1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

405 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 406

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 406

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 407

Oral Questions

Casino gambling. Mr. Sihota –– 407

Proposed Island Highway. Mr. Lovick –– 408

Gulf Island ferry rates. Mr. Lovick –– 408

Vancouver Island hydro rates. Mr. G. Hanson –– 409

Drug awareness week. Mrs. Boone –– 409

Tabling Documents –– 409

Ministerial Statement

Delgam Uukw decision. Hon. B. R. Smith –– 409

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Richmond)

On vote 56: minister's office –– 409

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Williams

Mr. Rabbitt

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Guno

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, I have the privilege today of introducing our first guest

in the House. On the floor, to my right, we have Mr. Eugene Ritzo, a

member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. I wish you would

all make him welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker,

in your gallery today are members of the British Columbia Medical

Association and the MLA liaison committee. I would specifically like to

introduce the past president of the BCMA, Dr. Gerry Karr, and three

doctors from Abbotsford — the hottest spot in Canada — from

my constituency, the Central Fraser Valley: Dr. John Pawlovich, Dr.

Cheryl Holmes and Dr. Chris Wallace. These doctors are very, very happy

because they all have billing numbers. Would you welcome them to this

House, please.

MRS. BOONE : On behalf of the New

Democratic Party, I'd also like the House to welcome the

representatives from the British Columbia Medical Association, one of

whom is Dr. Landrey from Prince George; I'm proud to have him here. I

understand that Dr. Ducharme is also here from Prince George. Would the

House give them welcome, please.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

In the gallery this afternoon are some visitors whom I would like the

House to welcome: Dave and Pat Hopkins, who are visiting us from

Vernon; and my mother-in-law from Vancouver, Mrs. Beatrice Johnston. I

would also like to extend an early welcome to one of my constituents,

who I know will be joining us later today, the president of the BCMA,

Dr. John O'Brien-Bell.

MR. GABELMANN : In the gallery

are literally dozens of labour leaders from across British Columbia,

and I would like the House to make them welcome. I'll only mention two

names: the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Ken Georgetti;

the secretary-treasurer of the federation, Mr. Cliff Andstein; and, as

I say, the full executive council of the federation and many other

trade union leaders from British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make

all of them welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH : In the gallery

today are the members of British Columbia's Public Service Commission:

chairman Graeme Roberts, Sharon White and Fred Randall. I'd like the

House to make them welcome, if you would.

As well, on behalf of you, Your Honour, I ask the House to welcome Mr. Carman Briscoe and Mr. Brian Fisher of Vancouver.

MS. MARZARI :

I have two groups to welcome today, Mr. Speaker. The first is Mr. John

Ippen, with his grade 11 and 12 classes, from Kitsilano high school.

They're here in the gallery. You'll remember that I announced them two

weeks ago; the difference today is that they are actually here. So I

would ask you to welcome them.

There is also a very important and aspiring new group from downtown Vancouver

here: Noella's Mature Women's Group, which is meeting regularly in downtown

Vancouver to help people on welfare. Noella Walker, Loretta Walters, Mildred

Solomon, Marian Sinclair and Margot Fleming are all here in the gallery today.

Can I ask you to welcome them.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to ask the House to welcome two of

my constituents, Dr. Stan Wilbee and his wife Anne. Dr. Wilbee is the

head of Delta Hospital. Please welcome them.

MR. KEMPF :

In the gallery this afternoon are two longtime friends of mine, Mr.

Howard Lloyd and Mr. Cyril Shelford. both members of the independent

loggers' association of British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make

them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Speaker, in the

galleries today are representatives of the B.C. School Trustees'

Association, president Dr. Eric Buckley and Henry Armstrong, and from

the B.C. Teachers' Federation, president Elsie McMurphy and Jim Bowman.

I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming to the

gallery today several representatives of the labour movement who hail

from the southern Vancouver Island area, in particular machinist Art

Glass, and carpenters Wayne Cox, Chris Jones, Hal Carlson, Dan Miller,

Ken Sturmey and Robert Oakman.

MS. CAMPBELL : Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to thank the House for welcoming the students from

Kitsilano Secondary School. If they can fit in the gallery, they're

very lucky indeed today.

In particular I'd like to ask the

House to welcome, among the visitors representing the British Columbia

Medical Association, my very good friend Dr. John Richards and his wife

Virginia Richards, who are in the Speaker's gallery.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, from the great riding of Yale-Lillooet we have with us

today a dedicated member of the medical profession from the little

community of Princeton, Dr. David Reid.

MR. CHALMERS :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we have another

distinguished member of the medical profession, a very good friend of

mine and my next-door neighbour, Dr. Derek Royle. Would you make him

welcome, please.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Speaker, I would

ask the house to join me in welcoming a constituent of mine from

Nanaimo, the former chairman of the Nanaimo Harbour Commission and the

former chairman of the Malaspina College council — and that will of

course tell you that this is a personal friend but a political foe — Mr. Doug McBride. Please join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) introduced

all of the doctors I thought we were going to let it go at that, but

now I don't dare leave out my good friend Dr. Gur Singh from Kamloops.

I might have to go and see him some day. Welcome, Doctor.

[ Page 406 ]

MR. JANSEN :

Echoing those comments, I would like to ask the House to make welcome

Dr. George Enns from the beautiful community of Chilliwack.

MR. SERWA :

In the gallery today we have a member of the British Columbia Medical

Association from the beautiful constituency of Okanagan South. Would

the House please welcome Dr. Allan Broom.

[2:15]

MR. MOWAT :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a member of the medical

profession who is often seen on "Doctor, Doctor"; a family

practitioner. Would you please make welcome Hedy Fry.

MS. EDWARDS : The doctor from my riding, and I welcome him a great deal, is Dr. Bob Sheffield. Welcome.

MR. PELTON :

I think most all the doctors have been welcomed now, but I know that

the doctor from the beautiful town of Maple Ridge in the riding of

Dewdney hasn't, and that's Dr. Marco Terwiel. I would ask the House to

make him welcome.

MR. MESSMER : Mr. Speaker, I would

ask you to welcome a friend of mine who doesn't happen to be a doctor,

but is a lawyer from the city of Penticton who is down here today. I

would ask you to welcome Richard Thompson, please.

MR. CASHORE :

I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming, on behalf of my

colleague from North Island, Dr. Phil MacNeill from Campbell River. I

would like to welcome my doctor, Dr. Joe McInnis from Coquitlam. But I

would also like to say that I'm really curious as to who is looking

after the medical needs of the rest of the province of British Columbia

at this time!

MR. R. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, we want to

make sure that everybody in the House is welcome today, so to those who

have not been introduced, you are most welcome.

MR. JONES :

Like the Minister of Education, I would like to welcome representatives

of two groups that are seeing very much eye-to-eye in the education

community, the representatives from the BCSTA and the BCTF: Dr. Eric

Buckley — not a medical doctor — Henry Armstrong and Elsie McMurphy. I hope the House will join me in bidding them welcome.

MRS. GRAN :

In the gallery we have Dr. Fred Ceresney, who is also a former school

trustee from Langley. Would the House make him welcome, please.

MR. LONG :

I think this is the first time I've stood up to welcome anybody here. I

have to welcome two doctors who are from Mackenzie — specifically, Powell River, They are Dr. Hobson and Dr. Crossland. I'd like to make them welcome.

HON. MR. REID :

There is a special guest that I just noticed in the House today. I want

to make him especially welcome back to British Columbia, back to the

land of the daffodils and the flowers. He's come in from the Toronto

area, Mr. Allen Garr.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the first

annual report of the Public Service Commission for the province of

British Columbia covering the period to March 31, 1987.

HON. L. HANSON : I would also acknowledge the many labour and business representatives that are with us in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987.

HON. L. HANSON :

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. The bill

I am introducing today is tangible proof of this administration's

commitment to open government. It is based on the views my committee

heard at our public meetings around the province. The people of British

Columbia take labour relations very seriously but often have very

divergent views. We have listened carefully to those views and have

endeavoured to strike a balance, with the objectives of increasing

fairness, equity and ensuring democratic rights for people.

From

section 1, which permits teachers full bargaining rights, to the last

section, which relates the Compensation Stabilization Act and the

Public Sector Restraint Act, this bill brings increased democracy to

all aspects of industrial relations. These amendments have as a

fundamental underpinning the rights and freedoms of individuals and the

creative framework which recognizes the public interest in labour

disputes, while creating an atmosphere in which trade unions and

employers can bargain effectively in a free enterprise competitive

marketplace.

It brings our labour legislation in line with

competing jurisdictions across Canada. The bill faces up to problems.

It does not offer panaceas. It does not permit double-breasting, it

does not legislate right-to-work, and it does not enforce the Paccar

decision. It does deal with preventive mediation and Labour Relations

Board reform.

Increased productivity is essential to

British Columbia's ability to compete in the world marketplace. In this

regard the government is making available up to $500,000 to assist in

the study and advancement of more productive enterprise in all sectors

of our province.

Finally, the Industrial Relations Reform

Act creates a new regime for dispute resolution. It will prevent the

province from being held hostage by a work stoppage that hurts our

international reputation, punishes innocent third parties and retards

our ability to grow and thereby create jobs for our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill for the people, from the people and for our future.

Bill

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

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

[ Page

407 ]

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Teaching Profession Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The Teaching Profession Act that I'm introducing today is the result of

wide consultation with the education community, and it really provides

the freedoms that some individual teachers and their associations have

sought. Following much consultation, it is my belief that we are

providing the best of all possible worlds for the teaching profession

to enjoy the same status as other professional associations in British

Columbia while providing them with the mandate to control the quality

of entrant into the teaching ranks.

The teachers in this

province will now have access to full bargaining rights under new

legislation and amendments introduced today. The new Industrial

Relations Act includes teachers under its provisions and allows

teachers within school districts to organize as a union, seek

teachers' union will have the same options as other trade unions,

including the right to strike.

While the collective

bargaining provisions of the School Act will be repealed, the new

legislation does not require teachers to seek union status. It gives

them the option at the local level to decide whether they want to be

members of a particular union.

Teachers may not opt to

organize as a union. The School Act will be amended to provide these

teachers' associations with full bargaining rights and to specify

mutually agreed interest arbitration as the final method of resolving

outstanding disputes on salaries and bonuses only. Those associations

will not be certified as unions under the Industrial Relations Act, and

therefore they will not have the ability to strike nor the employer to

lock out.

The Teaching Profession Act I am introducing

brings a new degree of professionalism to the education community and

encompasses all teachers and administrators in the public school system.

The

membership in the College of Teachers will be mandatory. The statutory

requirements that previously made membership in the B.C. Teachers'

Federation compulsory have been removed. Also, principals,

vice-principals and directors are recognized as management and will not

be included in the local union or association.

