1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8257 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 49: minister's office (continued) –– 8257

Mr. Levi, Ms. Brown, Mr. Gabelmann, Mr. King

Tabling Documents

Commissioner

of Inquiry on British Columbia's Requirements, Supply and Surplus of

Natural Gas Liquids, technical and

summary reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8269

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 49: minister's office, $262,008.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

As we left this subject late yesterday, there was a comment made by the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) with reference to the job

action program. A pattern was taken from the program which we had

looked at in the United States. I wish that the member had been in the

House during the introduction of my estimates, when I reflected on that

program and how successful it had been. I gave the history of the

introduction of that program in our ministry. I'm sure that the member

wouldn't have raised the subject yesterday, and would not have been

querying it in the line of questioning that he did, had he been in the

House. For his edification let me say this: we took a look at the

program, and it was most successful there — one that had been copied

throughout the United States. We think we improved upon the ideal of

it. We did not purchase anything from the United States. We took a good

idea and we think we improved upon it.

You intimated that,

in any of the cases that we have before us in the job action program,

perhaps we would be charged by some mythical somebody in the United

States. I just want to disabuse the member of any suggestion that that

intimation might be go abroad, because that's absolutely untrue. We did

not purchase any program from the States; we initiated our own program

with the input of our ministry staff, which we believe is very much

better. The success of that job action program has been truly quite

remarkable. It is a three-week program that is tremendously positive

and has tremendous results in every area of the province. I think that

was the most important point the member brought up, and I felt it

needed to be spoken on immediately just in case the erroneous

information would go abroad.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I read the minister's remarks about the program very closely in Hansard .

I'm afraid that the program follows the same traditions as the garbage

that was brought in by the previous minister which was called PREP, and

also a program brought in by a former minister, which was called the

Alliance of Businessmen. The thing is that you gave a speech the other

day in which you said that you'd adopted a program which gave people

three weeks training. You said it's been a very successful program, and

you haven't produced one single fact around this program. The only

thing we know is that the program costs $36 million. I asked you

yesterday if you would mind telling us where the money goes. That's

what I'm asking you. We don't want you to get up and make some fatuous

remarks about the program. You haven't produced any figures, and we

don't know what's going on.

Panama Bill is now leaving. My

God, Panama dress is in these days. I feel underdressed. Even the

comptroller is wearing a Panama suit. Where's your Panama hat?

The

important thing is for the minister to tell us some details about the

program. You're spending $35 million to $36 million on this program.

You're giving people three weeks of instruction, probably based on the

old Coué idea of "every day, in every way, I'm feeling better today."

What else does it do? Thirty-six million dollars is a lot of money.

Canada Manpower has such programs. You can get such basic education

programs with that kind of approach from the junior colleges in some of

the night schools.

What does this program actually do? What

has it done? Perhaps the minister would tell us that, because this is

one of these Napoleon Hill type courses. Napoleon Hill was a very

famous individual who used to give you records that you could put under

your bed and play while you were asleep. "I'm great today, and I'll be

even greater tomorrow."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they work?

MR. LEVI: They did not. I tried it, and I finally broke the records.

would like the minister, because she's so enamoured with this program,

to be more forthcoming and tell us where the money goes. What do people

do? It's no good saying that 5,000 people have taken a three-week

course on how to approach the job market when there are no jobs. That's

the very thing that's been tried in this province for almost 20 years.

I don't know why it is that the ministry insists on trying things that

have previously failed. There is no quick fix for this problem. You

give somebody a three-week course, and they do not get a job. What's

the value? Thirty-five million dollars is an enormous amount of money

to spend. That $35 million would be far better spent going towards the

income maintenance part of the budget.

We have not heard

some of the more important details of this program from this minister.

She's not going to convince me that this is anything but a waste of

money. It's a very poor attempt to try to prepare people for the

market. How many? For once let's hear some facts from that government.

That's what I'm asking the minister to produce.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'd be pleased to give you the information. What you are doing is

taking a total in the estimates book and relating it to one program

within rehabilitation or opportunities that we provide for our clients.

Let me try to make it clear for the member, because the member seems to

wish to attribute a total $34.1 million — or over $30 million — to the

one job action program. I don't think even he can possibly believe

that. You know that it's one part of the Individual Opportunity Plan.

It's one selection, if you like. Not everybody who comes into income

assistance will apply for or need the job action program. Not everybody

who comes into income assistance will need upgrading in education. Not

everybody who comes into income assistance is going to need any kind of

intensive work program, such as a welding course or whatever, and not

everyone will need day care. But some of those people will need some

part of that program, while others will — as I said when we introduced

these estimates — without any help at all from the ministry get work on

their own — 50 percent of them, as a matter of fact — and be

independent within three months of coming on income assistance.

[ Page 8258 ]

You say that this is just another make-work program...

MR. LEVI: No, I didn't say that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

...or words to that effect, just another program like others that have

been its forerunners. I beg to differ with you. It is very definitely

not just another program which will not do any good, or has not done

any good, because we have actual cases, actual people, and tremendous

success, particularly in that job action program.

Now the

member asked me yesterday to try to sort out the financial

"Opportunities to Independence" program, and that's what I will call it

overall. The total of the programs in 1981-82 was $30.5 million. If you

wish to compare that with 1982-83, it's $34.1 million today, which is

an increase of 11.8 percent over last year. Those programs, which I

will again label Opportunities to Independence, include: day care,

which in 1981-82 was $22.8 million — in 1982-83 there is an increase of

13.6 percent, to $25.8 million; achievement centres — $6.9 million,

increased to $8 million, an increase of 15.9 percent; work activity

projects — an increase of 2.7 percent, and that's excluding money which

has been transferred to the employment development account, but the

Handicapped Guild was in that amount in 1981-82. So the total for those

people that we serve, trying to get them into a more independent way of

life was 11.8 percent, the overall.

Again to return to the

job action program, it is not the total individual opportunities

program. The individual opportunities program, for which the member

holds the material in his hand right now, is the total selection of

services and rehabilitation for people who need that extra help. Now

people can say we should have people become independent and that the

best life for them would be to have that independence rather than to

live on income assistance or welfare. That's what the program is

designed for.

However, some people need more help than

others to reach that independence, and that's how the program has been

designed. Some people need it because it's the kind of program that

helps people who have lost their confidence to direct their lives in a

different way. Some people, because they have lost their confidence,

don't know how to ask for a job; that's how bad it has become for them.

You can say there aren't any interesting jobs, but the job action

program is exceptionally successful even during a downturn in the

economy. The figures prove that people are going off income assistance

and getting into a work place in spite of the downturn in the economy.

I gave figures on that approximately a month ago.

During the

month of November, 271 income assistance recipients participated in the

job action program in 12 regions. We have conducted 107 job-action

sessions, serving a total of 746 clients — this is going back to that

date. Of these, 87 percent, or 649, have either found employment or

become involved in another aspect of the individual opportunity

program, such as education and training, an incentive program, or

whatever. In other words, we've been able to direct 87 percent of them

either directly to a job or into an area where they will go to a job.

Now that isn't the entire $32 million; it's a small portion of the

$30-odd million that the member wishes to attribute to just the

job-action program. That is again misleading because it isn't so.

want to tell you again that the initiatives taken under that program

are quite startling. I read the reports that come in from the

Kootenays, from the cities of Vancouver and Victoria, from upper

Island. I get letters from people who have been involved in those

programs, and it is absolutely different from anything that has been

done before. Everything that's been done in this province, by our

government before and following — the NDP did the same thing — tried to

put into place programs that tried to connect the client with the job.

In so doing, they asked people in the business sector to please provide

jobs, and, to their credit, people in the private sector were very good

at doing so. But there was a difficulty in doing that, which the

member, with his experience in social work, would understand. You don't

just place people where you can find jobs for them; they have to want

that job, and they have to want to work in that setting. Unfortunately,

the rate of disappointment, if you like, within the private sector in

those people who took positions and then, because of lack of interest

or because they didn't really want to be in those jobs — they wouldn't

show up for work, and this would disappoint the employer who was also

disappointed in the ministry that had employed them to make a job

available.... We had all those disappointments. You had them before us

in the government in which you were the Minister of Human Resources. We

had those disappointments in the previous Social Credit government. It

will happen over and over again when you put people into places....

