for action that are being discussed within that section?

Hon. J. MacPhail: A very important question. The immediate concern over the course of the next two years is how we as a government will manage our budget in the context of massive off-loading of transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial government. The cumulative cost to British Columbians in terms of less money coming from the federal government to British Columbia will be $1.71 billion by the end of this fiscal year. In 1995-96 alone, the cost of....

I mean, this truly is a cost: last year we would have received this money, and this year the cheque by the federal government will be $433 million less -- and that's just in CAP, Canada Assistance Plan, off-loading. Of course, the total impact of federal off-loading in the area of social transfer payments will reach $12.8 billion by the end of 1997-98 -- the cumulative total in each budget year. The annual cost, though, in terms of the off-loading by the year 1997-98, which is the final year of federal off-loading announced in the recent federal budget, will be $2.835 billion.

So we have an immediate concern about how to maintain the social safety net in the context of much less money coming from Ottawa. Are we concerned? Yes. Did we wait till we actually received this information? No. That's why the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living was set up over a year ago, which has made an excellent report.

It's a broad-based forum -- business leaders, community representatives, academics, economists, consumers, aboriginal groups and labour people -- and they have written an excellent report not only on how the social safety net can change to make it much more responsive to the needs of people in the 1990s but also on how to do that in the context of knowing that there will be fewer dollars available in British Columbia.

I do have a concern that I have raised and will continue to raise on behalf of British Columbians: it is the death of CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan. No question, it needed to be changed. It was not meeting the needs -- as we talked earlier, a very passive system.... But it did have some fundamental guarantees below which provincial governments could not fall. Now the federal government is saying the only floor -- the only plank in the floor for people who find themselves temporarily poor -- in the whole social safety net is that no government can ask you for a residency requirement.

But all the rest of the guarantees are eliminated, and they're not replaced, as yet, with national standards. You and I know that as one tries to raise children and as our children reach the age of work, often they leave home and travel elsewhere to find employment. My generation did that; your generation did that. And we were guaranteed a safety net while we did that, and I'm not sure that that is necessarily there anymore. So labour mobility is going to be greatly affected by the elimination of CAP.

However, our government is taking the lead in putting the establishment of national standards on the national agenda.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that. We would commend to you that those national standards should be there, and we would affirm from our side that we agree that national standards are fundamental right across the Canadian nation. As long as we're a Canadian nation, there should be national standards wherever you go in education, health and social services, and in many of the qualities of life that are part of the reality that is Canada.

I might ask the minister in this regard about what discussion is taking place between the provinces in order to coordinate with the federal government on these national standards. It seems to me that the provinces collectively bring together a pressure that individual provinces aren't able to. What process is in place for the provincial discussion, apart from the national discussions?

Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: With us in the gallery this afternoon are some students -- I think they are about ten in number -- from Spectrum Community School in my constituency. They're a grade 11 social studies class that decided to come down and see some democracy in action. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Kathy Armstrong, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

[ Page 14611 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In the third week in June I will be attending a provincial and territorial ministers' conference. Our government has taken the lead in putting this very item on the agenda to discuss among all my colleagues. The deputy ministers had their preparatory meeting last week, and the item is on the agenda at the behest of our government -- and it will consume, I imagine, a substantial amount of discussion on how we handle this collectively.

[4:15]

V. Anderson: I don't know whether the minister is able or willing -- either way -- in these discussions to share any of the themes or concerns we might have in common, in order to get combined support in the interprovincial discussion as well as in the federal-provincial dialogue, and whether there are particular concerns she has that the concerns of B.C. are not being heard or understood, or are different from what she might be hearing from other provinces. Is it her experience that there is a common concern at this point? If so, that would be helpful for us to hear, because, unfortunately, it's only through the minister that we are able to be part of or to keep in touch with that dialogue.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am concerned about reaching consensus with my colleagues in other provinces. I am concerned that we don't get into a situation where there's a race to the bottom in terms of providing a strong safety net, but also understanding that there is only one taxpayer in this country.... To be frank with you, my colleagues in other provinces are all over the map in terms of their needs and priorities in this area. I think it's important that British Columbia shows the lead in ensuring that the federal government maintains its responsibility in weaving the social safety net.