I believe

that this province can now go forward with what should be its primary

concern and thrust: that is, the education of the children. School

boards and teachers can direct their attention to that goal in the full

knowledge that precise guidelines will be in place to provide remedies

to that which has caused so much concern in the past.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

CASINO GAMBLING

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General announced yesterday that there will be a total review and

reconsideration of casinos, during which no additional licences will be issued.

Does this mean that the plan to install casinos on the Marguerite and her sister

ship is now on hold?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

No, the Marguerite has nothing to do with casino regulations. The

Marguerite is a gaming enterprise operated by the government of British

Columbia. It is not a charitable casino and is not subject to those

regulations.

MR. SIHOTA : In the press release

yesterday, the Attorney-General said that the commission that is being

set up will be asked to review the impact of casinos on steamship

operations. Does the minister not feel that the independence of the

commission is now prejudiced by the government's decision to maintain

gambling on these ships?

HON. B. R. SMITH : Quite the

contrary, Mr. Speaker. We always stated at the outset that the gambling

on the two ships was an experiment for one season. That season will

have concluded in October, and that will give ample time for the

commission to be able to monitor the acceptability or non-acceptability

of that gaming and how the public has received it, and to be able to

make honest recommendations to the government, not influenced by us. We

welcome that, and that will give them time to bring in a full and fair

report by the end of November.

MR. SIHOTA : It appears as if — particularly in the press release —

the Attorney-General has indicated that he wants the commission to look

at options for gaming in this province. Given that that seems to be the

direction of the government, has the Attorney-General decided that no

expansion of gaming should be allowed until there has been an extensive

debate in this House, and after a free vote in this House on that issue?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I appreciate the concern that members on the other side have about all

forms of gaining, and I know that they don't wish lottery grants to go

to their constituencies for athletic and cultural endeavours. Mr.

Speaker, if they want to be consistent and damn all forms of gaming and

the revenues that flow from them, and don't wish them to go to the

charities and cultural organizations in this province, that's one

thing. But we, for our part, are going to review gaming. We are not

going to increase the number of casino outlets; only licensed charities

at locations that are now operating will be able to have casinos, and

there will be no expansion of that industry.

What there

will be, though, is an expansion of the revenues that flow to

charities. The existing charities will be helped in the meantime, and

that will give us a chance to have lots of public input, including

input from the members opposite, as to the direction to go in the

future. We're going to go carefully and we're going to go listening to

the public.

MR. SIHOTA : Going back then to the

Marguerite, Mr. Speaker, and the steamship operations, we know that the

government has decided to expend $400,000 in improvements for casino

rooms on those steamships. The minister has said that that is an

experiment until October. In other words, are you then saying that,

despite that expenditure of $400,000, the government is seriously

considering not extending casino operations on those ships beyond

October?

[ Page 408 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

The answer is no. But the member is well aware that you cannot have

slot-machine gambling in this country except through a provincial

government, and it has to be done in a particular way according to

regulations that make it absolutely honest and impeccable. We can't

just put a lot of ticky-tacky slot machines on a ship. We have to have

them properly organized so that minors....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH : You are a hypocrite on that point, hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER : I would ask the Attorney-General to withdraw that comment.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I withdraw. We get carried away in the excitement of debate.

Mr.

Speaker, there is absolutely no commitment that that operation will

continue on that steamship in the future. It may; it may not. We may

have additional experiments; we may not. But we're going to see how it

works and how the public receives it.

[2:30]

PROPOSED ISLAND HIGHWAY

MR. LOVICK : Happily, this side never gets carried away.

question is to the Minister of Finance and concerns the ubiquitous,

much-talked-about Island Highway. Before the election, Social Credit

promised us that the long-overdue Island Highway would indeed proceed.

After the election, there was no mention in the budget — no

mention whatsoever. Has the minister in fact decided to provide funding

for that worthwhile project for this year, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm advised that the question is questionable on a variety of counts,

but I have no difficulty in answering it in any event. There is a

budgetary allotment in the appropriate ministry to continue the work on

the Island Highway. The work to be performed in the next 12 months is

primarily planning — site location, engineering work, that kind of

activity. If the member cares to look in the accounts, he'll see that

there is an apportioned amount for that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER :

Members might want to read standing order 47A(

b) again: that questions

and answers are to be brief, precise, without argument or opinion. The

Chair tries to give a little leeway but at times I think we tend to get

carried away.

MR. LOVICK : I hope the minister takes the Speaker's point. I'm sure it was directed towards the minister.

MR. SPEAKER : It was directed to both sides, hon. member.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue a supplementary on that. Is the minister

then telling us that there is in fact additional money for something

specifically called an Island Highway, as opposed to the normal

maintenance and repair activities?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

We're having a little debate, Mr. Speaker. It's agreed that it's not my

ministry. But by golly, it's sure my issue. I've been working on it for

three years, so I feel capable of dealing with it.

First of

all, I suppose, for the benefit of those who aren't aware, the

announcements that were made on the subject of the Island Highway by

the Premier of the province during the election campaign pointed out

that this was to be a 10-year construction program. By my calculations

we haven't even consumed one of them yet and will have spent a

considerable number of public dollars on that project before even one

year is up. It is my understanding, from discussing the matter with my

colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael), that we intend

to honour the 10-year commitment, and that an important part of that

honouring will be to ensure that the necessary staff work and community

discussions and liaison with the various communities of Vancouver

Island who would be impacted by the highway are considered. I'm aware

that there are many communities on the Island who have some trouble

with the thought that we would merely be twinning existing lines. On

the other hand, there are those advocates who would claim that we

should be building an entirely new highway, running up the spine of the

Island, in a way that allows the use of the foreshore for recreational

and tourism purposes. In the examination of that debate, and through

the travels I've had throughout the Island, I'm well aware that there

are divergent views.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm speaking to the question, Mr. Speaker. The question was: what is

being done and what will be done? I'm explaining that a very important

part of what will be done is community dialogue. My colleague, the

Minister of Highways, has already embarked on discussion with a number

of communities on the Island to ascertain their wishes regarding

location and design. That's a very important part of our open

government, our desire to have community input, and I defend it.

MR. LOVICK : I hope everybody reads Hansard and determines for himself or herself whether the question was indeed answered, Mr. Speaker.

GULF ISLAND FERRY RATES

MR. LOVICK :

My question now is to the Minister of Highways. It concerns Gulf Island

ferry rates. Fares on the Hornby Island ferry route have increased over

600 percent in the past seven years. Fares for students living on

Denman Island and attending school in Courtenay have increased about

273 percent. Following meetings with the residents of those two

islands, and following the submission of more than 30 briefs to the

minister, will the minister tell us please whether he has indeed

decided to roll back the latest ferry fare rates pending an independent

review?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, I thank the

member for his question, and he will be getting a response to that

question prior to the middle of April.

[ Page 409 ]

VANCOUVER ISLAND HYDRO RATES

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The

government is presently studying the feasibility of exporting B.C.

surplus hydro power to California. Meanwhile Vancouver Island families

and industrial enterprises suffer far higher space heating costs than

do families and enterprises on the mainland, because we don't have

access to natural gas. Has the minister decided to place a higher

priority on Vancouver Islanders' needs for fair hydro rates to utilize

the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line to bring surplus here to Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Mr. Speaker, simply the answer is yes. B.C. Hydro will shortly be

announcing rates which allow space heating to occur at lower costs than

previously.

MR. G. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, we certainly have been pressing for that and we applaud that and we look forward to that.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON : And it is a victory for the opposition. Thank you. No question.

DRUG AWARENESS WEEK

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Last November

during Drug Awareness Week, activities were coordinated throughout most

of the provinces in Canada that were designed to increase the public's

awareness on drug and alcohol problems. B.C. was one of only two

provinces which did not participate in this program. I have here a

brochure. You can see for yourself that B.C. is not in it, and it's

embarrassing in its absence. Can the minister explain why this province

did not feel it necessary to participate in this preventive program?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, if this is from last November, I would have to look back

and see what that program consisted of to be able to give a proper

answer.

MRS. BOONE : Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent

question, because as your own report indicates, some 40 percent of

hospital admissions are due to alcohol and drug related diseases.

This

highlights the need for preventive services, and my question to the

minister is: does he intend to seek such a preventive awareness program

in the future?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, as far

as the hospital is concerned, there was a news release just recently

where we are establishing a pilot program for a ward team that will in

fact deal with chemical dependency in a hospital setting. It is now

underway in Victoria. This approach at the two acute care hospitals of

the Greater Victoria Hospital Society is a first in Canada.

Also,

clinicians estimate that as many as 40 percent of hospital admissions

are in fact alcohol- and drug-related. We are working on that

particular program at the present time.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the labour legislation review report.

Ministerial Statement

DELGAM UUKW DECISION

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I wish to inform the House that today the British Columbia Court of

Appeal handed down an important decision in the case of Delgam Uukw v.

the Crown and the registrar of Prince Rupert, in which the court held a

unanimous decision that a lis pendens operating as a charge against a

vast acreage of Crown land consisting of some 2,069 district lots in

the area of Smithers could not be registered against the Crown land,

and that a claim for native title was not subject to registration under

the Torrens system of British Columbia.

That was the

position that the government strenuously argued and strenuously

supported, believing that the litigation should go ahead but that no

charge should hold up the development of projects and land in British

Columbia.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

At the outset, I would ask leave of the House for the Special Committee

of Selection to meet while the House sits later on this afternoon.

Leave granted.

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

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

HON. MR. ROGERS : Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if I could have leave of the House to make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

If the members of the House would look at this gallery behind us here,

we have some students that have joined us that are not able to hear

what I have to say, because their teacher is instructing them by sign

language. We have very seldom had the opportunity of having deaf

students. They were not here at the beginning, and perhaps we would all

pound our desks in recognition of them and their teachers coming here

today to see democracy in action.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 56: minister's office, $216,355.

MR. CASHORE :

Today I am getting ahead of you because I almost blew it yesterday. I

just wanted to pick up on a couple of items relating to the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing that are quite topical. I'd like to start

off by referring to an

article that was in the Vancouver Sun last

night, entitled: "Burial Assistance from Young Offenders Halted." The

article refers to a program that operates under the Attorney-General's

department, and it refers to what apparently is a policy whereby family

court, when it will not apprehend adolescents and put them into some

kind of treatment . . . .

[ Page 410 ]

Sorry,

would you like me to start on that again? Because I'm getting signals

that you're having a difficult time hearing what I'm saying. Okay, I'm

referring to an

article that was in the Vancouver Sun last night, and

the headline in the

article was: "Burial Assistance from Young

Offenders Halted." It refers to a program that is operated under the

Attorney-General's department, but I am raising this issue under the

Social Services and Housing estimates because it is a matter that

affects children as defined in the Family and Child Service Act,

"child" meaning a person under 19 years old.