Although a percentage of them will work out, a very high percentage

will disappoint the employer and themselves. Those people don't need

another disappointment. As it is, they have had disappointments all

their lives. As it is, they come to us with lack of confidence. By the

time we are getting them a job and putting them into a space.... As it

is, they have no self worth. They need to go into something in which

they can feel good about themselves and keep to the job. Over the

years, maybe half the problem in their lives has been that they have

not had that opportunity, or maybe they haven't taken that opportunity.

Whichever it is, that was a fact of life in those programs. This

program is different.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that

throughout the province we have tremendous cooperation with the Canada

employment centres. We have tremendous contact with the employer sector

of the province. But at the end of this program these people get their

own jobs. We do not find those jobs for them. They get the jobs that

they want to be in. At the end of the job action program, when they

have an offer of a job, it's the job they want to be in, so the success

rate is much higher.

Again, I want to tell you that the

tremendous initiatives which have happened through this are exciting.

It happens in every region in the province. I could go through the

regions, but I don't want to take up the time. I want your questions to

be asked, and I'm going to do my best to answer all of them. In every

region of the province this is happening. It is really exciting. I'd

love to give you some case examples. I've got one from Coquitlam which

you'd enjoy hearing about. I hope the member is clear about the

difference in that one section, the job action.... Don't attribute a

$30-odd million program to the job action program. It's not so.

MR. LEVI:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely humbled by that incredible invective

from the minister in respect to my questions. What am I supposed to do?

I'm just a poor little member of the Legislature who picks up your

[ Page

8259 ]

annual report and the estimate book. You are so happy about this program that

you don't even accommodate the members by producing a report about it. Nobody

knows. In the great tradition of the Social Credit job creation program, the

businessmen's alliance, PREP and so on, there's absolutely no information.

She

tells me that I'm wrong in suggesting that $34 million is going towards

an employment opportunities program. If this program is so good,

produce a report. Nobody has ever got a report on PREP or on the

program you're doing. I did a report on the businessmen's alliance, and

chopped it two weeks after we came into government because it was so

nonsensical.

The point is that this is what we've got to

look at with this thing: how could you carry on with a program like

this in the midst of the largest number of unemployed that we've ever

had in the province? Do you think that you can give somebody a

three-week opportunities kind of discussion — talk, talk, go out there,

feel good about yourself, and get a job? Don't come in here and tell us

that. It's a misuse of money to do that kind of thing. We have to look

at the motive behind why you do it. When I was the minister, we didn't

do it that way; we made use of the agencies that were specializing in

it. We went to Canada Manpower and said to them: "Look, we want to do a

program in which we are prepared to discuss with the recipients the

question of moving them to different areas of the province where there

is work. We will work out an arrangement for the travel costs and

everything." We did that in 1973-74, when unemployment was tough. We

also employed people through the department; over 1,000 people gained

employment through that department, on a six-month basis. Out of the

1,000, some 300 people were retained in jobs in service. They got an

exposure to real job experience.

Going back to what the

minister said, this has always been the underlying weakness of the

programs that people have tried to do in respect.... You have never

produced any facts. Don't tell me that there's one person in Coquitlam

who took this program. There are about 1,800 people unemployed there.

Tell us what you're doing. We've never understood what the other guy

was doing with PREP. My god, it was incredible. If you think you've got

to have credibility, produce the facts.

There was time when

I used to do estimates the way you're doing them now. I'd have a deputy

next to me and a crib book. We could answer every question that we were

asked. We have not had any answers with respect to how many people and

how much money the program is costing. Don't tell me that $34 million

is not the total cost of the program. You talked about the handicapped

and their opportunities. Your own Individual Opportunity Plan says

right at the beginning: "The Individual Opportunity Plan is a unique

plan to help British Columbians of working age, through personal

guidance and skill improvement. It is designed to help you get the

skills necessary to become a self-sufficient wage-earner." That's the

program that came up from Orange County in the United States. It's no

different, frankly, than the businessmen's alliance approach. That was

10 or 15 years ago. It's the same thing. The underlying thing is that

you go to the businessmen and say: "Will you cooperate?" They have

enough problems.

Give us some facts. I don't want to go through it with you again, and I

don't want you to get up and say the same things. If you think this is such

a good thing, have one of your staff produce a four- or five-page report with

some stats. Let's look at how many people. That's what we're asking

for. On another page, tell us what it costs. Obviously, it doesn't cost

$34 million, so what does it cost? Just give us the information. It's a

very poor attempt, in my opinion, to do that.

MS. BROWN:

I hope that my hearing is incorrect. Did the minister say that there

were 271 recipients from 12 regions who went on the job action program?

There are 139,000 people in receipt of income assistance in this

province. We have something in the order of 148,000 people looking for

work, and the minister says that the job action program dealt with 271

people in 12 regions, and that of this number some got jobs and some

went on to education. What is she talking about? That is the reason we

haven't got a report. There were 21,538 single males on income

assistance who should have been looking for work in January 1982. In

January 1982 there were 10,183 single females in receipt of income

assistance who should have been looking for work. The job action

program addressed itself to 271 people, and some of those people went

on to further education.

I have an invoice in front of me

that shows that the minister spent something in the neighbourhood of

$48,000 advertising this program on BCTV, on CKVU, on CBUT, on CJDC in

Dawson Creek, and on CKFG and CFTK in Prince George, Kitimat and

Terrace — to put 271 people on a program. Then she tells us that there

was an 85 percent success because some of them found jobs and others

went on to education. I know that that's not the total Individual

Opportunity Plan.

I want the minister to give us some

figures. I'm not asking for any editorializing; I want figures. If the

deputy minister is listening, maybe he could make a note of this too.

In her opening remarks, the minister stated that the individual

opportunities program went from areas where there was 100 percent

success to areas where there was 70 percent success. What figures are

we talking about? A hundred percent of how many people? Two people? A

thousand people? A hundred thousand people? How many people actually

went onto the Individual Opportunity Plan in 1981? How many people?

Figures, not editorializing. Of that number, how many people secured

permanent jobs? Not casual jobs; permanent jobs. How many of those jobs

were full-time jobs, not part-time jobs? How many of those jobs paid

more than the minimum wage?

I'm going to go over those

questions again because I want to get very accurate figures. How many

persons used or were referred to the Individual Opportunity Plan in

1981? How many of those people actually secured permanent jobs? How

many of those jobs were full-time jobs? How many of those jobs paid

more than the minimum wage? For both the Individual Opportunity Plan

and the job action program, what is the average income recipients

receive when they secure a job, either through the Individual

Opportunity Plan or through the job action program? If the minister

doesn't have the figures, that's fine. I am willing to wait a couple of

minutes or half an hour or so until I can get those figures. This

business of 271 welfare recipients in 12 regions using the program, 659

of whom either went on to education or found employment.... I'd like

that figure broken down. How many of those 659.... Well, that doesn't

even make sense, because she went on to talk about surveying 746

people. However, how many of the people on the job action program

secured permanent, full-time jobs, and what was the average wage earned

by those people?

[ Page 8260 ]

Is the minister...?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll take other questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye!

MR. LEVI:

Who said that? This is the most important ministry in the government.

The most unimportant one, apparently, is the Ministry of Lands, Parks

and Housing.