We have a strong economy now; it's my belief that we are in the best position to not be bullied or bribed by the federal government in terms of transfer payments. I don't intend in any way to get into a confrontational manner with the federal government, but the fact of the matter is that British Columbians should not be penalized, but given recognition for the strong economy. We should not be unfairly treated by the federal government merely because we have a strong economy and are not involved in the race to the bottom.

I am working with my other colleagues to try to shore up their concerns about their immediate needs in the way of, perhaps, getting guarantees of extra transfer payments, depending on how they cooperate with the federal government. I think it's safe to say that the fact that Quebec is approaching a referendum on its relationship with Canada certainly has an influence on these discussions. It has an influence amongst us provinces, but Quebec's position in terms of the universality of the social safety net is also very carefully watched by the federal government.

V. Anderson: I think it's important -- and I think the minister has always recognized it -- that even as the services we provide in an integrated way within the province have changed and need to change with changing circumstances, so the Canada Assistance Plan, which has many strengths, also has many weaknesses. There needs to be a new style of Canada Assistance Plan, whatever the terminology or name, and it needs to have new principles for the future that were not needed when the plan came into effect some 30 years ago.

I'm wondering if the minister has a vision that comes out of the revamping of the B.C. experience that can be presented to the federal experience for a new vision of what a Canada plan might be and -- if that new vision can be shared at all -- the principles that it shared, that others might interact and support it as well.

What I'm trying to get at is this. To say that the Canada Assistance Plan should be maintained as it was isn't realistic. But to say that there are new principles and perhaps other principles, besides the four that were in the original plan, that now should be added to it or made more comprehensive, or to come at it in a different way.... Is there a plan and a vision that's being developed in B.C.? Is it one that she can share with us, so that we might be a part of that new vision for Canada which B.C. is presenting?

It isn't mainly a question of dollars and cents; it is, first of all, a vision -- dollars and cents will be added to it afterwards. Without a vision, the dollars and cents don't make any sense anyway. I'm wondering if there is a new plan and a new vision that you will be presenting on behalf of B.C. which the residents of B.C. might be able to share.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I almost want to break into the jingle of our ads about how there is a plan for B.C. in terms of jobs and investment. But maybe I'll bring in the video of those ads. Yes, we do have a plan around the area of jobs and investment and maintaining the social safety net as people move from welfare to work and unemployment to work. It's a very exciting vision.

The member opposite is quite right: it's not just based on plowing more tax dollars into a passive system; it's very much a private-public partnership in moving people from welfare to work and also ensuring that our tax dollars are spent in the most effective way possible to strengthen and enhance the economy. Yes, I agree that the Canada Assistance Plan is not a plan for the nineties and isn't a plan for the next century; however, I am gravely concerned about moving from a very rigid, structured accounting-based Canada Assistance Plan to nothing, and that's what we're on the verge of doing.

It's worrisome to me and should be avoided.

I must tell you that our government has a great deal of difficulty getting the attention of the federal government, getting them to understand how this lack of plan in moving from a plan for the forties, fifties and sixties to modernizing it has to be done carefully, in cooperation, on a basis of fairness -- no matter where you live in Canada -- and understanding that there are real constraints on the pockets of taxpayers. I say this with the greatest of concern: they are more interested in discussing gun control than the Canada Assistance Plan.

However, we as a government have decided not to let the discussion just slip aside. That is why we have a plan for B.C., and our jobs and investment strategy is well in the making.

Also, we are not remaining still on bringing forward our own suggestion to revamp the social safety net. I refer you again to the report from the members of the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living -- there are some extremely creative ideas there. Cabinet will take those, along with many other suggestions that have come from the business community and from members in this House, in putting together a plan that makes sense for well into the next century.

R. Neufeld: These are interesting discussions around CAP and what is going to happen in the future and the plans. I don't think it is any secret -- and the minister did say that

[ Page 14612 ]

there is only one taxpayer -- that we do have a problem in Canada. We may be enjoying a relatively good upswing in our economy in British Columbia, but when we look at the Canadian situation, it definitely has a lot of problems. That is going to involve British Columbia as much as any other province.