[2:45]

So I am referring to a program that operates under the

Attorney-General's department. Apparently when children are not

apprehended as adolescents by the family court, they often end up in a

custody program operated by the Attorney-General. When you read this

article that indicates what these children are doing under this custody

program, I submit that it sounds less like a custody program — even though what probably most of these children really need is some kind of a treatment program — and more like a scene out of Platoon .

I just want to point out that what was involved here was that juveniles

under this program were being used to bury corpses in a privately-owned

graveyard near Hedley. Bernard Robinson, who is commissioner of

corrections.... Just let me read this portion of the article:

"B.C.'s

commissioner of corrections said Tuesday the One Way Adventure

Foundation has a 'good' record of operating a work camp for juvenile

offenders over the past five years. But the group's practice of using

juveniles to help bury corpses in their privately owned graveyard near

Hedley is 'not very acceptable,' Bernard Robinson said."

The

first thing that I would like to ask is: Steven Greenaway, a special

assistant to the Attorney-General, ordered the group to stop the

practice and asked senior corrections staff to investigate, so my

question is will the superintendent of family and child service be

requesting a copy of the report on that investigation?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Member, with all due respect, the whole subject is really out of

order in this estimate. It has really nothing to do with me. I cannot

answer just off the cuff whether the superintendent of family and child

service will be requesting a copy of the report or not, but I think

suffice it to say that the Attorney-General has dealt with it and has

stopped the practice. But I repeat, the whole matter is really a

subject for the Attorney-General's estimates.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Mr. Member, are you able to tie the subject in? Because it is clearly out of order so far.

MR. CASHORE :

Well, I would like on a point of order to argue that it is not out of

order, and I'm reading from the Family and Child Service Act of the

province of British Columbia, and I am reading under the

interpretation

in this act where it states that "child" means a person under 19 years

old. Then, turning over the page in the act, it states that:

"The minister shall designate as Superintendent of Family

and Child Service a person appointed under the Public Service Act, and the superintendent

shall be responsible to the minister for the administration of this Act and

the regulations and be the Superintendent of Child Welfare."

Then, under the powers it goes on to say:

" (

a) to enter into an agreement with a person for the development

or provision, or both, of services to children or their families in the Province" — I assume that this is a service to children and their families — "and (

b) to enter into an agreement with a person for the custody of a child of whom

the superintendent is guardian, or of whom the superintendent has custody...."

It is an implied term of the agreement that the superintendent may retake custody of the child at any time.

The

reason I am arguing that under the terms of this act it is valid to

discuss this at this time is that I believe that the superintendent of

child welfare has responsibility to monitor the conditions that pertain

for all children within the province and therefore should be interested

in this program to which I am referring.

I believe that

this clearly comes under the purview of the Ministry of Social Services

and Housing as well as under the purview of the Ministry of

Attorney-General, and I would welcome some official comment at this

time on this point of order.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : The

hon. member may not be aware.... I'd like to read an item: "The

administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the

necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be

discussed in Committee of Supply." We are in Committee of Supply. So

far, hon. member, I don't think that you've tied your question to the

minister's responsibilities. If you'd like to continue in another way

or with another matter, I think we'd appreciate that.

MR. CASHORE :

Madam Chairman, I think that the question I was in the process of

asking at the time I was called to order was a question that was indeed

tying these two ministries together. In asking if a copy of the report

of the Attorney-General's department was going to be requested by the

superintendent of child welfare, who we understand is an advocate for

the children of this province, it would seem to me that at that point

it ties in, so that the person who is now in that position could find

out what the connections are between the children for whom she has

responsibility and that activity. Therefore, in my opinion, I have very

clearly tied these two jurisdictions together. But again I will await

interpretation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : With all due

respect to the member, I think he is misinterpreting the act. The act

provides that the superintendent of child welfare is concerned when

children are deemed to be at risk. His or her authority extends only to

an investigative process where there is an allegation of abuse or

neglect of children. The superintendent of child welfare is not an

advocate for children; the act does not say that, and the

superintendent does not have those responsibilities. The

responsibilities for children lie with parents or guardians, and the

only time that the superintendent of child welfare gets involved is

when there is an allegation of abuse or neglect and the child or

children are deemed to be at risk.

It is incumbent upon

every person in society to report such acts of abuse or neglect. If

anyone has specific knowledge of a child or children being abused, then

they must,

[ Page 411 ]

under the law, report it to the superintendent of child welfare, who in turn will investigate.

MR. CASHORE :

First of all, I think there is a basis for arguing the point that you

make with regard to whether or not the superintendent of child welfare

is an advocate for children. Yes, I would think that parents do have

this responsibility, but I would also think that it's implicit within

the intention of

an act such as this that this responsibility also

abides on a global basis, recognizing that there are those situations

where, for whatever reason, families are not able to fulfil that

responsibility and therefore that second line of responsibility exists

within our social net.

I would think that the gist of

remarks that the minister has made has affirmed that reality. That's

part of the compassionate way in which this government operates within

this society, a compassionate activity of this government that I

affirm. So I think perhaps we might be disagreeing a bit over the

semantics of saying that the minister of child welfare does not operate

as an advocate for children. I would say it's incumbent, Mr. Chairman,

on the superintendent of child welfare, I should say, to ascertain, in

various circumstances that obtain throughout the province, whether or

not in fact an intervention should be made. In order to ascertain, it

means to have an overview of all the children in B.C., so that that key

decision can be made about when to make an entry on behalf of a

particular child.

Mr. Minister, you have referred to the

point of intervention being at a time when there is either abuse or

neglect. This is the very reason for me to be raising this matter at

this time. Right before the public, in a widely circulated newspaper,

there is a story from which it could be ascertained that the issue of

abuse and neglect in fact is the essence of that story. That is the

essence of the story — whether or not there is abuse or neglect.

So, Mr. Minister, using your term, and again affirming your terms, the

reason for asking whether or not a copy of the investigative report

from the Attorney-General's department will be requested is to assume

that the person who is now the superintendent of child welfare will use

that report as a means of helping her to decide whether or not she

needs to intervene on behalf of those children. I would appreciate it

if you'd comment on my comments.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Once again, Mr. Member, this matter before us clearly — and I repeat, clearly —

does not come under the act that you are quoting from, the Family and

Child Services Act. It is a matter for the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R.

Smith). The Attorney-General is conducting a complete investigation

into these allegations, and it should stay there. With all due respect,

Mr. Member, you are misinterpreting the act, as is quite common. It's

done on a weekly basis by our newspapers and other media. They tend to

want to misinterpret this act — what was the Child Protection Act and is now the Family and Child Services Act.

point out, for the edification of all those in the House and, in fact,

for everyone in the province, that it's the courts who make the final

decision regarding children. Our workers make the initial decision,

much as a peace officer does, at the scene. Many times our people make

these decisions at 2 o'clock in the morning, and at midnight, and they

have to make a decision on the spot, But it is the courts — and I repeat, the courts — that make the decision as to the final disposition of these children. So again, with the greatest of respect — and I know that you're relatively new here, as I'm relatively new in this ministry — you are misinterpreting the act and trying to connect it to something that falls under the purview of the Attorney-General.

MR. CASHORE :

It appears that we've got to a point where the minister and myself,

albeit relatively new, have come to a disagreement of opinion with

regard to whether or not this act is connected at this time. But again,

referring to what you've just said, I know from reading the Blues from

yesterday that you don't like people to put words in your mouth and I'm

not trying to do that, but I tried to write down what you said just now

and you said that the decisions are made by the courts. I believe

that's what you said. I agree with that. I agree that courts make

decisions. But I also believe that the superintendent of child welfare,

who's responsible to you, makes decisions every day. That is part of

the very nature of that responsibility, to make decisions. It seems to

me I'm stating the obvious.

[3:00]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth in anything that I've

said, but it does seem to me that that is the case, that the person who

is in that position makes decisions every day. I would hope that many

of those decisions would be decisions that relate to children, children

as defined in the act as those under 19 years old. I was going to say

"19 and under," but it's "under 19 years old." Therefore I would very

much like to continue with my line of questioning. I think these

questions are relevant. I think the people of British Columbia have

reason to be interested in the answers to these questions. I know I'm

very interested in hearing the answers to these questions. With the

permission of the Chair, I would like to continue, but if there's some

need for the Speaker of the House to issue a decision at this time....

I'm not sure, but I would like to proceed. So unless I am called to

order, I will proceed.

Okay. I'll come back to my question.

Will the superintendent of family and child service be requesting a

copy of the report of that investigation?

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 56 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Well, the member has asked a question. Surely it's a very simple and

direct question. Can the minister not respond, Madam Chairman?

MADAM CHAIRMAN : The member is entitled to ask a question; the minister is not required to respond.

MR. CASHORE : Well, thank you. As a rookie, I'm learning as I go along.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : We all are.

MR. CASHORE : Yes, and I appreciate that. One of these days I'll get these rhythms right.

AN HON. MEMBER : The rhythm method.

MR. CASHORE :

Yes, well, as I said, we are learning. But right now I'm not learning

the things I'm hoping to learn. I just need some direction on this. I

take it that if I ask a question and sit down and wait for the answer,

and if the minister refuses to answer, then somebody can jump in and

[ Page 412 ]

vote on the amendment and I won't have a chance to say anything else. Is that how it works?

MR. WILLIAMS : It could be a long wait.

MR. CASHORE :

Okay. Well, If I were to ask a question in this House and sit down, I

would hope that while I was waiting for the answer we didn't suddenly

have the government vote on the motion so that I couldn't ask any more

questions. I would hope that wouldn't happen.

MR. WILLIAMS : We all would hope that.

MR. CASHORE :

So the minister not answering the question means that he refuses to

answer that question. It seems to me, without prejudice, that he is

neither saying, "yes, that is a valid question," nor "no, it isn't."

He's saying: "I'm not going to answer the question." That would be my

assumption of what that means.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

I can assume anything. Thank you. Okay. I think we may have a series of

questions that don't get answers here. I do have other questions.

next question relates to the purview of the superintendent of family

and child service in the province. When did British Columbia start to

use children for this kind of hard line commercial activity? I'd like

to know how long that has been going on.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 56 pass?

AN HON. MEMBER : No.

MR. CASHORE :

It sounds as though if I do sit down, that's what's going to happen. If

I sit down to wait for an answer, they're going to try to slip this

through on me. At least that question goes into Hansard .

What

I want to say about that is that I thought that when the children for

whom the superintendent of family and child service is responsible went

into these kinds of often unfortunate programs, the nature of the

activity they would be involved in would be at the level of community

service, perhaps doing something around a community centre — something

very close to what would be looked upon as volunteer activity. I really

did not think that this type of activity would be getting into the type

of thing that I said before, which was more akin to a scene from Platoon .

next question would be: given that the superintendent of child welfare

is concerned about the standards that relate to the various kinds of

programs pertaining to children, especially children who have come out

of situations where there's stress in the family or children who have

been getting into difficulty on the streets and that sort of thing, I

wonder why the superintendent of child welfare isn't in consultation

with the Attorney-General on the fact that whatever standards there are

for these programs aren't being followed. Or are there standards? I

wonder if the superintendent of child welfare would be investigating

what kinds of standards are operating in these programs where children

could actually be used in this type of an activity in this province. It

sounds quite bizarre.