Now I want to talk to the minister. I want to

give a case example without mentioning any names, and I want her to

tell me what exactly is happening in her ministry. I'm talking now

about how it delivers service, and I'm talking about what I

characterize as the feeding trough that appears to be existing in the

delivery of Human Resources services

I have a case that I'm

dealing with through my constituency office. It's a case which is not

completed yet, so I'm not certain about coming to the minister, because

I want to see what goes on at the end. One of the things that horrifies

me about the case — I'm not dealing with the details — is how many

people have been involved in it: seven lawyers, four judges, two

psychiatrists and between 12 and 15 social workers. This is a case

right in the department. One of the, reasons I've raised this is that

when I talk to people in the department, and I don't see them that

often nowadays.... We attempted when we were in government to do

something about the delivery of service and we created what we called a

team approach. We eliminated what I thought for 20 years had been

necessary to eliminate, the whole role of supervisors, and we did it on

a team basis so that a case would not be spread over 10 or 12 people,

but rather could be dealt with very closely by one or two workers.

Now

what's happening in your department, particularly where there are

family matters involved, is that it's become a feeding trough for the

legal profession. You have a case in which there is a lawyer involved

because it may be a case of a separation, then you have a lawyer for

the child, then from time to time regional managers appear to find the

need to have their interests represented, then you've got to call in a

psychiatrist, then you have to go to court, not once but twice, and so

on. Now what has happened, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, is that in your

ministry they've got into a system where everybody is feeding off the

taxpayer's dollar and the immediate presenting problem, as we used to

call it in the business, is incidental to what's going on. All sorts of

professionals are getting paid for doing things and the basic problem,

which invariably involves children, is not being addressed. It has

become an incredibly large bureaucracy. Now what has happened in that

kind of thing? It's extremely costly to deal with a case, and that's

wrong.

That's a fundamental problem that you have in your

department; it has to be addressed. If you have a problem which

involves the child, then you address the child. My colleague the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has already gone over with you — not

once, but in question period time and time again — the problems in

relation to the legal system in child protection. But what goes on in

the ministry is something that bears examining, because the taxpayer is

paying twice and three times what's necessary to deal with a particular

problem. That's the sad part of it: it's become part of that enormous

feeding trough the professionals are feeding on.

A very

serious problem exists where cases are prolonged. Why does it take so

long to deal with a problem? It takes so long to deal with a problem

because there are too many darned professionals involved, and each one

has got an opinion, and eventually that's going to completely submerge

the ministry in costs that it's never going to be able to meet. That's

part of a very serious problem, and your ministry is caught up in this.

Of course the issue of unemployment is important, but I'm telling you

that the fundamental operation of your ministry is going to collapse

under the sheer weight of costs of this continuing employment of

professionals dealing with simple basic cases which do not have to be

dealt with in that way. It's become an incredibly complicated and

expensive problem. That's what has to be addressed.

Ten

years go we attempted to address that by doing a decentralization of

the administration, a team approach and the removal of certain people

who are not necessary to the system. That was in the Human Resources

ministry. But you now have all sorts of appendages. You've got to

liaise with this department, liaise with that department; every time

you liaise with a department it costs you money.

We have had

a continuing debate in this House, Mr. Chairman, about exactly who is

going to be responsible for children. I want to deal with that matter

for a moment. It's my contention that one minister in the government

should be told: "You are responsible for whatever happens to children.

You deal with the services." I'm not saying that I don't want the

minister to set up an interministerial committee on children such as

they have now. I'm talking about one minister responsible for the needs

of children who will then go to the various departments in government

and purchase the services that those children need and not have to

continually sit down in interministerial committees while each

department of government argues its own philosophical and policy point

of view. One minister making the policy and purchasing the service —

that's the only way it can be done. It cannot be done with four or five

ministries sitting down, carving up the child and trying to get

agreement. That's what's happening today, and it's very costly.

Somebody has got to assume the responsibility over there — a minister.

If you want to call him the minister of children, fine. The main thing

is, let's stop this continuing nonsense that somehow four or five

departments of government can actually agree on how to administer the

best policies for children. It's impossible; there are too many vested

interests in each ministry.

One minister should be vested

with the power of delivering the service, simply going to other

ministries and saying: "We wish this kind of service for that child. We

don't want any philosophical and policy arguments; we are carrying out

the policy, you provide the service." If they can't provide the

service, go somewhere else. That's exactly the approach we took with

private agencies. I as the minister — and we dealt with children — went

to the service and said: "This is the kind of program that we dealt

with." The very man who coined the phrase is sitting right next to you.

He said we didn’t want to take a child to an agency and have the agency

say to us: "Well, we can't deal with that child." What we said to them

was: "Look, this is the child, this is the problem, you come up with a

program." That, Madam Minister, is the way you've got to approach this

job. We had those kinds of problems when we were government; we're

still discussing them. Somebody has got to take a stand: one minister

for the responsibility of children, every other ministry understanding

that that minister will be able to purchase services in a way that they

need, without all the arguments.

[ Page

8261 ]

There are two issues that I have raised. The first one related to

the enormous overburden of staffing in terms of cases. It's a very

serious problem. If you think you've got some financial problems now,

you're going to have a lot more down the road if that doesn't cease.

You cannot have 10 or 12 people working on one case; it's crazy, it's

too expensive and it does not solve the problem. I know of two or three

cases, and there are literally hundreds of cases like that. Somehow we

have to have an understanding from the minister of the philosophy of

delivering service without all of this leaning over constantly to the

idea that the professionals have to have a say in everything.

also have got into an obsessive feeling about the legal rights of

children — fine. Now we've got the legal rights of the regional

managers, the parents — everybody is covering himself in terms of legal

rights, at the cost of the taxpayers. You may have a case involving a

child, perhaps a child-abuse case, in which there is an enormous amount

of legal work, not for just one lawyer but for three or four.

Everybody's got to have a lawyer and it's all off the taxpayer. What's

going on? What does it do to the problem? I don't know if the minister

is aware of this very serious problem. It's there in the ministry, and

it's extremely costly. It's a very serious tragedy. I would like her to

address whether or not she is aware of that kind of phenomenon. It does

nothing to deliver the service they need, and we're dealing primarily

with children in some of these cases.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me go back to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown); then I'll answer those that have been raised.

You

ask for reports on the Individual Opportunity Plan and the job action

program. They are both rather new. Job action is incorporated in the

Individual Opportunity Plan, but the expressions are both new. I think

the Individual Opportunity Plan was initiated about 18 months ago, and

the job action program started four or five months after that. Both

members who have spoken on that particular subject asked for figures

and reports on the kind of success we are having. There is no need for

you to take my word that it is successful; you can tell it is by going

into the communities. That's a very good gauge. You have only to talk

to members of our staff, which I know you do often. I do want you to

know that we will be putting out a report which, with the experience we

now have, can be put into a compilation that will be of some help to

you in breaking it out of some of the other programs. For example, the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) mentioned the incentive

program. It still goes on. It's part of the Individual Opportunity

Plan. For some people it's the answer and becomes part of their

individual opportunity agreement.

To respond to that, yes, we will have a report, and would be pleased to make that available.

well, I want to caution you in the use of the figures on income

assistance. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds cited a figure of 122,000

dependants, but some of those are children who are not going to be

working. So when we're talking about people becoming independent, try

to keep it to heads of families or single parents, which is in the

65,000 area.

You mentioned that you are curious about the 100 percent program. That program

is a very interesting one which is taking place in Vancouver. It's only

available to single parents. It's specifically designed for single parents,

for women with children. You asked for figures, and I'll try to get those

for you. Don't take the 271 figure of the job action program itself, which

was a November report. That represented the 87 percent figure of those who had

been placed in job action and become independent; don't take that as the

overall Individual Opportunity Plan. Again, you can't compare oranges and

apples. You can't isolate that.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

It's difficult when you don't have something written in front of you,

and I appreciate that. A report which goes back to January of this year

isolates 8,076 persons. In the incentive program there are 1,096; in

education and training, 2,369; in the youth employment program, 102; in

the job action program, 271 completed; work activity — and only six in

the province during the month of November — 177; Individual Opportunity

Plan, 2,816; job search assistance, 1,245. If I can get more detailed

figures for you I will, but let me just assure you that we will have a

report which will give it clearly.

The most exciting reports

I can give you are actual success stories, case studies, and they are

simply tremendous. Example: a single mother in her late twenties, with

children aged 8 and 10, minimal education, limited work experience in

waitressing. She'd been on and off income assistance for the last eight

years. They did their intensive session of counselling.