It was interesting to listen to the minister talk about Quebec momentarily. As I understand it, Quebec's taxing arrangements, because they collect their own taxes -- they have a lot of arrangements with Canada that are different than the other provinces -- they don't participate in the Canada Assistance Plan at all when it comes to social services.

I know this transgresses a few ministries, but I wonder if the minister is saying that when we are looking at new initiatives and ideas we're talking about the next century, and about maybe getting away from an archaic type of Canada Assistance Plan altogether and starting to work on some new initiatives -- something like Quebec has been doing for long time -- and maybe starting to become a little more self-sufficient in British Columbia.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, Quebec does participate in the Canada Assistance Plan. They do have a different mix of fiscal transfer payments and tax points than we do, and they also collect their taxes separate and apart from the federal system. There is that issue of the fiscal arrangement; we should be examining the most cost-effective way of managing that. There certainly are discussions at the Ministry of Finance level about the proper mix of tax points and transfer payments. The last federal budget, of course, affected only the transfer payments, and it didn't examine a change in the tax points turned over to the province in any way whatsoever.

The other aspect of social policy in Canada and the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments is the area of program delivery. It's my view that we are way ahead of Quebec in terms of innovative approaches to program delivery -- and almost every other province as well, I'd say -- and we continue to go down the road of constantly re-examining the way we deliver those programs.

D. Symons: I have a question to the minister regarding a letter, which the minister probably has, dated May 8. It deals with a family where the son is, as they describe here, severely mentally handicapped and, apparently, rapidly approaching the age of 19, which seems to be an age which is important in this instance. The reason I'm raising it here is that they first started to try to find the answer to their situation on June 27, 1994, and were advised to go to their district supervisor, which they did.

It wasn't until May 3 of this year that they found out that there would not be money in the budget for their son. What they were basically asking for was if he could be extended into the day care program at SCAMPS, which he's been attending since its inception. Both these parents are employed and cannot be home during the daytime in order to supply care for their son. Their concern is that, apparently, if he were under the age of 19 he would be eligible, but having reached the age of 19 he's not eligible for the program.

I guess I have a concern -- in my mind, when I was reading this case -- that for an able-bodied child we sort of pick the age of 19 as a time when maybe they're on their own and able to look after themselves. But I suppose for somebody with a severe disability age almost becomes irrelevant; they're still as dependent on their parents at 19, 20 or 25 as they were at age five to ten.

So I'm curious about what is available to these people. Apparently they feel that maybe they have missed the boat, that if they had put him, prior to the age of 19, into government care, where the government would look after him totally, they would have been in a better position than seeking to do that after the age of 19. I'm wondering if maybe it might not be cost-effective if the government could supply this little bit of respite care for their child so they would have some time off, some time free, or at least some time when they're able to work, knowing the son would be in adequate care.

It would be much more cost-effective to put out that small amount to have it done that way rather than them, out of frustration, having to put him into total care at the cost of the province, which would be much greater than giving this small amount of care for a summer camp.

I wonder if the minister might be able to respond. They were told recently that they weren't going to get the money. She's written to you outlining the concerns I've expressed to you now, and it might be quicker to get an answer back to her this way than waiting for the response to the letter.

Hon. J. MacPhail: While the parents may have shared with you the correspondence, I'm precluded from discussing individual cases in a public way. But certainly my staff is more than willing to work with you and your constituent on the details of this situation. The letter writer -- I'm not sure whether it's a man or a woman, but I think I'll say "she"....

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: A couple, okay. Yes, there is no question that there is literally a demographic bulge of aging parents who have always -- admirably so -- maintained their adult children with mental handicaps in their own home, and now those parents are aging beyond the ability to do that. It has created a situation of a waiting list. There's no question about that. While we are a government that devotes one of the largest percentages of its budget to community services programs for people with mental handicaps, and continually is lauded for that investment, a waiting list still continues.

[4:30]

These are the tough decisions that we face about budget expenditures. On the one hand, the public demands -- and you yourself demand -- that we should cut spending. I believe it's fair to say that the issues that have created the waiting list in the community services division are not due to waste and duplication and extravagance. We have a finely honed system, but the taxpayer examines our budget in a way that looks at a bottom-line number and doesn't see the human face behind that low-budget number. You're putting a human face on it. I hope that you continue to put that human face on it as we discuss these matters in public.