I don't think I'll sit down.

Perhaps you can just shake your head or something, so I know that

you're not going to answer it; then I'll go on to my next question. But

I assume you're not going to answer that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : My answer is maybe, and that's final.

MR. CASHORE :

The answer is maybe. Okay, thank you. We've got a maybe. That's

progress. We got quite a bit more that time than we did the last time.

Now

this is a question I believe you will answer, so I'm going to sit down

after I ask this. What is the role of the superintendent of family and

child welfare in looking after the well-being of children who are in

such a program, when those children are or have been under the

jurisdiction of the superintendent of family and child welfare? When

children in such a program are children who have come under the

superintendent of child welfare, what is the role of the superintendent

of child welfare in terms of monitoring and looking at standards, and

being responsible for those children?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Madam Chairman, the member persists in pursuing a line of questioning — and I think I've explained it two or three times —

in which he's misinterpreting the act of which he speaks. Everything

that he is speaking of comes under the jurisdiction of the

Attorney-General. The act clearly delineates and defines the parameters

within which the superintendent of child welfare works. The

superintendent of child welfare does not have responsibility for the

programs that the member mentions. Any allegations of abuse or neglect

of children are investigated by the superintendent, and children in the

care of the superintendent are constantly monitored by the ministry. I

believe that's about the fourth time we've covered this ground. If you

want to persist in this line of questioning, I guess that's fine — I've got as much time here as anyone.

MR. CASHORE : Madam Chairman, my question would be then —

and you may have to take this on notice and come back with an answer

another day: how many children presently under the responsibility of

the superintendent of child welfare are involved in these programs

operated by the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Madam Chairman, the member is correct: I don't have that number at my

fingertips to give him. But I will find out and bring an answer back if

he would like to know how many are in care.

Let me give you

some interesting statistics regarding children in care. The ministry,

first of all, is involved with less than 2 percent of families and

children in British Columbia. I think that's a pertinent point. The

number of children in B.C. is approximately 800,173; the number of

families in B.C., 456,150. The annual number of family service cases is

25,715. The annual number of children in care served is 13,177. The

number of children in care as of September 1986 was 6,875, and the

number of permanent wards of the ministry is 3,415. But I cannot tell

you at this time how many children in care are in programs run by the

Attorney-General. I can't even tell you if I can get you that number

today or not. I don't know if we have it available.

[ Page 413 ]

MR. CASHORE :

I certainly think it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to get

that figure today. However, assuming that we'll not be dealing with

estimates tomorrow .... I'm not sure what's going to be happening

Monday, but if we are dealing with estimates on Monday, I would hope we

could have an answer at that time to that and some more questions I'm

about to ask. Again, if we could have those answers at the beginning of

the estimates debate during the next session, it would help me continue

on this issue at that time.

Here are some more questions

that I would like you to take on notice. You've just stated some

statistics about the number of children in care. I want to make it very

clear that I'm asking a very specific question, and the question is:

how many children under the responsibility of the superintendent of

child welfare are involved in these custody programs operated by the

Attorney-General? My next question is: how many of these children

should be in treatment facilities — if they were really getting

the type of care that they need? My next question is: are there persons

appointed by the superintendent of child welfare who have the

responsibility of looking out for the needs of these children, the

quality of their care and the standards that obtain for them? My next

question: is there an outline of what an acceptable standard of care is

within one of these custody programs?

I wish to conclude

this topic with just a comment: that I believe this situation and this

rather unfortunate news story.... I don't think it would be right to

say that this is a sensationalist story. I think the media has

fulfilled a responsibility in drawing this to our attention. But when

this type of situation is happening to the children of our province, to

our future, I believe it underlines my call for a commission of inquiry

into the delivery of child and family services in this province.

I have another question that relates to a story in the Province

this morning concerning our Premier and the topic of immigrants. It

states that the Premier: "would like to have a say over the people

Ottawa allows to immigrate to B.C." "And he wants to negotiate a

federal-provincial agreement on immigration." "'We want to greatly

increase our government's involvement...."'

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a point of order, Madam Chairman. The member is clearly straying

from the estimates of the Minister of Social Services and Housing, not

only with his previous line of questioning, but with the one he is

embarking upon now. If he has received a directive from his party Whip

to spin these estimates out as long as possible — which is quite obviously what he's doing — that's one thing; but at least he should stay within the confines of the estimates of this ministry.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : The point of order is well taken, Mr. Minister. Would the hon. member please restrict his comments to the vote?

[3:15]

MR. CASHORE :

On a point of order, I would like to express some concern about a point

of order being accepted by the Chair when I have not been permitted to

finish my sentence. I believe I needed to finish my sentence before the

interruption in order to complete the thought that I was about to

present. One has to get to the end of a sentence to say what one is

saying. I realize that possibly because of my background I am a bit

wordy at times, but certainly it's not the Whip's fault.

Perhaps I can finish my sentence.

MADAM CHAIRMAN :

The Chair was well aware of what you were saying, hon. member. You were

cautioned before that you were out of order. All we're asking is that

you speak on the subject that we're here for — the vote.

MR. CASHORE :

In view of this initiative, has the Minister of Social Services and

Housing planned within the budget, or does he plan, to recommend some

initiatives that would ensure there are the kind of support services

available in the community, such as housing, cost of income assistance,

multicultural social workers and similar services, that would relate to

the coming into our midst of these people, to aid in such a transition?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Madam Chairman, the member has asked me four questions in a row, three

previous to the one on immigrants. I have written the answers down, so

as best as possible I will answer his questions as he asks them.

The

answer to the first one is none. The answer to the second one is I've

already answered that question. The answer to the third one is yes. The

answer to the fourth one is it's a federal responsibility.

MR. CASHORE :

I notice in the budget, page 10, that a figure of $19.7 million is put

forward to help with the vocational support and community placements

for disabled adults. I would be interested in knowing what portion of

that $19.7 million will be going into programs directed to helping get

employable people into the workforce. I am referring here to real jobs

in the workforce.

Perhaps I can just say a bit more about

that. I'm concerned that while some really wonderful things have been

happening, and I would commend the ministry for the ministry's positive

efforts on behalf of the disabled, I recognize the urgency and the

importance of the resources that go into research to try to resolve the

medical problems, to try to resolve the kinds of problems that so many

people in our community have.

But I think there is a

segment of disabled people who are eminently employable and who are

really having a great deal of frustration in their hope and their

desire to find jobs in the workplace. Now I think this question relates

to the hope that employers will become more aware of the employability

of the disabled, and in welcoming — and I hope you're hearing me say this —

this initiative within the budget. I'd be interested in knowing what

portion of that will be going to helping disabled people find

employment.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : I wonder before the minister responds if I could just ask the hon. members to direct their questions to the Chair.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I think the specific question was: how much of the $19.7 million is

specifically targeted to employment for the disabled? I again can't

give him a number out of that figure just off the top of my head. The

staff will try to ascertain that. At one point in the member's

dissertation there was a mention of not being able to work because of a

medical disability and, if that is the case, that

[ Page 414 ]

comes under the Ministry of Health. If they have a medical disability, then it is a matter for the Ministry of Health.

MR. RABBITT :

I thought possibly I should give the hon. member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) the opportunity to recharge his

batteries. I do have a deep concern. We have a budget in this ministry

of $1.4 billion approximately, and to date I haven't heard one question

asked from this assembly as to the efficiency of this ministry. I guess

my question is: are the dollars going to the right spots; do we have

waste within the ministry? Because every dollar that's spent on an

individual that is not deserving means we do not have a dollar to spend

on an individual that is deserving.

The question to the

minister is this: do you have a monitoring and policing system in

place, or are you implementing one, to help determine where the waste

is and to eliminate it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The

answer to the member's question is yes, we do monitor abuses in the

system constantly, on a continuing basis. One of the tools that has

enabled us to do this more efficiently in the last few years, and which

was started before I came into the ministry, is the use of computers.

The computers pick up a tremendous amount of fraud that was not

detected before. In fact, it has reduced the amount substantially. I

won't go into the details of how we do it on the computer, because we

don't want to give away one of the basic secrets of it, but it's a

mistake that most people make and the computer picks it up very quickly.

We are concerned always that we do spend a tremendous number of taxpayers' dollars — $1.3 billion of them in the coming year —

and we are as concerned as you are and as everyone else is that it goes

to those in need. So I thank you for the question, and it's nice to

have it on the record that we monitor it constantly. We also have an

internal audit team within the ministry that monitors the functions and

the people in the ministry. They are a pretty diligent and pretty tough

bunch, and they travel the province monitoring all the offices to make

sure that we are delivering the services that we're buying as

efficiently as possible. So we have a lot of safeguards within the

ministry, to assure the taxpayers and ourselves that we're getting

value for our dollar.

MR. CASHORE : Madam Chairman, I apologize for not mentioning the Chair the last time. Again, it's just going to take a while.

I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE :

I would like to introduce Paulette Dash-Hagel and David Hagel, and the

students in their class, from the Nanaimo Skills Training Centre. I'm

doing this on behalf of the members from Nanaimo.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Before I ask the minister some questions about his ministry, I'd like

to zero in on a comment made earlier about the tremendous amount of

fraud that was uncovered by the computer program. Can the minister tell

us what percentages — how much this tremendous amount of fraud represents?

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Once again, Mr. Chairman, several of the members from the other side

insist upon putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate that. I

didn't use the word "tremendous" amounts of fraud. There was fraud in

the system, as in all systems, I guess, there is fraud. Where you have

human beings involved, there are going to be those who are less than

honest. We uncover them all the time. In fact, there was one uncovered

not too long ago in my own constituency, which involved over $100,000

by one person. We caught it, by various methods; the people have been

charged, and the courts have dealt with it. That's what we will do in

any case where we detect fraud: no matter how large or how small, they

will be prosecuted.

No, I don't have numbers for you, Madam

Member, and I have no intention of asking the staff to dig out those

numbers. But I can tell you that we put quite a bit of effort into

making sure that the dollars spent on behalf of the people of British

Columbia go to where they're needed. We pursue any waste within the

ministry, not just fraud but waste of any kind: inefficiencies, places

where we can do the job better. We're always looking for ways of being

more efficient and putting the money into the hands of the needy rather

than into administration or into hands where it doesn't belong.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'll be looking forward to the Blues later on, to see the exact words,

but I'm fairly confident that I did hear correctly. The reason I raise

it is that I am very concerned about that kind of language, that kind

of sentiment. I think the people in this province have got to have

confidence that this government is doing its best for the majority of

people in this province, and indeed is not bringing a particular bias

to the decisions it's making. I think that the language we use —

whether it's for those in need, or whether we're talking about

fraudulent actions in the social service system, or whether, as was

pointed out earlier, we're talking about labour problems — depicts a certain bias and a certain way of looking at the world, and I take exception to that.