Let

me suggest this to the members, because both members who have been on

their feet this morning have had experience in social work. They have

to admit that over the years there has been a great deal of

cheque-taking and a lack of counselling, because there have not been

the kind of responsibilities — the checks and balances built in that

there are now through the Individual Opportunity Plan.... The singles

have to come back every month for re-evaluation, and the families have

to come in three times a year. The counselling is implicit, it has to

be there, and it is done. We are having that face-to-face counselling

and help for those people. I think that if nothing else were done in

the program, that would be an exciting thing. We are there to give them

help. We don't allow people to drift into a never-never kind of

existence where nobody cares. We are caring, and they come in and talk

to a rehabilitation officer, financial assistance worker or a social

worker about their problems. We can work with them on a one-to-one

basis.

Again, to get back to this one case of the single

mother in her late twenties, the key decision was that this girl would

enrol in the September clerical course at PVI. Furthermore, she would

do so under the Ministry of Human Resources sponsorship, rather than

waiting her turn on the lengthy Manpower sponsorship list. By the

following April Susan had finished her course and found permanent

employment. She's doing clerical work on the staff of a lower mainland

school. She's supporting herself and her children, and she is delighted

with her new life.

You ask about salaries. I can get actual

figures, and if I go through some of these cases I can pick out some of

them. May I say that there isn't any of them you could analyze who

wouldn't be making more than they would on welfare. I know that the

member will want to make the point: well, if they only make a few

dollars more, why not stay on welfare? You see, that's the whole point

of the plan.

MS. BROWN: Don't put words in my mouth.

[ Page 8262 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'll be very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to hear the member deny that kind

of philosophy, because it is the kind of philosophy she's been stating

on many occasions during my estimates.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

we look at a 45-year old who's married with three children and who has

been on income assistance for three years, he's working at a private

recycling firm and he's working at $5 per hour. If you want, I can give

you other kinds of examples, but you don't seem to be too interested in

the success-story example.

Let me go on responding to the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) regarding the delivery of

services. First of all, you seem to be highly critical of the

ministry's deployment of services, or the use of services, suggesting

that there are too many people working on a case, or suggesting some

lack of responsibility on our

part in that regard. Let me tell you that

direct community services — that's the field operation, and this

includes building rentals — represented about 10 percent of the budget

last year. The central administration represented 2.2 percent of the

total budget. That figure can be found on page 10 of the annual report.

I'd particularly like to address the one area that you seem to zero in

on, and that happens to be in legal services. We should give a great

deal of credit to our Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) because that

is where our legal services come from. He recognized that the legal

services area of his administration needed limits set, needed to have

limits as to the amount of fees that could be paid, and that has been

addressed. It's interesting that you should stand in my ministry's

estimates and advocate the saving of legal fees when your colleague for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has been saying the exact opposite earlier

in my estimates, and to the Attorney-General. She's saying that there

is not enough being spent for legal services for children and families.

It's incredible. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Member. I am just

suggesting that you two should get together. You're advocating making

limits. Limits have been set. When the Attorney-General's ministry

estimates come up, I'm sure you'll get up and applaud him for that,

because that's what you're advocating here.

I also want to

caution you in terms of the number of people involved in these cases.

You mentioned one in particular. I think I know the particular case you

meant, and it is a unique case. You will have to appreciate that that

is not one that is repeated time and time again. I think I know the one

you're speaking of.

MR. LEVI: It's not the same case.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Okay. At any rate, it is the court that calls for expert and

professional witnesses. The judges call for psychiatric reports, and

the courts call for psychological assessments. So our control over

that, in terms of expenditures, is very much in the hands of the court.

I would say that if I were to make a judgment on behalf of the

taxpayers of the province as to whether or not that is or isn't needed,

I think the taxpayers of the province would probably uphold any

expenditure in terms of services to children in a court situation. What

you're really talking about is advocates in those sensitive types of

cases where families are apart and children are in trouble. If you're

advocating savings in that, we have to be responsible, yes, but, quite

frankly, if there is a need for that, our ministry will provide it.

MR. LEVI:

We've got a problem here. Unfortunately it's very difficult for me to

talk about this whole subject without going back on some 18 years of

experience that I had in the field. So I talk about something that I

know about, plus the fact that when we were in government, we

administered the department. We can have a candid discussion here and

we don't have to get chippy about the fact that you say my colleague

and I are apart; we're not. We're basically talking about the same

thing, but the minister fails to understand it. Nobody's talking about

taking away services. I'm telling you that a lot of the services being

delivered are not necessary. That's the judgment you've got to make.

Nobody's

going to tell me that we need five, six or seven lawyers on one case. I

don't care if judges ask for it; it's taxpayers' money. That's the

important thing that you have to understand about what's going on here.

The whole thing is out of your hands, partly because of this nonsense

of spreading children through a number of ministries, particularly with

the Attorney-General's ministry. We made our remarks under another

debate in this House recently with respect to the Attorney-General.

I'm

not happy with some of the things that are going on there, but what

we're doing is addressing how much money is being spent. In your

estimate book you have an item "salaries" for $113 million. Then you

have another item "professional and special services" for $110 million.

That's in the estimate book. I know where that $110 million is going.

You have to ask yourself if it is effective. You have to have a louder

voice in the business. There's constant screaming from the courts that

somehow you've got to get more of this and more of that because the

judge says so. The difficulty in presenting any kind of idea about a

case is that it's more complicated when more people are involved. It's

become a game, and that's the tragedy. Everybody is covering themselves

at an incredible cost to the taxpayer. What we completely lose sight

of, is the case — the child or the parents. That's the important thing.

want to go on to something else. The minister was talking before about

service. Twenty years ago there was an exceptionally good project done

by a woman called Audrey Selander. She's now dead. She was a very fine

woman who did a project in Vancouver in an attempt to look at the

delivery of service. It was called the area development program and was

done in the early sixties. They put together a team of people and

attempted to examine how you deliver services to people. That was why

it was a highly successful project that led to what was called the

"Vancouver East Prototype." It was a project that took place in 1971-72.

How

do you deliver services to people? Do you know what came out of those

two very fine experiments? One thing was that you don't tie money to

service. You don't get trapped into the idea that because you're giving

people money, somehow you've got to flog them social services at the

same time. That's not what it's all about. You have gone right back to

that whole philosophy that was rejected some 15 years ago. There's some

suggestion that because people are having a hard time, particularly in

these economic times.... It has nothing to do with their psyche or

their ability to work if there are jobs. They don't need "you can have

this if you'll take this kind of service." That's not the way services

are to be delivered.

[ Page 8263 ]

What's happened

is that you've become caught up in the same philosophy that your

predecessor had. He decided to go out and belt and kick around the poor

and the welfare recipients. He used to refer to them in Surrey as

"welfare bums." Then, somehow, there was going to be an incredible

watch on people who applied for welfare. You've inherited that, and

you're still feeding into that kind of thing. We know that people are

basically honest and forthcoming and will do the right thing. It

happens to be a nice, political centrepiece that everybody can attack.

You're feeding into the same garbage that he started some years ago

when he became the minister.

Don't connect services that

you're selling with the need for people to have income. It's completely

wrong. It was rejected. When it was not being practised that way there

was, first of all, some dignity attached to it.

You know,

this ties in with the minister's thinking about her new program for

maintenance and catching husbands who don't pay. Two or three weeks ago

we had a long debate about this. We reminded the Attorney-General that

he was being trapped by people who develop complicated systems — that

somehow under that system you're going to retrieve money. It's a

one-for-five thing: if you want to get a buck you're going to spend

five. That's what you wind up spending.

The minister's

program, which she's getting involved in and becoming obsessed with,

is, again, part of her predecessor's psychology: "We're doing this

program because those people are ripping us off, and we're going to go

after them." That's the rhetoric that's been going on here for seven

years. You're feeding into the same kind of reaction to that rhetoric,

and it's wrong.