Let me give you an example of the human face of the waiting list. There are over 250 individuals -- adults -- wait-listed for residential services, though some are receiving one type of service and require another; there are over 90 children with autism on the waiting list; there are 300 children and families on waiting lists for special services for homemakers; there are over 100 children and their families on the waiting list for at-home respite care.

[ Page 14613 ]

We increased this budget substantially. In 1996, I think, the figure is a double-digit figure in terms of adding 14 percent. So one year over the other there is 14 percent more in this area. But at the end of the day, hon. member, we have to decide what our priorities are, and in managing not only the human priorities but the public taxpayer priority, wait-lists have to develop.

D. Symons: I'm just wondering, then, if you might for my edification give me a bit of an outline of the significance of this age of 19. Is the impression I get from here that at the age of 19, these services that they had been getting for this child are terminated? Then, after 19, is there something else to take its place from the ministry?

The impression I also get is that they feel that if they put their son into care and turn him over to the ministry, that's their out. To me, it seems like it's not cost-effective for the ministry to have another ward of the state, so to speak, where they will be taking much more care of him. It would be much more cost-effective if the parents do it at home with some help. Am I wrong in how I'm interpreting this? Or is help available in some other fashion for them after he reaches this age of 19?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The age at which people with mental handicaps move from the child program to the adult program is the age of majority -- yes, 19. Your

interpretation of what that means is quite correct. Chronological age isn't necessarily the change point for people with mental handicaps; there's no question about that.

I just want to explore this a little, because I know how some parents view this situation -- that if they hadn't been loving, responsible parents...somehow the state treats parents who are less so better. I know you're not suggesting that it's what this woman, at the end of the day, is suggesting. But most parents take full responsibility for their children. The vast majority of parents I have talked to over the years are eternally grateful that they had the opportunity to raise their children.

Institutional care is not done just because one wishes institutional care to take place for a child. The profound nature of the illness is taken into account, as are what supports are needed, whether the parent in combination with the state can provide those supports at home, and whether there is a greater rate -- I don't want to use the word "success," because that puts a negative connotation on the child in the first place -- of moving the child more into the mainstream community if the person is put in residential care. There are issues of child protection as well, in terms of taking children with mental handicaps into care. So it's not black and white.

I believe, at the end of the day, that parents should be lauded and continue to be encouraged to look after their children with mental handicaps at home, but we are in a situation of a demographic bulge. We'll work very hard to manage those wait-lists. Perhaps we can by consensus agree to manage that issue next year.

V. Anderson: I'd like to stay with the present discussion for just a moment, because it's not only the particular case that my colleague mentions, but I know other cases as well. There are many other cases and many other families in a similar situation.

The issue I feel the minister hasn't responded to -- and perhaps it was just the way she heard it -- is that up until 19 there is a process by which the government and the families cooperate with each other. What seems to be missing is that beyond 19 there does not seem to be a process to work out an agreeable solution. It just seems to be cut off. The minister indicated in her comments that there are a variety of options that the ministry is involved in, in home care and institutional care. But for some of these people it seems that there is no place to go now.

There's no one to sit down with and ask: "What can we arrange together, between government resources in a limited way and our own resources, to come up with a solution?"

The question seems to be: to whom do these parents go to work out a solution which is beneficial to the person particularly, using all our collective resources together? Is it volunteer agencies in cooperation with the government? Is it home care with visitation? To whom do you go to work out a solution, instead of just saying: "I'm sorry, but this person is 19; there's no one to talk to anymore." The question is: who do you go to that can work out a solution in cooperation...? They're not asking for something more; they're saying that they simply can't do it on their own.

Whether it's a couple or an individual, the same issue is there once you hit 19: where do you go? There's help until then; after 19, it seems to be a stalemate. There must be a way to find a way through this.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me correct a misconception: there are services specifically for adults in special programs for people with mental handicaps. The overall program has 212 social workers, a large percentage of whom work with adults. We also have a very good working relationship with the advocacy groups in the community who represent adults with mental handicaps. Believe you me, they are on me all the time. It was as a result of their advocacy that the announced moving of people with mental handicaps out of the GAIN system actually occurred, and I laud them for that.