The

questions that I would like to ask.... I will start from the assumption

that we in this House are all looking to improve government, to improve

the efficiencies of government, and to ensure that the people we are

serving, regardless of the ministry, are being served in the best

fashion. My concern is in regard to issues that I have raised earlier

in this House — to the feminization of poverty in this province.

would like to ask the minister whether his ministry, in some of the

reviews of the programs that the ministry has been involved in over the

years, has looked at the gender bias in the system. It has been brought

to my attention, and I believe to the attention of other members of

this House, that there is an implicit gender bias in all systems. I'm

not singling out this ministry, by any stretch of the imagination, but

I think it's fair to say that, because there is a feminization of

poverty, this is a ministry that we must look at for gender bias, to

see that the system of delivery — not only of services, but of income support — is not one that supports one gender disproportionately or favours one gender more than another.

[3:30]

I'm particularly concerned about the number of single women — whether they are seniors or younger women — who

are looking for income assistance and hoping to be able to access

income assistance as equally as the young men. I think that what we're

seeing when we look at singles, especially the homeless, are disturbing

statistics about the number of homeless males. I believe that the

reason we don't

[ Page 415 ]

see

equal numbers of homeless females has something to do with a particular

gender bias in the system, where the system tends to encourage women to

look for support either from family members or from another male. I

would think that what the Social Services and Housing ministry would

like to work towards is the recognition of the right of a woman to

income support equally with men, in that way enabling her to have the

dignity she deserves.

If the minister could answer some of those questions, I have another to follow.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Well, the member is attacking the wrong ministry if she's talking about

a gender bias. There is none in the Ministry of Social Services and

Housing. The majority of social workers in my ministry are women;

almost all the managers appointed in the last three years have been

women; the other day I appointed a superintendent of child welfare who

is a woman; and we have 35,000 single parents on welfare, and the vast

majority of them are women. So for this member to try to make points

about a gender bias, she's picking on the wrong ministry. I suggest

maybe you try elsewhere, because most of what you said pertaining to my

ministry is nonsense.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Beyond taking

exception to the comment that my questions were nonsense, I'd like to

take great exception to that. I would also like to take great exception

to the fact that the minister is unable to understand a simple question

put to him.

My question was not about the employment

standards of the ministry. My question was pertaining to the delivery

of services, and that was specifically stated; my questions were about

the delivery of income support. If the minister does not believe at

this time that there is implicit gender bias in the delivery of

services, will he undertake in his review of services specifically to

prove the point that he made, that there is no gender bias? Again, I

make the point that the figures don't bear out his comments.

I'm

not talking specifically about single-parent families in this ministry,

but I'm talking about the delivery of services to single women. I can

cite several examples where I have been involved directly as an

advocate in the system for these women, where these women have been

told by their social workers or by their financial-aid workers that

they should perhaps consider going back home — and these are adult

women going back home to be supported by their families. That same

suggestion would not be made equally to a single man requesting income

assistance.

There is, sir, bias. There would be something

incredibly strange at this point if there were no gender bias, because

the reality of our society is that there is gender bias throughout,

What I am looking for is some cooperation and some support from the

minister to explore those avenues, to commit some resources in his

review, to identify where indeed those biases are and to undertake

programs that would address those biases.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

For the record, I was speaking of the delivery of services. The

managers and the social workers I spoke of, and the financial

assistance workers, deliver those services, and if the majority of them

are women, does it follow that there is a gender bias against women?

I spoke

of the 35,000 to illustrate a point: that there is no gender bias now.

It's very easy for the member to generalize. Anyone can generalize and

say there's bias in the ministry, there's bias in society, and it's

very difficult to prove or disprove that. If the member has specific

examples where there is gender bias, as she calls it, in my ministry,

then I would like to hear about it. You say you have examples. You

said: "I can cite examples." If you can, then tell me. Every example of

any kind of prejudice in my ministry will be investigated to the

fullest.

When you ask for my cooperation you will get it,

as well as anyone else. But you can't sit over there, Madam Member, and

generalize and say: "There is gender bias in your ministry." Back it up

with some examples, and I will investigate.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'll submit an example. My reluctance to do so is not a reluctance to

give you an example of where the system treats women differently than

men; my reluctance is in having a single issue or a single circumstance

addressed and neglecting the system overall. So while I will be

specific and request that your ministry address this inconsistency in

treatment, I would again reiterate my desire or my request to have the

minister, as part of his system, as has been done in other ministries

and is constantly being struggled with.... For instance, in the

Education ministry, teachers and the province are looking at curriculum

to address gender bias in our society. I would ask that each and every

ministry represented in this government do the same,

The

example I would give is an example that.... As I say, I was personally

involved with a situation where a woman was denied income assistance

because she was renting in a residence that her landlord was also

living in. The ministry said she was living with this man, and it was

therefore his responsibility to support her, The ministry said that if

the person she was living with had income assistance problems, he

should apply for income assistance and his request would be considered.

The income assistance would then be allocated on a couple basis, rather

than on an individual basis for her.

That is a bias. A man

would not find himself in the same situation. Had he come looking for

income assistance, he would not have been asked whether he was living

with a woman if a woman was the landlord and, in turn, whether she was

supporting him. The situation went through the appeals process. The

ministry representative tried to prove that there was indeed a

relationship of a sexual nature and that therefore he was responsible

for her support.

I believe that example demonstrates a

gender bias and demonstrates the fact that the system we live in,

rather than recognizing that women are themselves persons and deserve

to have a certain amount of income in their own name, feels that women

should be supported by men rather than receive their own income

assistance.

That is an example. If that isn't a good enough

indicator, as the estimates continue I will put out a request that

other women's organizations bring forward examples, and we will use the

time of the House to go example by example by example. I'm sorry to see

that the minister himself is not prepared at this time, and I hope that

he indicates by his answer something to the contrary. I think that what

I'm talking about is a pretty mainstream acceptance in our society that

there are inequities. It is not picking on or trying to make

[ Page 416 ]

points

with this minister's estimates; it's a matter of acknowledging, as has

been done across Canada with the constitutional debate and the

entrenchment of individual rights.... It is something that our society

has begun to recognize. I believe our society is asking that at every

opportunity this government and every other decision-making body begin

to grapple with those institutionalized discrepancies. I would hope

that the minister would reconsider.

I would also like to

ask specifically about the incentive program. Perhaps the minister can

give us some information about the community initiative program —

money that was at one time allocated for volunteer work, money to top

up assistance cheques on a monthly basis. I understand that that has

either been reduced or eliminated. I understand that there is still an

amount available for handicapped people, but I would like the minister

to perhaps provide some information about his future intentions in that

area.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'd just like to remind members on both sides to direct their comments to the Chair.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, the member is not correct when she says that that

situation can only happen if a woman is involved. We have several cases

on record where quite the reverse happens, where the man is living with

a woman. Further, I would like to add.... First, let me state that the

policy is very clear. We make no distinction as to whether it's a man

or a woman on income assistance — whichever the situation. We

treat people living together as a family unit. And believe me, Madam

Member, we are not the slightest bit interested in whether they have

sex or not.

MS. SMALLWOOD : That's not what I meant.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Well, you mentioned that they have some sort of sexual arrangement.

We're not the slightest bit interested. We treat people living together

as a family unit.

On basic income assistance at the moment

we have, for example, 49,000 single men, 20,000 single women and 35,000

single parents, of whom almost all are women. So there's a total of

55,000 single women on income assistance at the moment. But I just want

to assure the member that the GAIN regulations and policy are free of

all the gender bias she alludes to. Once again, I would say to the

member: if you have knowledge of gender bias or abuses, then bring me

those cases. You are still generalizing by saying: "I know of a person.

I know of...." Bring me names. Tell me who, and we will investigate. We

investigate any allegation of poor practice, bias or prejudice — anything like that.

As for your last question, the matter of the community associations was canvassed at length yesterday —

if you want to read the Blues, Madam Member. We shouldn't go into all

that again and waste the time of the House. It was well canvassed

yesterday.

[3:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Chairman, my final questions are to do with funding programs that

are specifically for women's needs. I have on some occasions been asked

by transition houses, or other specific programs that are services to

women, about their ongoing funding. It's very difficult, with the kinds

of information that we have, to be able to pick out that information.

Would the minister consider providing that information separately in

next year's estimates, so that organizations serving women and the

members of this House can see what the government's specific funding

contributions to women's programs are? In that way, perhaps we can

begin to look at who the poor are in this province and whether or not

they're getting the support they deserve.

Further to that,

I would like to ask the minister whether he can tell us about specific

programs that are available for homeless women in our province. I'm not

talking about emergency shelters or transition houses. I'm talking

specifically about housing that would be of support to the homeless

women. At this time it's very difficult for a single woman on welfare

with a $200 shelter allowance to be able to find adequate housing. At

this time most boarding houses or hotel rooms that provide housing for

single people on welfare are not the kind of situations that many women

would like to find themselves in.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, as far as breaking out the figures separately in the

budget, first of all let me say that yesterday we canvassed again very

thoroughly, I thought, the amount of money spent on safe homes and

transition houses, but again — and I'm not trying to be flippant or facetious —

if we were to break out the figures separately spent on women, we might

be accused of a gender bias, so maybe we shouldn't do that.

We do provide shelter for women — the shelter allowances, which have been increased last year and which will be increased again this year — and we do provide emergency shelter, and we do provide emergency money for people in crisis, whether they are male or female.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr. Chairman, my question was specifically about long-term housing for women —

not for emergency housing, not for transition houses or short-term

emergency shelter. And I certainly appreciate the minister's comment

that he's not trying to be adversarial in the information that he is

giving, because again I'd like to make the point that hopefully we're

all here in this House to serve the people of B.C. and to ensure that

their needs are being dealt with. I know that I stand and bring my

concerns to the minister in the hope that we can undertake a genuine

exchange of information in the attempt that we both can hope to make to

serve our constituents better.

My question specifically was

not on the funding of transition houses and women's places, but was on

the separating out. I don't believe that the sharing of information

indicates a gender bias; what it does is report on the specifics of

whom the ministry serves. Again I put my question to the minister: will

he separate out the funding for women's programs, and will the minister

give me some information on long-term housing projects specifically for

the women that I have outlined, the single women who have $200 and have

very limited choices as to where they can find adequate shelter in our

province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, first of

all, I believe my words were that I didn't want to be flippant or

facetious. I don't mind being a little bit adversarial; I didn't use

that word, but I don't mind it. Our political system is an adversarial

system — it has been since the days of the Magna Carta — so

adversarial positions are fine, and I agree with the member that we

should try for a good exchange of information, without being overly

political, in estimates. We'll have

[ Page 417 ]

time to be political when we get into debates on bills, I'm sure.