We debated the validity of looking at

alternative ways of collecting this money which were less costly and

more realistic. If somebody is working, then they can pay; so you go to

the income tax. If they're not working, you're not going to get the

money. That's what it's all about. You don't need complicated systems.

You don't need a team of lawyers to tell you how to chase these people,

with costly appearances in court and sheriffs running around serving

subpoenas, For what? For the one-to-five. The government wants to

collect a dollar, so they're prepared to spend five to do it. That's

what is not rational in what you're talking about in terms of your

project. It's all tied in to that reactionary predecessor of yours, who

has now twisted the whole direction of social services in this province

to the business of: "We're going to catch the offenders. And if the

services have to suffer, then that's too bad." Well, you want to get

out of that. Don't get trapped in the idea that somebody in the

Attorney-General's ministry or even in your ministry is going to sell

you a mechanism whereby you're going to be able to collect maintenance.

It's not going to work. If at the end of four or five years you're

going to tell me that it's successful, and we find out that it doesn't

cost $5 to collect $1, but $10.... If you think that's successful,

I say to you that it's not. It's a terrible waste of scarce resources.

But

it's partly political, isn't it? When you go after the husbands who

won't pay maintenance, it makes you look good to the people out there.

"Oh, they're going after the husbands." It's a story that we've heard

in this province for 25 years. It's never worked in the United States,

where they spent a lot of money researching this kind of thing. It

doesn't work. What you're doing is creating a big feeding trough again.

It's a waste of scarce resources. It's all built into the kind of

reactionary psychology towards the whole human resources field. That's

the tragedy of it.

When we talk to you about the idea that

people on welfare want to work, please don't set up a whole new set of

machinery, when taxpayers' dollars are going into the machinery of

Canada Manpower and all that. We know it doesn't work that well, but

the answer isn't for you to substitute for it, and certainly not in the

middle of the worst unemployment crisis we've had. To stand up and, in

attempting to answer my colleague, come out with some of the most

fatuous remarks about what is successful.... She tells us that

there is one person in Coquitlam, but I couldn't stand to hear it,

because some 68,000 people live there. More than 35,000 work there, and

1,800 are directly unemployed at the moment in respect to the forest

industry, and she's talking about one case. Don't get trapped in this

kind of thing.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair]

You

have a big budget; it's $800 million. In 1972 that budget was $140

million. When I left in 1975 it was $516 million, and I think they

spent about $480 million. The budget has doubled in the space of six

years. When we look at the caseload figures, they are up. The staff

figures are up. The effectiveness of service is what is being

questioned here — the minister's penchant for running into new

quick-fix ideas.

There aren't any quick-fix ideas with

people. The main thing is that the people with whom you deal in the

system are primarily those who have serious problems because they don't

have enough money. The answer to that is not spend almost $400 million.

That's half the existing budget; $400 million goes to income

maintenance and $400 million goes to something else. My gosh, for every

buck you want to give out you've got to spend a buck. It's crazy. You

don't get the money to the people who need it. So you come up with all

sorts of systems. One system is going to train people to think

positively about employment, in the midst of a time when people who

have worked for 30 years without a break can't even get a job. There's

something wrong with that kind of psychology. It's wrong. That's not

leadership; it's a reaction to the worst aspects of our society,

unfortunately. At this particular time it may suit the minister's

purposes to talk this way because people out there are having a rough

time, and they are looking to look down on somebody. That doesn't do

anything for the delivery of services in the ministry.

Nobody

is questioning the idea that there should be adequate legal services.

We have never said that. What I'm saying to you is that where you need

one person to work on a case you've got eight or nine. That's what has

happened to your department. That's what you're trapped with. It's

dangerous, because it's going to sink under the weight of that kind of

approach. That's what I'm talking to you about. It's basic to the way

that the department runs. The minister doesn't understand it.

MR. GABELMANN:

I'm not going to be very long this morning, and I intend to change the

pace a little bit from the macro issues to some to the more micro

issues. Before I do so I just want to make one or two general comments.

The

first is that I regret very much that Human Resources continues to be

the most politicized activity of the government in an area that should

be the least politicized. That terrible trend began with Phil Gaglardi,

was continued by the

[ Page 8264 ]

current

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and has not

stopped under the present minister. I think that that's a great

tragedy. Earlier in the session I made a comment to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) that I felt that in a different

but a comparable area of government service, the area of probation

within corrections, the government has managed to have a

non-politicized, very effective delivery of service. That level of

service is being provided by workers in the field in the Ministry of

Human Resources as well, but in a very different way. I don't know

about other MLAs, but I know that as one MLA I can walk into a

probation office anywhere in this province and not have the sense that

the workers feel that it better not happen that the minister or their

immediate superior or their regional manager or someone else find out

about it. They don't mind that I walk in there, but I tell you that

every back in the office goes stiff when I walk into a Ministry of

Human Resources office. People who work for that minister are the most

intimidated group of public-sector workers in this province. It's

because she has continued the Phil Gaglardi tradition of making it into

a political ministry rather than into a service, rather than into a

helping ministry. The government's whole approach to Human Resources is

that it is an opportunity to create votes for itself by dumping on poor

people, and they do it. I don't mind so much the minister doing it

herself, because that's a political decision, but what bugs me and

makes me angry about it is that she involves the workers in that

process too.

Workers are even afraid to have a telephone

call from their MLA. That doesn't happen in Fish and Wildlife; that

doesn't happen in probation; that doesn't happen in Highways; that

doesn't happen in Forests. I can walk into the regional Forests office

and people are glad to see me. They shake in their boots when I walk

into a MHR office because they're afraid that the minister might find

out that they've been talking to the other political party. That's an

abominable situation. It's not the workers' fault; it's the fault of a

government that has decided to make this aspect of government service a

political issue. I think that it is reprehensible. Despite all the

minister's nice talk and pretty stories about one person here and one

person there, the reality is that there is an overview and that there

is a collective vision and a collective impression, and it's very, very

different from the individual stories she trots out ad nauseam. I'm

appalled by it.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get into the

details of the one particular case, but I happen to be involved

indirectly in an apprehension case — following up on what the member

from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the member from

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) have been talking about. His a case

where there are five lawyers involved in one apprehension case. I don't

know whether it isn't time, as we've done in labour relations, to get

the whole legal system completely out of the business in the case of

children. Quite frankly, they screw it up, and I just think that the

best interests of the children are not being served by making it into

such a highly legal situation. In that same case, the worker involved

said that she felt that one of these days she might be charged with

child neglect because she was never home to look after her own children

because the demands of her job were such that she was working 12 and 14

hours a day. The day that I talked to her about the case was the third

day into her holiday, and she still hadn't been able to leave because

of the pressures of work in that ministry, the way in which it's

organized and the priorities they have.

I'm not going to say

more about that now. I just want to say that in no other ministry

estimate debate do I feel as angry about what the government has chosen

to do in exploiting a group of people. The Phil Gaglardi tradition is

being carried on very well by this minister; he couldn't do it as well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

want to talk about three specific programs. Two are in the ministry and

one is not, but I want to talk about it as well. The first is the

CHANCE program. The minister said yesterday that the interministerial

report on severely disabled children would not be released because the

report that hasn't been released isn't the report — words to that

effect. I assume there is going to be some rewriting of that report by

cabinet before it's reissued. I hope that in that rewriting the

recommendation of the committee to put CHANCE into Education and take

it out of MHR is followed through with; I hope that the recommendations

of the committee that prepared this report are followed.

The

CHANCE program is a good program, and I want to make that very clear.

The CHANCE program in the school district of Vancouver Island North has

been a boon to those communities. People have nothing but praise for

the program, and I can't do anything but echo that. But it's an

education function. When you're dealing with a severely disabled child

to help that child to dress or to be more ambulatory, that's teaching;

that's learning. It should be considered part of the Education

ministry. I said that to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) in

his estimates, and I'm pleased to know that he agrees. I hope the

minister agrees with him and with me and with the committee that she's

charged with making a report on that.