Yes, there is a great support system in place for adults. Again, that budget increased by $53 million last year to this year -- that's an extra $53 million. Some $9 million of that was to serve additional adults with mental handicaps. Through prediction, we assumed that if we offered them services in 1994- 95, we could budget for them in 1995-96. There is half a year of funding to provide residential and day-program services to children who are in care and will reach age 19 during the year. We have a substantial population-growth budget increase, too. That will be used to serve priority cases on wait-lists.

That means that the increase adds.... Oh, there's more: there's $11.9 million for the continuation of the downsizing of Glendale Lodge and Woodlands; there's $5.7 million for the transfer of Services for Community Living from Health to the Ministry of Social Services; and there's $13.8 million to the agencies that continue to work with us, as you quite rightly pointed out, to provide services and expansion in that sector. The total budget for programs for adults with mental handicaps is $314.8 million. I would suggest that that's the largest percentage of any provincial budget in Canada.

Again I say, however, that there's no question that there are waiting lists. Many people with handicaps are advocating for themselves. They do that with me daily -- vigorously -- and they're pretty hard to set aside when suggesting that they

[ Page 14614 ]

want to be integrated at the age of 19 into the work community, as well. That's one of the reasons that the handicap benefits announcement was made. Again, we must do it in the context that the taxpayer and those unfamiliar with the wonderful services offered may suggest that we cut, cut, cut, without understanding the consequences of that.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that. Perhaps there's a simple question, though. Recognizing that the minister can't deal directly with all of these individuals and sit down and have an appointment with them, to whom would the minister recommend that a person like this could go to and sit down with to see if something can be arrived at? Where does a person like this start? You write a letter to the minister because you haven't found a place to go or somebody to talk with. Where do you recommend that a person like this go, and to whom do they talk concerning these varieties of programs, of which they may not be aware?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are truly a community-based ministry. We would prefer that families have the ability to go into their own community and seek the services or the advice available. In each smallish but urban area, and in many non-urban areas, there is an office for special programs for the mentally handicapped. I would suggest that they start there, but any Social Services office will have the right office to which they should speak.

I am also proud to say that we have an advocate within the ministry for people with mental handicaps. Pat Vickers has a very effective office, and she does exactly what you talk about. She advocates on behalf of people who need assistance through the system. She has an increasingly growing caseload and meets with much success from the point of view of cooperative advocacy.

V. Anderson: Going back to where we were talking about interprovincial relations in new programs -- and it's relevant to the topic we've just had -- with the increase in our population and the changing world in which we live, it seems that we are getting more and not fewer persons with handicaps to be concerned with and to share in the society in which we live. We are getting more not fewer persons with mental handicaps, and we no longer want to shut them out, but to include them in. But as we were talking about earlier, in spite of our job creation programs, we are also getting a realization that....

And people have coined the phrase "jobless recovery." We've talked about the educational change in the Premier's forum, that there are not going to be jobs as we knew them in the past. There has to be a whole new format opening up, and the increase in our welfare rolls should be a sign to us that this jobless recovery is not something in the future, it is something which is now present.

Simply trying to train people for jobs which are not going to be there is not the answer for the future. I'm wondering if the minister has some plans to talk about the kind of society in which jobs, as we have them right now, are not available, because I think that's a fundamental principle that has to be raised. They're not available for people with mental handicaps, they are not available for people with mental illness and they're not available for many with the physical skills that five years ago would have made them employable.

Those kinds of jobs are not there anymore, and we cannot pass this without at least a comment about the interprovincial discussion of how we are working for "the jobless community," because the results of not dealing with that question are coming back on Social Services. If you could comment on that, then we could move on to other areas.

[4:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: One of the factors that we work with as a government, and an economic factor to be considered, is that we don't believe that British Columbia demonstrates a jobless recovery. Sixty-six thousand jobs in the last year.... I'll get those stats and make sure they are accurate. Two-thirds of the new jobs in Canada are created here in British Columbia. So what we have to do is seize the opportunity of a strong job creation economy, work in partnership with the private sector -- a public-private partnership where that makes sense, or merely support a private initiative where that makes sense -- to ensure that we don't fall into a jobless recovery trap.