The

answer to the two questions is: first of all, we don't provide

long-term housing specifically for women. We do, in conjunction with

the federal government, build housing for seniors and the disabled. We

provide shelter allowances for people on income assistance, but we

encourage them to go and find their own shelter. We do not build

long-term shelter specifically for women, nor are we going to. And to

the question of will you break out the figures separately in next

year's annual report, the answer is no.

MR. GUNO :

Mr. Chairman, just to remind myself about the process, I guess you can

describe it as one where we as the opposition.... It's legitimate to

say that we're here to examine in some detail the amount that has been

allocated under your program and also to ensure that the broad mandate

of your ministry is being met. I think it's also legitimate for us to

say that we have the right to examine just how this budget is being

allocated within your program and also to examine, of course, the

rationale as to how these allocations are being made.

Now

my questions are going to be fairly specific and would more or less

focus on the particular problems we have in the north. I spent some

time in the northern part of my riding and in particular the community

called Good Hope Lake. Now because of the economic situation in that

area, a lot of these people are, of course, under social assistance.

The problem that they have there is that they have to travel 40 miles

to the nearest community, which is Cassiar, and Cassiar being a company

town with a company store which has subsidized prices for the

employees, it means that these welfare recipients have to pay a higher

cost in terms of just basic foodstuffs.

I'm not too sure if

there is any such thing as a kind of differential that would take into

account the higher cost in the north. If there is, how much is it; and

if not, will the minister indicate whether or not such a differential

can be contemplated in view of this problem?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

To the member, first of all, and again with the greatest of respect,

the subject of differential payments was covered at length yesterday.

So if we go into it we'll go into it all over again. Of course, if you

want to do it next week we can go into it again next week. It's almost

impossible to get into differential payments because it is, for one

thing, very difficult to set the borders of where you're going to do

it, and then almost every region can come up with a need that is

different than one in your area.

I appreciate some of the

problems. Now that isn't to say we aren't ever going to deal with

differentials. As I said yesterday, the committee is traveling around

the province to hear specific views of people in various areas, and

there are a lot of good points being made on travel and extra heating

and extra clothing for the north. But let me point out to you also that

when you get into the lower mainland, they can point out a need for

greater shelter allowances and other things. So the whole subject of

differential payments, while we're looking at it, is a very difficult

one to address. We appreciate the problems in the north country.

Again,

we canvassed yesterday the difficulty of staffing and retaining good

staff in the remote areas of the country. In your particular case, in

Good Hope Lake, that has been a problem for us. There's no question,

and we tell you that right up front, that staffing and retaining good

staff in that area has been very difficult. We are looking at the whole

problem of staffing and retaining, training and procuring staff in the

remote areas of the province. So it's a problem we are addressing, a

difficult problem, and we appreciate the distances that people have to

travel up there.

I've never been into your area but I'd

like to very much, and at the first opportunity, hopefully this summer,

I'm going to get up into that area of the province to see it firsthand.

But I thank you for your question, and it was well canvassed here

yesterday afternoon.

MR. GUNO : In posing that

question, I guess I wanted to highlight some of the particular problems

we have in my riding, which is the most remote, and the distances that

have to be covered are far more problematic than anywhere else. In any

event, I appreciate the fact it is being canvassed, and I certainly

will examine that with some care.

Now there is another

problem that I want to focus on, and that is the number of native

children that are being apprehended each year by the superintendent of

child services. You will probably appreciate the serious magnitude of

this problem.

For many years I have also been aware of the

fact that many of the native communities that have been involved or

have suffered acutely from this problem have approached your ministry

with proposals to deal with this problem themselves. In view of the

serious problem, I was just wondering if the minister would indicate if

there were any provisions made in this estimate to provide native

communities with the necessary resources to deal with this serious

problem.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We have made every

effort to deal with the problem that the member speaks of. I am sure he

will note that I made a statement in this House last week about a

landmark agreement that we had made with the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal

Council. I'm sure the member is aware of that; it went out in detail in

a press release and I made the statement here in the House. That truly

is a landmark decision. It's comparable to the agreement reached with

the Sechelt Indian band on self-government. We're always looking for

ways to improve the services we provide.

I appreciate the

opportunity to be able to say to the member that welfare, if you like,

or income assistance, whatever you want to call it, on native Indian

reserves falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. My

ministry contracts with the federal government in one area only and

that is in the area of child abuse. It is the only area that we

contract with the federal government to provide a service.

have a statement here that I'm going to read on Indian children in

care. I think it's worth reading into the record and it does explain an

awful lot of the situation. It starts out:

"The

Minister of Social Services and Housing today responded to questions

regarding the numbers of native Indian children which the courts have

as signed to the care of the superintendent of family and child

services." I point out that statement again: " ...which the courts have assigned to the care of the superintendent of family and child services.

"During

the 1985-86 fiscal year, approximately one-quarter of total admissions

to care were children of Indian heritage. A slightly higher proportion

was discharged during that same period, which points

[ Page 418 ]

toward a gradually declining total population of Indian children

who remain in care."

support of this statement, I would like to indicate that the children

of Indian extraction represented 40.2 percent of the total number of

children in care at March 31, 1973, compared with 31.6 percent at March

31, 1986. So it's a good trend, a downward trend.

"It is also important to understand that every effort is

made to place these children with their ex tended family, where possible. And

we have been reasonably successful. Approximately 25 percent of children in

our Child in Home of Relative program are Indians."

would like to emphasize that Indian children generally are discharged

from care within a relatively short period of time. Close to half of

those children are discharged within three months or less, and over 80

percent leave our system within two years.

So I think, Mr.

Member, that we have made a lot of progress in that area, but I

specifically refer you back to the agreement reached just recently with

the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council; and I'm sure you'll find the press

release most interesting if you haven't already read it.

[4:00]

MR. GUNO :

Before I begin my next line of questions I want to be sure if this

particular subject matter falls under the bailiwick of the minister,

and it's pertaining to home care for seniors. Would I be on a right

course in pursuing that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Just start into it.

MR. GUNO :

Okay. I have a document here which I received just recently from the

Home Support Association of British Columbia. You probably received

that. At any rate . . . .

HON. MR. RICHMOND : For the member's edification, the program of which he speaks falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.

MR. GUNO : Thank you. Then I'll reserve that for that particular event.

One

last question which is specific. You mentioned in one of your replies

about the fact that you're making every effort to retain good,

competent staff in the north. I have a situation which was brought to

my attention yesterday. In Atlin, the beautiful town of Atlin, which is

in the northern part of the riding, I think in November, a counsellor

dealing specifically with sexual abuse was hired on contract by your

ministry. However, it was, a six-month contract which is to terminate

on May 15, 1987. During that brief time this counsellor has made a

tremendous impact on the community, according to my information, and is

not confined just to counselling related to sexually abused children

but, because of the demand for his service, is dealing with marriage,

alcohol abuse and just a wide range of these sorts of things. However,

there's an indication that his services are not going to continue.

I'm

not too sure what the circumstances are, but in light of your comment

that you wanted to retain people who are trained and competent . . . .

If this person leaves, then the nearest area that the people of Atlin

can go to for this kind of service is Fort Nelson, which is about 700

miles away. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would. First of all, I will accept the compliment

on behalf of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), because it falls

under his jurisdiction — the contract of which you speak. But the

issue of recruiting and retaining competent staff in the remote parts

of the province falls across all ministries. It's not just specific to

one ministry. We are dealing with it at the Cabinet Committee on Social

Policy simply because it does cut across all ministry lines. I

appreciate your comments on the program, and I'm sure the Minister of

Health will be most interested in them.

MR. CLARK : I am going to be very brief, and talk about a particular issue in my constituency. I'm going to try as best I can — very unusual — to be non-partisan, and I'm sure that the minister will reciprocate.

Senior

citizens in Vancouver East. I think my colleague from Vancouver South

will concur that it's an ageing population in the part of the city that

I represent. The recent statistics bear that out. I don't think the

social service network has quite caught up with the demographic

changes, and of course I don't think that's by design; it's simply the

changing nature of the community.

What's happened is that

seniors, then, are becoming a higher percentage, and many of them live

in single-family homes, so they don't have the network and service

available. This brings me to the nub of my point. There is one agency

in my constituency — it's called the Renfrew-Collingwood Seniors Society —

which is a volunteer board that administers some limited programs for

seniors and is located very near my home at 22nd and Nootka. It was

incorporated in 1976, and for six full years, from 1977 to 1983, they

were funded entirely by Human Resources. They were in fact advised not

to apply for funding from the Ministry of Health, but the community

people, as they call them — people who come in off the street and are served by the agency — were funded entirely by the Ministry of Human Resources until 1983.

In 1983 they were cut 100 percent — completely cut off. The volunteer group — the Renfrew-Collingwood Seniors Society —

really did an admirable job, I think, of maintaining the service. What

they did was they applied to the city of Vancouver, they got a very

small grant, they worked very hard at raising money themselves through

bazaars. They've had yard sales and all kinds of things, and they

managed to keep it going, all the time applying for money both from the

Ministry of Health and from the Ministry of Human Resources — now Social Services.

What

happened was that very recently they were just about at their end, and

the Ministry of Health came through with some funding for two days a

week. It's extremely useful: they've got adult day-care funding for

those two days. But they still functioned the other three days, until

January of this year; they had to cut it back to two days. What's

happened is that they are slowly reaching the end of their tether. They

had a little bit of money in the bank. The place is running down a

little bit; they had to put in new ramps, which exhausted all the money

they had. They're still raising some money, but they're having more

difficulty, because again the clientele is changing and they're having

more and more trouble doing the kind of crafts that they do and raising

money on them.

[ Page 419 ]

I've visited it a number of times —

I'm really impressed by the work they've been doing. It's preventive

work, and it's providing a service that I don't think sort of falls....

It's not the kind of service I'd like to see institutionalized. I think

that kind of volunteer agency is really excellent. It's a tribute to

the community and its community people.

So what I'm asking

the minister to do today, if he could, is to review this case

specifically, with a view to trying to provide some funding within his

mandate. I think a very modest amount would be required. The city of

Vancouver, by the way, has put them on notice that this is the last

year that they'll have any operating money. Next year they can't expect

any. I think it's really an ideal program, and it fits within the

minister's mandate. I hope you'd review that with a view to trying to

give them some alleviation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Chairman, I thank the member for his question. First of all, on the

changing demographics in any given area: we are very cognizant of that,

and we do have a program to adjust, and we do, So we adjust staff on a

continuing basis to respond to changing needs. Off the top of my head,

I can't give you specific examples, but I can get information for you

to show you where we have moved people. Yesterday we gave some good

examples. In Prince George, for example, the staff has almost doubled

in the last few years. We are constantly reviewing every region to make

sure that the right number of people are in the right area. You're

quite correct, in your particular area the demographics are going up at

an alarming rate — not "alarming," that's the wrong word — at a rapid rate.

the senior citizens centres, 1 just have a statistic I can give you.