There is going to be a

meeting on the 21st of this month, in four days, between Education in

the Vancouver Island North region, the Duncan region, between MHR,

Education, various special-ed coordinators and what not, to discuss the

further implementation and possible reduction of the CHANCE program in

various parts of the region. I just hope that when those discussions

take place the minister makes certain that unless the grant money is

replaced by Education, it not be taken away by MHR in the Vancouver

Island North School District. Those 11 positions are vital.

agree with people on her staff who tell me that the CHANCE program may

be a more tightly defined program than it's being used for at the

present time. What I'm trying to say is that the

definitions for

eligibility are tougher than the current operation of that program, and

that's true in terms of the original

definitions of the program. But

when you're talking about blind kids and kids with Down's syndrome,

when you're talking about kids who are severely disabled but don't need

the strict criteria, those kids still need the kind of

special-attendant help that the CHANCE program provides.

happen to think it should be in Education, but in the process of making

that change, which I hope is coming, I hope that the program isn't

eliminated where it's doing some very good work at the present time.

That school district up there is talking about firing 41 special-ed

workers at the end of this month and replacing them possibly with up to

18. That's going to be a severe problem for children in the part of

this province. I won't say anything more about CHANCE other than that I

would welcome the minister's comments about it and be pleased to learn

that she agrees with her colleague the Minister of Education.

[ Page 8265 ]

The

interministerial report also discussed the infant development program,

and that's another program that I think should be moved out of MHR and

into Health. In that sense I agree with the recommendations of the

committee, and I hope that that's what the revised version of this

report is going to recommend when it is finally released, I hope soon.

I hope the minister will indicate her support to that too.

talking about infant development I want very briefly to go through a

really bizarre story in the Vancouver Island North area. I go back to

last year. The Mount Waddington family services society in that area

made a proposal to establish an infant development program. There was

virtually a year's worth of negotiations attempting to establish the

program. There was some quarrel over how much money the ministry was

prepared to pay. The ministry refused to recognize pay scales in that

area. It was determined that they wouldn't pay the kind of money that

other workers pay in that area. There were threats and what not during

the negotiations that if Vancouver Island North didn't take the $31,000

or $32,000 that the ministry was prepared to pay, instead of the

$38,000 that they wanted, all the money would go to Nanaimo or

somewhere else. These were the kinds of things that were being said

during the negotiations. There was less concern about the need for an

infant development program up there than there was about a stupid set

of negotiations.

I'm not going to go through all the details

of those negotiations, but near the end of them, the region proposed a

perhaps unique solution to the problem. The society in that area said:

"We'll take the $31,000 that the ministry is offering, but we'll run a

ten-month programme" — in the summer in that kind of an area there's

less need for the program in any event, because a lot of people leave

with fire season in the woods, etc. — "and we'll then be able to pay

the infant development worker the same level that other people in that

profession receive up there." The ministry said no to that, and then

made no further communication to the family services society.

Then,

on about January 10 or January 11, 1982 — I'm not sure of the dates — I

found, on my desk, a press release in my mail, issued by the MHR,

regarding new infant development programs in Port Hardy. It said: "For

further information, contact Rick Quibell in Duncan. The press release

basically said: "The minister announced approval of funds totalling

$12,250 to enable the Comox Child Development Association to offer the

program to several children in the Port Hardy area who are requiring

consistent skilled help...." My immediate reaction was to call

the society. They hadn't been contacted. This press release had been in

my office for a few days before I got to it, so there had been plenty

of opportunity for the ministry to talk to the society and say: "We

have turned down your proposal. We are not going to allow you to run

the program. We've given it, instead, to an outside group some three

and a half or four hours driving time away."

I was surprised

that the press release or notification hadn't gone to the society. I

called them, and it was all news to them. I thought that maybe press

releases only went to newspapers, so I called the newspaper in Port

Hardy. They'd never heard anything about it, so I read them the press

release. They then reported the story on the front page. Two issues

later there was another headline saying: "Infant Program to Get

$31,000." The minister has reacted to my comment about a $12,250 grant

being granted to a Comox group to provide infant development in North

Island. She criticizes me for having false information, when all I'm

doing is reading her press release which announces $12,250.

The

society that is in the program also publicly criticizes her for two

things: one is the amount, but secondly and more importantly, they're

taking the service out of the region and down to another part of the

Island, which further hampers the ability of that family services

society to provide a full range of service, because it means they have

less income to provide for themselves. At the same time, or earlier,

the homemaker program had been cut back. Their ability to function as

an organization in that community is virtually on thin ice. If they

can't administer programs locally, they don't have any reason to exist.

To take that society and virtually say, "We don't want you in existence

up here anymore," is really pretty scandalous.

What

concerns me is that the minister attacked the chairman of this society

and me in the paper for reading to the paper her press release which

says: "Funds totalling $12,250...." In great, high anger, she

phoned the paper — or had somebody phone the paper and say that it's

$31,000. The society still hasn't been told. They still don't know,

except through me and the paper, that the infant development program

for the Port Hardy–Port McNeill–North Island area is going to be run

out of Comox — by a good group, incidentally. There's no problem with

the Comox group. They're doing a good job down there.

MR. LEVI: They'll spend more on travelling time.

MR. GABELMANN: It's ridiculous. I'm not going to say much more about it.

When

you have people in the community who are prepared to volunteer their

time.... These are professional people who work in some other

helping ministries and people who are involved in church groups. The

chairman of the board happened to be a minister. There are people who

are prepared to give of their spare and extra time. In a region like

that it means a lot of travelling — sometimes going as far as two hours

away from home to go to a meeting. They then find that their

recommendations and application to provide an infant development

program, which is desperately needed in that area, are totally

stonewalled by the ministry. Then the grant is given to somebody from

halfway down the Island, and the local people aren't even told, much

less consulted about it. That's another example of the kind of thing

the ministry does that makes people pretty cynical not only about the

ministry and its programs but about the minister herself. I could go on

for an hour about this particular case, but I'm not going to. I've made

the essential point I want to make. I'm still angry about it, and

particularly angry that the minister would attack me and the chairman

of this society for reading her press release to the newspaper.

There's

another thing about this press release. I went to the library this

morning to get another copy of it as my file copy was presumably in my

riding office. They didn't have it. There was no copy of this press

release there. I checked with our research office, which gets copies of

all press releases from government ministries. They never received this

press release. The newspaper in Port Hardy never received the press

release. I got the press release, but I don't know who else got it. I

don't understand why a ministry would issue a press release about a

Port Hardy program and not send it to the Port Hardy newspaper. It's

absolutely bizarre.

[ Page 8266 ]

final issue — and I'm taking more time than I'd planned to — is an

entirely different kind of issue. There is a group in Campbell River

called the Sexual Abuse Victims Anonymous — SAVA. It's a very difficult

area. We're talking about sexual child abuse primarily by parents or

relatives. A group of people spearheaded by one person in particular, a

woman named Linda Halliday in Campbell River, decided that they were

going to try to make this issue a public one. They initially met

immense resistance from the community, because nobody wants to talk

about sexual abuse of children by relatives. The statistics demonstrate

that one out of four females will be sexually assaulted before they're

18; one out of every ten males will be sexually assaulted before 18; 99

percent of the offenders are male; 93 percent of the victims are

female; and 75 percent of offenders are known to the child or the

child's family before the assault. It's a pretty difficult area for

people to face up to because it touches a lot of people's lives. This

woman had a lot of courage and a lot of guts, quite frankly, and she

decided to go public with it, having had a lifetime of experience with

this particular situation. She developed a little group to help her in

promoting community attitudes on the issue so that more could be done

to assist the people involved, kids who have been affected, and also to

attempt to heighten community attitudes so that this kind of abuse is

reduced in the future.