After we make sure that the economy is stimulated in terms of job creation that a government can assist in as much as possible, that the people who are eligible and get those jobs are distributed in an equitable way that makes the most sense from the standpoint of economic efficiencies.... That is why we have our Skills Now initiative, which is proving to have great success, why we are also looking at the barriers that perhaps single parents face, and expanding our child care initiatives so that people do not face the barrier of child rearing in order to get into the workforce.

Last, we don't say that maybe 20 years ago because of your disabilities you couldn't have worked in the workforce; we say that may have been true then, but now there is all sorts of technology available for people with a multitude of disabilities to actually contribute in the employed workforce. I must say that on the Premier's forum on working and living, the business community has been very receptive towards all of these changes. They themselves have come to the conclusion that a passive support system makes no sense for them at all.

These are the three initiatives that we are concentrating on in the investing-in-people side of our plan, but we also know that we have to invest in our infrastructure, to support and stimulate the economy in partnership so that there are no roadblocks to an expanding economy, and that we have to.... It makes sense in British Columbia to invest in natural resources, which still remain the engine of our economy.

V. Anderson: When the minister is getting those figures -- which I appreciate -- could she provide us with job creation figures that are net or gross? How many jobs have we created? How many jobs have we lost? And what is the balance between those? I've never been able to find somebody who will give me both the net and the gross figures to see what the outcome is. Also, we may need to look at the kind of jobs that we've lost or created. Are they related to the 300,000 who are unemployed on welfare?

What is the direct relationship between the kinds of jobs that are created, or are no longer available, and the increase in welfare? Is there a direct relationship or even an indirect relationship? Is that a pattern that has been shown to us for the future that's ahead of us? I think that's an important item.

When you get the figures, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the relationship between the job recovery or non-recovery and the unemployment, plus the net and the gross number of jobs that we've received. I'll look forward to getting that, and will move on to the next section, hon. minister, which is the freedom-of-information section. Or do you want to reply before I move on?

[ Page 14615 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the opportunity to reply. Well, there is a direct correlation between a booming economy and the caseload in income assistance; however, it's not absolutely overlapping downward, which is unfortunate, and that misleads a lot of people. They assume that if you've got a booming economy with the highest job creation record in Canada that your caseload should fall directly proportionate to that. The good news is that it does fall in proportion, but not in the full amount and not absolutely, for these three reasons.

Really, the biggest caseload drivers in British Columbia today are the changes to the unemployment insurance system. A couple of years ago, just at the end of the 1980s, fully 85 percent of unemployed people collected UI. That is now down to 55 percent of unemployed people. It gives me cause for concern. It really is the Americanization of our unemployment insurance system. In America, you know, in many areas of the country, less than one-quarter are eligible for unemployment insurance. So that is a cost driver. One-third of our starts coming onto the caseload are because they are laid off and are not eligible for unemployment insurance, either ever or yet.

The other effective driver, which is good news in one way and is one we have to prepare for, is in-migration -- not immigration, in-migration -- from other provinces. We talked about labour mobility earlier on and that it should be the Canadian right to travel across Canada to get a job. There were long treks of people doing exactly that in the course of economic history. Now there are 3,000 people per month who come from other provinces in Canada.

They come here and, in the course of one month, need income assistance while in transition to finding a job -- that's 36,000 new starts per year in the income assistance caseload. As we heard earlier, the Canada Assistance Plan supports the right of a person, as long as she meets the eligibility requirements, to collect income assistance in any province, regardless of whether she has lived there one day or one year.

The last area that's a population driver that gives me cause for concern -- and I know you have spoken eloquently to this issue -- is the change in demographics, with more and more single parents coming onto the caseload. I am increasingly becoming harsh in my language to describe non-custodial parents who abandon their children to poverty through lack of income support -- parental support. We have all sorts of programs to change that. We're lobbying very vociferously at the federal level to get changes to that. That is a substantial caseload driver too, but one that I'm very hopeful we'll be able to change in the near future.

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. minister, for your comments; I appreciate those. I think those are the kinds of drivers that we need to look at and be aware of. In the vision we were talking about earlier for a new plan for Canada, those are the principles that we have to take into account and find some way of responding to.

I wanted to move on to freedom of information, which is, again, a transfer of $47