Back in 1983, when the funding was cut off, the budget for seniors

centres was approximately $400,000. Most of it went to two centres

only, out of 30 in the province. Most of them function quite nicely

without funding. So that's just a bit of history that I'm giving you

there.

Your question was whether I would undertake to have

a look at it. It's not really on the agenda, but I'll tell you that

I'll take a look at it. I won't make you any promises. But if you wish

to submit to me some of the statistics you've given, or give me a brief

on it, we'll take a look at it. I won't make any promises, The budgets

are not all cast in stone for this coming year, so we will take a look.

MR. CLARK :

I'd like to thank you for that undertaking. I just want to say one

further thing, and that is that l know that you adjust the staffing,

but I think this kind of community self-help program is more

cost-effective. I think they've been doing a good job with limited

funding. This is really ideal, in terms of alleviating some of the

burden on staffing, and to provide a limited array of continuing

funding to a community volunteer organization.

MR. WILLIAMS : I join with my colleague with respect to the previous request, and I thank the minister.

I'd

like to raise another area, and that's the amount that's allowed people

on various allowances in terms of additional income, if they work for

some community group, or that sort of thing. I was talking just

recently to a person on the handicapped allowance, a single person

that's handicapped. This person has an income that is now, I think,

$574 a month; out of that, rent has to be paid, along with hydro,

telephone, and looking after himself in terms of food and the like.

This particular individual that I spoke to pays a rent of $360 a month

out of that — you know, decent accommodation; and then there's

hydro and telephone on top of that. It probably leaves a disposable

income of around $174, which isn't very much.

Back in 1973

or 1974, the former administration that I was part of established the

option of obtaining $100 a month maximum in terms of additional income.

They could work for community groups, or whoever they might work with.

A long time has passed since 1973 or 1974. If that $100 simply tracked

inflation, then the number would be significantly higher today. It does

seem to me that a look at that is really probably long overdue. A

doubling of that allowance, it would seem to me, would be more than

reasonable.

I suspect that there's kind of an underlying

assumption about people in that situation. Many of them have a

difficult time, because of the various disabilities, finding a

full-time job; but more and more, because of these community

opportunities, they can get a part-time job working with one of these

organizations. A hundred dollars is pretty modest in this day and age.

If that were doubled, it would really transform the situation for some

of these disabled people, in terms of simply making their life a little

more enjoyable. I wonder if the minister has considered that.

[4:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to respond to the member. You're speaking

specifically of handicapped. The thought behind it is that they receive

a much higher level of income assistance than someone who's employable.

So last fall we increased the income earnings exemption for employables

to allow them to earn a little bit more, but we don't have such an

allowance for the handicapped, because, basically, by declaring

themselves handicapped, and being judged handicapped, they are saying

that they are unemployable. They have the option of becoming employable

and having an earnings exemption or remaining on the handicapped list

and getting much higher income assistance.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I understand what the minister is saying, Mr. Chairman, but at the same

time, if it was reasonable in the mid-seventies to allow a leeway of

$100, it would seem to me that it is more than reasonable in the late

eighties to double the amount or to allow $200 in terms of optional

earnings, I think there is an underlying assumption in what the

minister is saying that it is either/or. A lot of these disabled or

handicapped people probably couldn't get a full-time job, when you get

right down to it. So there is that harsh reality there for them. It

seems to me that it just locks them into a situation that shouldn't be

quite so tight or quite so locked up; and $100 in 1972 has to be worth

probably $300 today, I suspect, not the $200 that I am suggesting. It

strikes me as a rigid kind of view of this situation. It isn't an

either/or thing. There are people who couldn't get a full-time job, no

matter how much they would like to, and that is the reality for them.

So I just would hope that the minister might reconsider this area or

review it with his staff. I see he is nodding, so I assume that that

will be the case, and I appreciate that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Certainly the point is well made, and it is one that we have

considered. When we discuss rates and earnings exemptions, we always

review everything. We review the handicapped, the unemployables and the

employables. The other thing that fell under the same review was

[ Page 420 ]

subsidy

for day care so that single parents could get on. We review the whole

gamut of exemptions. I appreciate your comments. But naturally — and I don't have to tell the member this —

whenever we make an adjustment of, say, $100 a month, a tremendous

price tag goes with it. When you look at the overall, it's a big

number. A 10 percent increase in my budget, which is coming this

year....

MR. WILLIAMS : This is an outside-income earnings exemption.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Okay, just the outside earnings. But whenever we increase anything or

make an adjustment, there is a cost attached to it. So we look at the

whole thing, and nothing is cast in stone forever. We've taken a look

at this year's, at the number of dollars we have to spend, and

committed it, but we don't have a closed mind to it. Your point is well

made.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Minister, I can appreciate

that there would be some sort of ricochet questions around this in

terms of the implications for other people receiving help from the

ministry, and that you might have to review some of those; but it is

hard to understand how substantial the impact would be on budgets,

since this would be outside earnings. Anyway, I think the point is

made, and I don't want to belabour it. I think we understand the

situation.

The only other thing I would like to raise is

quite separate, and that is about Ministry of Lands operations and

transferring some of their lands to B.C. Place. This is outside the

so-called B. C. Place in downtown Vancouver — handling major

suburban subdivisions in the Coquitlam area primarily. One of them is

in Riverview and the other is in Westwood Plateau; I think there were

some in Pitt Meadows as well. The question simply is: has the ministry

looked at these publicly owned lands as social housing opportunities in

the suburbs? I realize there will be an extensive discussion and debate

around B.C. Place itself, in terms of the mix and percentage that would

be social housing. But I wonder if the suburban lands have sort of

slipped through the net and not been looked at in terms of social

housing opportunities as well.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I

can't answer that specific question on those two specific properties

off the top of my head. The philosophy that we follow on social housing

is one of, first, establishing a need for it. Of course, if there is a

need in the area, there are usually many non-profit organizations who

want to come forward and build such housing. Second is the cost per

unit, etc. under the guidelines laid down by the federal government. As

you know, they pay 67 percent of the cost; we pay 33 percent. I can't

answer you, but I can bring back information on whether or not we've

looked at those two specific properties. That is generally the

criterion: is there a need in the area? I can't answer that for those

areas off the top of my head.

MR. WILLIAMS : I appreciate your comments. I raise those two areas because

they are huge. The area above Riverview is a very significant chunk of land,

and it is an area that might well support some social housing, as is the case

in Westwood Plateau. These are huge — hundreds and hundreds of acres of public

lands — so that in a sense they could almost become ghettos the other way, in

terms of the middle class in suburbia. There's bound to be some need for

seniors and lower-income groups and the handicapped and so on for getting a

mix.

think the truth of the matter is that you get a more sophisticated

argument in the city. I don't want to sound like a snob because I come

from Vancouver, but it's the truth — mainly because the debate has

been going on for a long time, and maybe because the need is greater.

But when the city of Vancouver dealt with the south side of False

Creek — under Mr. Hardwick, primarily, who has worked with this

administration and continues to do so; he's a former alderman and did a

superb job on the south side of the creek — they dealt with this

question of the mix of social groups on those civic public lands. The

results, I think, have been very positive, and I think most people

would agree in that regard. The debate continues with respect to the

north side in terms of how that's going to happen. But we haven't seen

that kind of debate in the suburbs. I think it's valid; it's not as

pressing, but it's valid. That's why I raise the point.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm going to raise an issue which in many ways really affects the women

of this province in a very direct way. It's an issue that I feel

personally quite strongly about, and it's an issue that I am sure we

could all agree is essentially a non-partisan issue; it is the matter

of spousal maintenance for women. I'm sure that the minister would

agree with me that there are an inordinately large number of women and

particularly single family women that are on the social assistance

rolls and in need of income assistance. Many of them, and I go back to

my experiences as a lawyer, and particularly in the community where I

reside.... It was evident to me right from the very outset that we were

failing as a society in terms of enforcing maintenance orders and that

if we were successful in being able to enforce those orders, it would

indeed have an effect on the quantum of money that is extracted from

the ministry and paid out in the form of social assistance benefits.

want to start off by simply asking the minister in an open-ended way

what plans he has afoot now to assist women in securing funds payable

through maintenance orders so that they can be shifted away from social

assistance programs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I thank the

member for his question. I have addressed the point several times

publicly in the media, and I couldn't agree more with him that it is a

tremendous drain on the purse of the province. For every spouse who

defaults on maintenance payments, it comes out of the taxpayer's

pocket. I can't give you a number, but the cost to this province is

incredible; it runs into millions of dollars. So we have addressed it;

we first of all recognized the problem, and we have addressed it. But

the legislation does not come under my ministry; it comes under the

ministry of the Attorney-General, so we are working with his ministry

to close the loopholes, if that's the correct word, that allow the

errant spouse to get away with not paying.

We have a pilot

project going on at the moment in Vancouver. Let me just read you some

statistics on it, to bring us both up to date on where it is right at

the moment. The staff of my ministry have assessed the maintenance

potential of 5,600 clients and have referred 2,300 — 40 percent —

to resources that will assist in the pursuit of maintenance. As of

November 31, 1986, 600 clients were enrolled in the project. Over 400

initial variation and enforcement orders are being monitored for

clients who would not otherwise have made the attempt to secure

maintenance. The average project award is

[ Page 421 ]

15 percent higher than the provincial court average — $160 versus $139. The project average masks very different award sizes when the respondent is employed versus unemployed —

$211 versus $82. Sixty-eight percent of the orders were obtained by

consent, thereby avoiding high court costs. The payment rate on orders

is between 55 percent and 60 percent, or 15 percent to 30 percent

higher than the average payment rate in the province. The project is

monitoring orders with an annualized dollar value of $600,000. As of

October 1986, the project was recovering 40 percent of average monthly

expenditures, up from 16 percent one year ago. Just to reiterate, the

project is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General and his

legislation.

MR. SIHOTA : I appreciate those comments

from the minister. Of course, one of the reasons I'm raising it now is

because I didn't know for sure if it was going to fall within the

purview of the Attorney-General or within this ministry. There used to

be a time in this province, if I recollect properly, that women in

particular — but spouses, in general — who required

assistance in court to secure maintenance payments or to enforce

maintenance orders were entitled to legal assistance. I believe that

that program was eliminated in 1982. I don't know if that program was

provided under the auspices of this ministry or the Ministry of the

Attorney-General. But if it was provided under the auspices of this

ministry, could the minister advise whether or not there is any

intention on the part of the government to reintroduce a program along

those lines?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The program was

totally under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General, and I can't

advise as to whether there is any intention of reinstating that

program. But I would just venture to say that we're pursuing the other

line along the pilot project I mentioned. I don't presume to answer for

the Attorney-General, so on that question you're going to have to ask

him during his estimates.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA : Speaking of the Attorney-General, I'm obviously beginning to have the same problem he did earlier on today.

Has the minister made any representations along those lines to the Attorney-General; i.e., the need of that type of a program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

We haven't made inquiries along the specific lines that the member

mentioned, but we have had lengthy discussions with the

Attorney-General on the subject — hence, the pilot projects. Of

course, the concern is that many millions of dollars are being expended

by taxpayers when they should be paid by spouses that have generally

been ordered by the court to pay such maintenance. So we've left the

enforcement of maintenance, I think, where it rightly belongs: in the

hands of the Attorney-General.

MR. SIHOTA : In

conclusion, all I want to say is that I'm glad to see there is indeed a

pilot project. I guess it's certainly not a surprise to me that we both

agree on the need to have that kind of program in place. I would

certainly look forward to the introduction of legislation that would

make it easier for women, specifically — and spouses, in general — to secure maintenance payments. I thank the minister for his comments.

MR. CASHORE :

I won't be asking any questions for a few moments. I want to make a few

comments with regard to a subject that was discussed quite a bit

yesterday. It related to food banks. The hon. second member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Lovick) carried on a line of questioning with regard to food

banks. I want to talk about food banks and other ways in which our

society is, I believe, supplementing the work of the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing.

[4:30]

In making these comments, I am commenting on the point our

philosophical debate, I think, is taking on during these debates on the

estimates. On the one hand we're talking about the perspective that

says the phenomenon of food banks is something that is happening in the

volunteer segment of our society, and that it's not something that is

caused by our particular policies but is simply a phenomenon that has

occurred. That is how I understand the perspective of the government on

the phenomenon of food banks and other kinds of services that are

provided by volunteers to try to support the need.

On the

other hand, our philosophy is one that says that there is a direct

relation between the ways in which our political institutions function,

the ways the policies of this ministry function, the ways in which the

budget of this province functions and the fact that so many people are

in poverty; the fact that so many people, tragically — especially since the year 1980 —

have been added to the rolls of those who are experiencing poverty.

Therefore we say from our philosophical perspective that there is a

connection. I think that it's a good thing that we have an opportunity

in the process of these estimates to talk about that. In some ways

we're talking about what might be cause-and-effect relationships.

had the opportunity to talk to Sylvia Russell of the Vancouver food

bank a couple of days ago. As you know, Ms. Russell has become very

well known throughout the province because of her advocacy on behalf of

those who are needy in our society, in our midst. I've said this before

and will say it again: I do agree that there will always be a need for

a volunteer sector in our society, no matter what the economic

circumstances, no matter what the poverty. But I would say that the

experience of Sylvia Russell and those colleagues who have come to work

with her in the food bank has been very interesting, as is so often the

case with volunteers who go from whatever their lifestyle is, to work

in a volunteer capacity with people who are perhaps experiencing a

lifestyle where they have smaller financial resources.

think the experience is this: new perceptions and new awarenesses

develop as one goes down to the food bank and rubs shoulders with

people working there as volunteers who happen to be on income

assistance, as one works with volunteers who happen to be having a very

difficult time financially but are volunteering in that sector, and as

one meets those hundreds and thousands of people who come hoping that

there will be something put into the food bag each week that will help

them with putting nutritious meals on the table. While on the one hand

that is a service to those people, on the other hand it is a means

whereby the understanding of those people who go to work in that

setting often is transformed with regard to the meaning of poverty in

our society, and with regard to what they see as their responsibility

in that regard.

[ Page 422 ]

would

submit that one of the reasons that Sylvia Russell and many others who

have gone to volunteer in that type of enterprise in places throughout

British Columbia, be it Prince George, Prince Rupert, Fort St. James,

Trail or wherever.... One of the things that those people have come to

do is to become advocates on behalf of those in our society who seem to

have so little of the financial resource, while there is another sector

of our society which, it would appear, has so much.

These

are some of the points that Sylvia Russell made to me. She has been

saying quite clearly that one of the reasons why the people who come to

food banks are having such a rough time is that poverty has become

institutionalized in our province. She is not saying that as a person

who is riding some political hobby-horse. She's saying that as a highly

respected human being who has gone into that setting and formed that

opinion, and she is presenting that opinion.

She told me

that in the last two months the donations have been down. We talked

about why that might be, and one of the reasons we speculated was that

on a number of occasions it has been indicated publicly that welfare

rates were going to increase. This was indicated shortly after the

election. It was also indicated at the time.... There was an

announcement just before Christmas that there would be an increase in

the allowance made at Christmas time — something we were pleased

about. But when it's announced that welfare rates are going to go up,

or that a plan is being considered so that they may go up, and then

it's subsequently announced that they are going to go up and the

date — July 1 — is finally set, in the public's mind I think

there tends to be a perception, every time they hear that, that, "Oh,

the welfare rates have gone up again," when in fact they have been

frozen for over five years and, for some people, have diminished. So on

July 1 there will be that 5 percent increase, but I dare say that on

the basis of news reports, some people probably think those increases

are already in effect.

Yet the people who desperately need

those increases are having a difficult time. I think that needs to be

acknowledged. Perhaps that's reflected in the fact that contributions

to food banks throughout the province are down at this time. Quite

possibly the people of British Columbia aren't contributing as much to

food banks because they have developed a perception that the people on

income assistance are better off, when in fact they aren't at this

point. One of the points I think we need to recognize is that if the

people availing themselves of such services as food banks are the

average people who receive GAIN, then according to people such as

Sylvia Russell, they need at least a 50 percent increase right across

the board in order to begin to make ends meet. The people who work in

that setting feel that what has been proposed is woefully inadequate.

Did you know, Madam Chair and members of this House, that 70,000 people

in British Columbia go to food banks each month? Some studies have been

done on that. For instance, each week 3,000 people go to the Vancouver

food bank and 200 people go to the single parents' depot.

One of the problems for those who have to make decisions within the board of

the food bank is whether or not they should expand their services to include

the seniors who are finding that they are not able to provide nutritional meals

on their tables. Yet they know that if they make such a decision, it could very

well become, as food banks have become, a part of the social net, a part of

the social structure, a part of the expectation. Sometimes that expectation

has been characterized as crumbs from the tables of the rich going to provide

charity — our leftovers for the poor. That image of crumbs from the tables of

the rich is not an image that I would want in any way to be seen as a criticism

of those who contribute to food banks.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : I think it would be helpful for this member....

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Point of order — the second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE : The member who is heckling our critic is not sitting in his own seat. Perhaps he would return to his own seat.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Thank you, hon. member.

Would the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam like to continue?

MR. CASHORE :

I think the point that the hon. member for South Vancouver made is well

taken: that these people should not be criticized for their

contribution and for what they are doing. It has become very necessary

for them make those contributions, and I'm sure it's deeply

appreciated. At the same time, I would invite the hon. member for

Vancouver South to try to perceive this from the perspective of a

person who has found himself or herself locked into the welfare

syndrome, one of those 220,000 people who are on income assistance,

wondering what the shelf life was of that particular can that happened

to come into their bag of groceries, wondering just what the

circumstances were whereby that had come there, and wishing that

somehow they would be able to have the choice to go and make their own

decisions with regard to the way in which they would be providing

nutritional meals for their families.

I think it's

worthwhile, first, once in a while in our lives, to visualize something

from the angle of vision of those who are less fortunate in our

society. I don't say that in any way as a put-down, but I say that as

something that has indeed happened for those volunteers who have gone

from some of the more affluent sectors of our community to work in food

banks. That's why I said a moment ago that sometimes those people go

through a kind of transformation in their perspective, with regard to

poverty. But I think that's worthwhile. I think any time people go

through a transformation in their perspective, that indeed can be seen

as a learning experience, and that can be seen as worthwhile.

know that we talked before, and I know that we will talk again before

these estimates are over, about the Social Planning and Research

Council. They have done research into food banks: research that was

commissioned by a food bank task force. Again, I don't want to put

words into the mouth of the hon. Minister of Social Services and

Housing, and he might check the Blues before he comments on this, but I

believe he said yesterday that the Social Planning and Research Council

really did not produce a scientific study. I don't think we need to

quibble about that. We might have different

definitions of what it is

to be scientific, or what it is to be involved in a social science. But

I would repeat that the people involved in the council are very highly

regarded in the area of social science; and, as I said before, the

board of that council cuts across all political lines. Very

distinguished

[ Page 423 ]

people in British Columbia are members of that board, from all parts of the political spectrum.

[4:45]

That report pointed out, as I said a while ago, that 70,000 people

each month avail themselves of food banks, and that the needs of the

hungry far exceed.... I think we really need to hear this: the needs of

the hungry in British Columbia, on this day and for the last too many

years, far exceed what food banks can provide as a level of support

between what income assistance is able to provide and what they need.

It also points out that the average users spend 55 percent of their

income on shelter and 45 percent on other items. This report was in

June 1986, not even a year ago. But I suspect that those percentages

are moving in an unfortunate direction.

They also point out that the minimum nutritional diet....

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, your 15 minutes has expired. The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE :

Madam Chairman, I think our critic the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam, is going through some very useful information

and providing some useful background for the government. I think he

should be allowed to continue. I certainly would like to hear him

continue, with your indulgence, Madam Chairman.

MR. CASHORE :

That report points out that the minimum nutritional diet cannot be

purchased with what people are receiving on income assistance. Nearly

two-thirds of the people that come to food banks use the food bank

every week. Most are employable people. Over one-half have above grade

10 education. Over 37 percent have a formal job qualification or skill,

and 31 percent had worked prior to the recession. Twenty-one percent

were seasonal workers; it has become necessary for them to use the food

bank, owing to recessionary impacts, Sixty-five percent of those on

welfare had recently been on unemployment insurance. Each user who went

to the food bank was collecting for 2.3 people, and each bag of food

was used to help feed 2.2 children. Fifty-eight percent of the users

were looking for work.

I think that that indicates quite

clearly that the tragic story of food banks is that the people who are

using those facilities are not ne'er-do-wells. They're not people that

we would look upon as cast-offs in our society. They're flesh-and-blood

human beings, for whom this ministry attempts to care and for whom

indeed all of our society has a concern; meaning that it behooves all

of us to put our most creative thinking and our diligence into finding

ways that we can share resources with these people.

Yesterday

the minister stated that he did not think that food banks would always

be with us, and I find that a hopeful statement. But I happen to

believe that if that statement is to become true, it will become true

because of a conscious decision on the part of this government to end

those kinds of decisions that result in what I consider to be

legislated poverty.

To illustrate, I would like to talk

about what happened to the food bank phenomenon in Seattle. I think