I want to make one more comment

before I make a request to the minister. It is amazing to see the

response develop in the community of Campbell River. Initially, when

Linda Halliday would go to meetings of the Rotary or to other groups in

the community to talk about it, she was met with fear, a great deal of

nervousness, and almost a kind of tittering response. They didn't want

to hear from her. It's got to the point now where that whole community

is talking about it publicly and welcomes the discussion. The RCMP is

involved, the court systems are involved; and everybody is involved in

talking publicly about sexual abuse of children. It is one of the best

things that I've seen happen in that community in the last couple of

years. It's just been a really good thing. But the problem is, the

group is going to go under. It's funded by this woman, who happens to

have three jobs as well as organizing this group. She spends all of her

own money travelling to speak, and printing leaflets like this one. She

and a small group of other people have been spending their own money.

They have made an appeal to the ministry for funding. I've written a

recent letter to the minister, indicating my support for the request by

the chairman of SAVA.

I'm not critical of the ministry about

this, because there hasn't been time for the ministry to develop a

policy or to respond. A reasonable period of time has yet to elapse

before I could be fairly critical about the lack of response. I think

this kind of program is essential. Again, it's a group of people in the

community who are giving up a lot of their own time and money. It's in

an area where the government has a responsibility, because we will be

saving taxpayers' money over the years if we manage to reduce the

incidence of child sexual abuse. For a few dollars of public tax money

expended in assisting a group like this, we will reap many more

dollars' worth of time and effort from people who are concerned about

the issue. So I urge that the minister respond to the letter from Mr.

George Piercy, chairman of the group, and to my letter, and ask that

she seriously consider some financial assistance for the group. I

wouldn't expect her to make a commitment immediately on the floor of

the House. I hope that she would have some of her people sit down and

talk to be board of directors of SAVA and work out the best way in

which assistance could be provided; but assistance should be provided.

MR. KING:

I have a few small matters to raise. I want to comment on my

colleague's representation, particularly on behalf of the group called

SAVA.

I think it was yesterday that I watched a portion of a

television program relating to this very matter on the "Donahue" show

from the United States. Quite frankly, I was shocked and amazed at the

number of people who experience sexual abuse and molestation, in a high

number of cases by parents, and certainly by people, as my colleague

suggests, who are known to them. I think one of the things that happens

when there is a heightened public awareness is that some of the very

deep and profound psychological scars visited upon the young victims of

this type of thing, which last throughout their lifetime, can be eased

and unburdened somewhat with a sharing of experiences in public

discussion about the motivation involved and the problems of the people

who do this kind of thing, because obviously they have some very

deep-rooted psychological problems too.

As my colleague

suggests, I think it is a worthwhile kind of organization to fund. If,

through this kind of activity, people who have suffered that type of

experience can be assisted in adjusting better to life, then we are

probably saving more money than we are investing in the support.

Interestingly enough, in the case that was on the "Donahue" show the

other day, the young lady who had been abused by her father was in

attendance before a large group of 4,000 people with her mother and

father in attendance, which took some courage. She was talking openly

about it and trying to analyze just what had happened, how this came

about. But her life experience following her childhood, the marriage

breakdowns and the tremendous social trauma that she had gone through

was a pretty clear indication that perhaps if she had not felt so

guilty, had she been able to share that and understand that she was not

alone and not guilty for the happening, it would have probably been a

great saving to society in terms of the tragic social cost to her

family and, I suppose, to the system too. So it's certainly worthwhile

looking at. Tragically, I think legislators must become more aware of

the enormity of the problem; certainly I was not. It's an alarming

thing.

I wanted to raise a local matter. I want to say to

the minister that I've had correspondence with her and her colleague

the Attorney-General regarding Eagle Rock Ranch in my riding, which is

a youth facility. I'm not raising this matter with the minister to make

it a political issue; I want to assure her of that. The only reason I'm

raising it is that I have some concern with the response I got, both

from the minister and from her colleague the Attorney-General. I

received a letter, as she knows, from a former social worker at that

institution who made some very serious allegations of physical abuse

against the owner of the ranch. Now I think I know, and the minister

knows also, that that owner is well known for some of his political

connections in the community, and I don't think that's a valid area of

concern, except that it's well known in the community.

think that when serious charges are raised, there has to be an

impartial investigation. Those charges should be prosecuted fairly and

impartially, and the overriding consideration should be the welfare of

the children. There were children located there. They were referred

there by the probation

[ Page

8267 ]

service under the Attorney-General, and also from the Ministry of

Human Resources. The Attorney-General says: "Well, we're not making any

further referrals there from probation." So as far as he was concerned,

apparently the problem was solved — and they were the older children

who, apparently, had been more problematic.

But the Ministry

of Human Resources' response has been: "There is a bit tighter control

through the Ministry of Human Resources, and for these younger children

who were referred by the Ministry of Human Resources, they are not the

same behavioural problem as those who were referred through probation."

That's the area of my concern, Mr. Chairman. If the owner of this ranch

in fact was capable and did in fact visit physical abuse on any of the

children involved, then it's my submission that that person is not

competent and trustworthy to be the custodian of any children be they

of a younger age or not. The reason I raise it here is that the

response I received from the minister didn't recognize that simple

fact. Rather, the response was: "Well, we're going to have people from

the Human Resources office in Salmon Arm go out there a bit more

frequently than they were able to in the past, and we're going to

supervise programs more tightly" — and that's fine. But the overriding

concern is that the allegation of physical abuse has not been answered,

and that institution should not be operating until that question is

answered — particularly, as I indicated earlier, when the man operating

it has the connections which he has in the community and which are well

known in that community. People are looking at it with a very jaundiced

eye. So I appeal to the minister to have another look at it.

am not in any way prepared to act as the judge in the matter and say

that the guy is guilty — I don't know; I have no idea — but the point

is that the allegation has been made. It is of such serious import that

until a proper investigation has been made by competent people and a

decision has been made as to whether indeed there was physical abuse or

not, I don't think we can afford to place children in jeopardy. The

institution should be terminated pending a full investigation of those

very serious charges. So I wanted to make that submission to the

minister as strongly as I can. That's the issue; let's get at the truth

of the matter, and if in fact the allegations are true, then I submit

that that person with the facility that he has developed should in no way be

approved as an appropriate custodial institution for children in this

province.

I have one other matter to raise, an unrelated one. Perhaps the minister wishes to answer this point first.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Regarding the last subject — I'll go that way, if I may, in answering

these questions — I recall the investigation. Rather than get into the

specifics of that investigation, I'll have to get back to the member,

which I would have done at any rate. I know the point that he brings

up. Quite often — and I'll say this in a general way — allegations are

made. At times it has to do with some human problem. Maybe someone has

been fired; they get upset at being fired, and allegations are made.

It's a human nature thing sometimes. But I take the point that you make

properly and kindly. There's no question in my mind, if there is an

allegation with any foundation, that we have those children in our

care. I believe our ministry staff follow that rule.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King) have both mentioned the SAVA group, and those groups that have an

interest in better education and better understanding of the tragedy of sexual

abuse and the growing incidence of sexual abuse in this nation and on this continent.

We have anticipated this for some time. The Helpline for Children has certainly

caught a number of these cases. This related to us the need for a very good

educational program, within the professionals, within the community. I don't

know if the members know that we do have an excellent training program. It's not

the child-abuse handbook which is available in libraries all over the province;

it's in every school in the province; it's in every doctor's office

in the province. Above and beyond that our ministry also has an excellent training

program which covers sexual abuse, as well as all other child-abuse problems

— how to treat them, how to meet them. Our ministry has gone out of our

way to get into other areas of the province, not just our own staff. We also

reach out to other disciplines — police forces, nurses, doctors, any professional

that would be working with children, so that there will be an awareness. That

has been going on in a very aggressive way. So good is that training program

that our ministry staff, at the time that it was all put together, did say that

they should actually copyright it. It has been that successful. You should maybe

take a look at that. It's in three large filing cabinets, and the whole program

takes some time to give. It's very good. Our social workers are available throughout

the province to assist in cases of sexual abuse. They are well schooled in how

to treat those problems. It is not being ignored in the ministry. We have not

only recognized this phenomenon but also recognized the need for this kind of

education. I thank both members for bringing it to our attention.

Could

I also respond to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)? I

always think to get into these kinds of things, when we have so many

big things such as the one we've just discussed, is just a little bit

small, but because you raised it I'll respond to it — that's to do with

the press release. The press releases for the infant development

program went to all the daily papers. Unfortunately in this case my

information services, just now, have come forward to say that they

missed the weekly ones. They went to the dailies; they missed the

weeklies. That's unfortunate. I'm sure that since that experience

they've corrected that. I do want to tell you that, contrary to the

statements that were made surrounding that, the point that you failed

to mention when you were trying to put some kind of disregard in terms

of our ministry, and me in particular, regarding the new development

program....

First of all, you forgot to give some of the

facts of the case. The $12,250 that was suggested was intended for the

first few months of the operation, not for the entire year. It wasn't

two different grants at all. The other suggestion you made was that we

would perhaps have a lot of travelling time, etc. I'm advised that it

was Waddington that was asking for a level of funding. You didn't quote

Waddington, but you said in your area their request for funding was

higher than for any other area of the province. It was excessive. But

the group you spoke of in Courtenay did take it on. They would put in a

worker, and although the service is being given in Waddington, it is

run out of a group that is farther away, but the service is still being

given there, and you failed to mention that. I think it would be fair

if members when trying to make political points would make those points.

MR. GABELMANN: I said that it was being provided by Comox. It's just like your secret police, you can't ever keep to the truth.

[ Page 8268 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, the member squirms when he's talking, and when someone

has straightened out something for him. I know what he's trying to do;

he's trying to....

MR. GABELMANN: I squirm at distortion.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Well, you distorted the story, so I would like to straighten out the

story, and straighten out the distortion that you gave. It's just as

simple as that. It's just as fair for me to do that, and it's just as

easy. Mr. Chairman, it's easy for the people on the socialist side of

the House to dish it out, but they sure can't take it, can they?

You

said something about the political issue. You opened your remarks in a

political vein and you said you can't walk into any office of the

Ministry of Human Resources as a member of the Legislature without

feeling uneasy. You said that this ministry was politicized. Well, I'll

tell you: the only people who are politicizing this ministry are the

members of the New Democratic Party. They like to use the poor as pawns

in order to make their political points, so anxious are they for power.

Let me respond by saying that if you cannot walk into your Ministry of

Human Resources office, maybe it has something to do with the trip the

New Democratic Party took in North Island. They put out a press release

in upper North Island. It was called the NDP caucus northern tour. I

quote from the press release:

"Meanwhile,

Rosemary Brown took a close look at the Human Resources facilities. In

general terms, Ms. Brown said that these social services are

'inadequate for this fast-growing area. Local staffing has made the

operation very ineffective in Port Hardy — continuous turnover of staff

at all levels, including family-support workers, financial aid workers,

social workers and district supervisors.' The caucus northern tour was

attended by Dennis Cocke, the NDP member for New Westminster, Rosemary

Brown, the NDP member for Burnaby-Edmonds, Graham Lea, the NDP member

for Prince Rupert, Alan Passarell, the NDP member for Atlin, and Colin

Gabelmann, the NDP member for North Island."

It's

interesting that after the release of that press release, it came to

the attention of the district supervisor in the Port Hardy office, who

said.... Let me read this for the record, Mr. Chairman. It's

addressed to the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds, Rosemary Brown — and I quote:

"Dear Ms. Brown...."

MR. KING: Just the way you dictated it, eh?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

No, I had nothing to do with dictating it. Frankly, I read this to you

and share this with you because there would probably be a very good

reason why that member across the way says he has such difficulty in an

MHR office. I don't think I've ever heard that from any other member of

this House. But if you have had problems, maybe it's because you create

those problems yourself. I don't always have people on my own side of

the House happy with every single thing that goes on. We have 200

offices in this province, and we have 5,000 employees, and I can't tell

you that every single person on my side of the House is excited about

every single thing that happens in our ministry or in any office. But

I'm going to tell you there isn't any member on this side of the House

who has any trouble at all communicating with any of our ministry

offices, so it has to be your own actions that have done that.

This

letter is dated December 3, 1981.

"Dear Ms. Brown:

"Thank

you for your letter of November 10, 1981. Your interest in and concern

for this district office is very welcome. The confusion created by the

reporting of your comments in the Nanaimo Times is unfortunate. I

received the clipping of the Times prior to receiving your November 10

letter, so I was relieved to learn from you that your impressions of

this district office were not as reported in the Nanaimo newspaper.

"At present we are at full staff, except for a family support

worker position for which we have recently interviewed and for which we appear

to have recruited a suitable applicant. Recruitment of staff has been a problem

for us in the past and a real concern of mine and my regional manager. We have

two social-worker vacancies at present; however, both positions are filled with

competent auxiliary staff. We expect that in January both positions will be

filled by regular staff as a result of recently held interviews for the two

vacancies.

"In

the spring of this year our social-worker complement was increased by

one position from three social workers to four. The addition of a

fourth social worker has allowed us to be even more innovative and

effective in meeting the needs of the people we serve.

"Morale

is high as we grow together as a district office team, and the staff

here are committed to providing quality service and to being in Port

Hardy for some time to come.

"In July of this

year we acquired a house trailer for staff use, and the staff member

living there now has his rent subsidized by the ministry. Since July

rental accommodation has become more available with the building of

more apartments and townhouses in the area, and fortunately

accommodation for people coming to North Island is not as acute a

problem as it has been in the past.

"I was

confused by your reference in your letter to a visit you had made with

my staff and I. You and I did not meet personally, and I wondered if

you had confused a meeting you had held with another district office

with a meeting you held with us. I would ask that, if you have any

concerns about the service this office provides, you feel free to

direct them to my attention. Thank you very much."

And it's signed by the district supervisor.

It's

interesting, Mr. Chairman, because, you see, there isn't a district

office other than that in that area. Yet the press release talks about

visits to the area, visits to these people, and looking over these

Human Resources facilities. I guess we are to assume that the press

release was partially a figment of imagination when the district

supervisor took it upon himself to correct the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds. If you think any politicizing is being done in the

office of the Ministry of Human Resources, it is not being done by this

side of the House. I like to think the Ministry of Human Resources is

one area of government responsibility that can be non-partisan. I

haven't always found that to be so in dealing with the people on the

opposite side of the House, but

[ Page 8269 ]

do like to think that most of us come to this House and serve the

province of British Columbia in order to help those people who are in

need, and specifically to give our attention to those people who need

the help most.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd

like to address the other question from the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann). He talked about five lawyers on one case; he talked

about the abuse — as did his colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi) — vis-à-vis the numbers of legal counsel attached to cases

in the Ministry of Human Resources. Two people on the New Democrat side

of the House have now stood on their feet. My colleague the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) will be very pleased that you are

confirming what he has said. As you know, the Ministry of Human

Resources receives legal counsel from the office of the

Attorney-General and the finances are taken on by the office of the

Attorney-General. I'm pleased that you agree with the Attorney-General,

who has said that he wishes to bring some responsibility....

MR. GABELMANN: Another distortion! I never agreed with him.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Again, these members are having a difficult time. On the one hand they

say we've got to cut down on legal services, there are too many, and on

the other hand they accuse the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will be allowed to participate in the committee debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, may I also respond to the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). In terms of the kind of team work,

I really want to emphasize that that has been the philosophy of the

ministry and has continued to be over a long period of time. I don't

know of any ministry that has done more to initiate that with the

intergovernmental children's committees at the local level, field level

and headquarters level. The kind of cooperation we've had from the

ministries of social services has been very good indeed. In fact, when

we get special cases with special needs, there is a very great

awareness and there's even counselling together in that regard.

I'm

sorry that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has just left.

I can give him some information on Eagle Rock Ranch, which he brought

forward earlier, but I think I'll wait until he gets back into the

House to respond to that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon.

Mr. McClelland tabled the technical and

summary reports of the

Commission of Inquiry on British Columbia's Requirements, Supply and

Surplus of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids by Dr. George Govier.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada