1979 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

887 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 140.

Ms. Brown –– 887

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 894

Mr. Cocke –– 899

Mr. Gabelmann –– 901

Ms. Brown –– 902

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 903

Appendix –– 904

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to Motion 8, in the name of Mr. Mussallem.

Leave not granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 140: minister's office, $206,837 — continued.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't sure whether the minister was through

introducing, because she moved adjournment. Has she completed her

preamble?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it's kind

of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to ask. I think I should complete it

at that point. I have other things to add, but I think they will come

out in the debate.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is

the first opportunity I've had to publicly congratulate the member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain on her appointment as the Minister of Human

Resources. I would like to do that right now.

I noticed this

afternoon, in introducing her speech, that she was reminiscing a bit

about her commitment to Human Resources and how pleased she was to be

the minister. Maybe I should reminisce a bit too. I don't know if the

minister remembers the very first time she and I met each other. It was

by telephone. It was in 1971, I think, when, as Minister Without

Portfolio, she introduced the amendment to the Wives and Children's

Maintenance Act. That was such a long time ago she's probably forgotten

it. There were a couple of things in that legislation which concerned

me, and I contacted our caucus of the day and suggested that they

should not support that particular piece of legislation. As a result of

that I got a phone call from the minister because she wanted to know

why I did not support that piece of amendment, and in my capacity as

ombudswoman for the Status of Women Council and speaking for a large

number of women, I explained the position to her.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ombudsperson.

MS. BROWN: No, I was an ombudswoman.

So, you see, Mr. Chairman, we have been on opposite sides of the fence for quite a long while.

I am sorry the Premier is not in his place, because I wanted to thank him for

heeding my statements the last time I spoke on the estimates. I pointed out

to him that the then Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was

without doubt the worst Minister of Human Resources the world had ever seen,

and I suggested to him that he should be removed from that portfolio. I would

like to thank the Premier for acceding to my request and removing the then Minister

of Human Resources from his portfolio.

The

policies of that government haven't changed. They are still insensitive

and uncaring as far as the people in need are concerned, but it is an

absolute delight not to have to deal with the verbal violence of the

previous Minister of Human Resources. One has just to think back to

remember when everyone was under attack in this province — when the

senior citizens were being accused of abusing drugs, when Indians were

told to go back to the reservation, when everyone in receipt of welfare

was being accused of fraud. Young people, single parents, everyone was

under attack by the previous Minister of Human Resources.

was really quite interested that the present minister, in her attempt

to say something nice about the previous Minister of Human Resources,

could only think of the one program which he introduced, which was so

totally discredited — namely the PREP program. It never did anything

that it was established to do. It was so totally discredited as a

program that when the present minister became responsible for that

portfolio she introduced her own program of job-finding. As she told us

this afternoon, she sent out 60,000 letters to various business people

suggesting that they hire people who are in receipt of welfare, and

that the government would help them in that regard.

The

thing I'm happiest about at this time is to see that the deputy

minister is here. Ministers come and ministers go, but John Noble goes

on forever. One is never quite sure how he does it. He's looking

younger and a little bit fatter, but it happens to all of us. I'm very,

very pleased to see him. I look forward to the day when he writes his

book and tells us what the present Minister of Human Resources is like,

and whether Norm Levi was as warm and compassionate and loving as we

all think he really is.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As Norm Levi says.

MS. BROWN: We've got to wait until the deputy minister writes his book.

The

only reason I'm really pleased about that is because I know that with

the deputy minister sitting there we're going to get some answers to

some questions.

I'm going to start out by repeating some questions, which have been

sitting on the order paper for lo these many weeks to see whether, with

the assistance of the deputy minister — that very competent gentleman

who has lived through a number of Ministers of Human Resources — I can

find out the following things. Were there any persons formally charged

with defrauding the government of social assistance payments in any of

the following fiscal years:1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79? If the answer to that is yes — and I'm sure

it is — I want to know how many people were charged, and how many of those people

who were charged were actually convicted and, indeed, what the total amount

of money involved was. This is of particular interest, you'll understand,

in view of the report just released by the University of Victoria, which claims

to have discovered that there is much more fraud under the income tax legislation

of this country than there is in Human Resources. I would like to have those

figures anyway.

The

minister spoke earlier about fraud investigators in the ministry. I

would like to know who those people are, what their salaries are, what

their previous occupations

[ Page 888 ]

were

and where they are located. Where are they housed? Are they operating

out of the Human Resources offices all around the province? Where are

they based? I would also like to know what the total number of

administrative staff is, excluding the investigators, and what the

total cost and number of months covered for the investigators and

administration in 1976, 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 were. We heard a lot

from the previous minister about fraud. Indeed, the impression was

created that most of the people in receipt of welfare in this province

were involved in fraud — this despite the fact that the statistics show

that most of the people in receipt of welfare in the province were

children. So I would like to know how many fraudulent children, anyway,

there were on welfare.

The minister also talked about the

PREP program. She's the only person I've ever heard say anything good

about the PREP program other than the previous minister himself. Even

Mr. Ron Stew, who was hired to head up that program, said it was a

boondoggle; he said it was a fraud, that it was flim-flam that did

absolutely nothing. Anyway, the minister, in trying to say something

nice about the previous incompetent Minister of Human Resources,

congratulated him for setting up this useless program. I want to know

the names, salaries and previous occupation locations of the

job-finders in that PREP program. What is the total number of

administrative staff, excluding the job-finders, and what is the total

cost and number of months covered for the program for 1977, 1978 and to

date? I'I accept it to July 15; one doesn't have to be that accurate in

I have a couple more questions, Mr. Chairman. I want

to know from the Minister of Human Resources, with the assistance of

the deputy minister, the number of social assistance recipients placed

in employment. The minister told us she had sent out 60,000 letters. I

received one of these letters, not as an employer but because someone

thought I would be interested in the letter. It was an interesting

letter because it appealed to the employers of the province to break

the welfare cycle. I would like to know how many of the 60,000 people

did in fact hire welfare recipients. Were there any placements made

under this? She read out three examples, so I want to know if there

were more than three. Because to invest the time to send out 60,000

letters and come up with three jobs is not really doing very much more

than the PREP program, although I think her approach was certainly a

more sensible one.

So how many people were placed? Were any

of these placements made in ministries of the provincial government

itself and, if so, how many and in what ministries? Were any of these

placements made in the federal government? If so, how many and in which

ministries? I just want to interject here that I'm sorry I'm having to

raise these questions at this time. They've been sitting on the order

paper for some time, but I realize the importance of having the deputy

minister here in order to get questions.

Were any of the

placements in private employment subsidized in any way by the

provincial or the federal government? If the answer is yes, I'd like to

know how many jobs were subsidized and what the total cost to the

provincial coffers was as well as to the federal. Were any of the

placements made through Canada Manpower? I know that PREP was run

through Canada Manpower. If the answer to that one is yes, I want to

know how many in each month.

Mr. Chairman, I'm also curious

about the relationship with the municipal governments in terms of the

cost-sharing formula. What was the total amount paid by the government

to the municipalities for 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79? Also, what was

the total amount paid by the municipalities over these same years in

terms of the delivery of services toward their recipients?

And

finally, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the Pharmacare program, I want to

know how many persons actually received payment. How many people spent

their $100 and then sent in the additional bills to the government and

got a refund? What is the total paid to patients to date? What is the

total paid to pharmacists? This is that interesting program where you

can go and order your prescription which you pay a dollar for and end

up paying $3.15 in pharmacists' fees. How did the pharmacists benefit

in terms of prescription fees? Finally, what is the total cost of drugs

prescribed and supplied by pharmacists to date? Those are some very

straightforward questions, and I'm certainly hoping that the deputy

minister will be able to assist the minister in giving us some answers.

was interested in the sort of gentle and almost non-important way in

which the minister dealt with the International Year of the Child. I

think that the only explanation for that can be that the minister

really doesn't understand what the International Year of the Child is

all about. Twenty years ago, Mr. Chairman, the United Nations looked

around the world and recognized that there were millions of children

around the world who were in clear and imminent danger from starvation,

lack of housing, poverty, lack of love — a variety of reasons — and who

certainly shared one thing in common, and that was that they had no

rights. Everyone made decisions for children, and children made no

decisions on their own behalf. The United Nations, working on the basis

that two heads are better than one and more heads are better than fewer

heads, issued a declaration of children's rights in 1959 — 20 years ago

— on behalf, not of the children of British Columbia....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm always fascinated by the attention you get in this House when you speak about children.

HON. MR. CHABOT: When you speak.

MS. BROWN: Well, okay. You've given birth to so many, you're much more of an expert than I am, Mr. Minister.

any event, Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago the United Nations issued its

declaration of children's rights, and in 1977, two years ago, the

United Nations suggested that the way in which we could celebrate the

twentieth anniversary of the declaration of children's rights was to

make this the International Year of the Child.

First of all,

I want to talk about some of the things it said in its proclamation. It

was absolutely clear in terms of its proclamation that it was not

talking about public relations gimmicks; it wasn't talking about PR

trips. It was talking about meaningful kinds of legislation, meaningful

kinds of programs, genuine things we could do to protect the children

and enhance the quality of children's lives right around the world.

[ Page

889 ]

So it brought down these principles: ten principles in all. Twenty

years later.... You know, really, this is a year in which we are

supposed to be doing a reassessment to see to what extent the world has

honoured these 10 principles over the last 20 years. And so, two years

ago, this decision — this declaration — was made that 1979 was going to

be dedicated to the children of the world.

made it absolutely clear that what it wanted us to look at were the

rights of children, early childhood education, the health of children,

nutrition, the handicapped child, migrant children, child labour, child

abuse and the influence of the media on children. It repeated over and

over again that the United Nations was inviting nations to participate

in this — not by having conferences, not by printing posters, not by

having buttons, but by introducing genuine programs that said the

thrust behind the resolution is the belief that all children are an

integral and important part of our social and economic development, and

that their well-being is to be ensured and promoted in all countries of

the world.

on behalf of children, an awareness of the special needs of children in

making them part of the decision-making process on their own behalf.

The

other thing focused on, of course, was how short childhood was, that

it's not a long-term kind of experience, and that children's needs are

not something we can deal with in the future. Children's needs have to

be dealt with now, because all of us who have at one time or another

been children know that is a very short period of time in our lives.

I want to voice my disappointment with the government, and in

particular with the new Minister of Human Resources. I recognize one

has to be very understanding of the fact that this is a new ministry,

that the minister has not been responsible for this department for a

very long period of time. We have to make allowances for that.

But

I must confess my disappointment in the fact that the minister has

spent a great deal of time and a great deal of energy on the public

relations aspects of the International Year of the Child. Whether it's

a scroll which is handed out to people who are supposed to have done

well for children; whether it is medals, whether it is inviting the

children to come onto the lawn for the opening and then handing out

medals after they've had their speeches; whether it's the printing of a

song book so that the grandmothers of children can sing songs together

and say: "Isn't it wonderful to be a grandmother...?"

Those

are fine, but those are the public relations aspects of the

International Year of the Child. The hiring of the about-to-be-ex-press

secretary of the Premier to do a public relations job on the

International Year of the Child and Family is very disappointing. If

absolutely nothing happened this year that anyone was aware of but

legislation or programs which enhanced the lives of the children of

British Columbia, we would have come closer to realizing the hopes and

the dreams of the United Nations than we have today.

The first thing that the minister did was to take the very sensitive symbol

of the United Nations, which, as you know, is the olive branch, and desecrate

it and design a new symbol — there's a dogwood with a child in the middle

of it, and the United Nations symbol around it. What are we doing? What is the

minister doing? This is not the International Year of the Child in British Columbia.

This is the International Year of the Child around the world. Although we recognize

that in British Columbia we have a responsibility — because charity begins at

home — to focus on the child at home, we are not going to turn our backs on

the children in the rest of the world. So when the minister decides to make

a tourist promotion out of it, as she did with Captain Cook, and take the symbol

which is used around the world and desecrate it by redrawing it with a dogwood

with a figure in the middle of it — and all of this kind of stuff — she has

totally lost sight of the whole reason for this International Year of the Child.

are doing an assessment of what has happened to children in the world

over the last 20 years, in terms of recognition and protection of their

rights — and of them. That's what it is. It's not an excuse to attract

tourists to B.C. It's not an excuse to sell the B.C. symbol. I have

nothing against the dogwood; I think it's a beautiful plant. But to

have taken that symbol and changed it was a travesty. It was a public

relations gimmick, and the children of British Columbia are worthy of

more than that. The minister is worthy of more than that, because she

is no longer the Minister of Tourism. She's responsible for people now,

and we had hoped for much more from her than this.

First the

symbol was changed, then the medal was struck, then the scrolls were

made, then the songbooks were printed, which, incidentally, were used

as political gimmicks during the election — they were handed out during

the election with all kinds of political literature. It was really an

insult to the children of British Columbia, in terms of what this

government is doing during the International Year of the Child.

any event, in December there was a proclamation from her ministry, and

I want to look at the way in which the minister has dealt with those

things which were covered in her press release, in terms of putting

into practice the promises she made.

She said, first of all,

that in British Columbia we view the child in the context of the

family, and in the wider context of the provincial family of citizens —

which is fine. But where does that leave children who are not part of a

family? Are they not a part of this year? Are their needs not to be

taken into account this year? Most of the children who come under the

purview and under the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources

are children without families. How do they feel when they see that the

International Year of the Child, instead of focusing on their needs,

has been changed in some way by this minister to deal with the child

and the family? That must give the children in care, and children in

protection and the children under the supervision of the ministry a

very warm feeling indeed. It exacerbates the problem; it just

exaggerates what is already wrong while they are in your care and while

you are responsible for them. That was a very insensitive thing to do.

Let's

look at what else was promised in your press release. When you talk

about services for families and children which have an impact on

improving the quality of child care in British Columbia during the Year

of the Child and Family, you start out by talking about the adoption

program, and you say: "The adoption program seeks to provide children

with the security of a permanent home by establishing a legal

relationship between parent and child." What do we find when we look in

the budget for 1979? We

[ Page 890 ]

find

that the estimated sums to be spent on this particular program have

been reduced by 23 percent. Now you can't say one thing, do another and

hope to hang on to your credibility. You stood on the floor of the

House this afternoon and you said: "I want to take children out of that

never-never land of not belonging anywhere."

You start out

in your press release by saying: "First the adoption program, that's a

priority." How do you deal with this priority? You deal with this

priority in your budget by reducing the amount of money in the budget

from $119,100 in 1977-78 to $91,552. This is a reduction of 23 percent.

You're making an absolute mockery of the International Year of the

Child. You shouldn't have mentioned the adoption program in your press

release at all. You should only have mentioned those programs which

were going to have funding to them. But when you issue a press release

saying what you're going to do on behalf of the Year of the Child, and

then the estimates come out showing that you're cutting back on the

budget, we have some problems.

We have questions about

hypocrisy and this kind of thing. I'm not calling the minister a

hypocrite, because that would not be parliamentary, and I wouldn't do

any such thing. But I have real problems in terms of what the minister

said in her press release and, in fact, what she actually did.

There

are some areas in which there was an increase. There was an increase in

the infant development program, and that, very rightly, should have

been in the press release. As the minister said this afternoon, she's

very proud of that program and so she should be. I certainly

congratulate her for it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, I cannot believe that I've been on my feet 30 minutes. That

just doesn't make any sense. Have I? I've just started. But in any

event....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

The member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, I think, requires an intervening speaker so

that she can carry on with her marvelous speech, which certainly has me

sitting on the edge of my chair.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you also to the intervening speaker.

Mr.

Chairman, the only thing issued in the press release on the

International Year of the Child.... I am going to be spending quite a

bit of my time on the International Year of the Child because I think

it's important. It's taken us 20 years to make children a priority in

this world, and it's an opportunity that we should grasp. We shouldn't

allow it just to go by with an off-the-cuff comment, as happened this

afternoon.

The family support workers service was begun in

1978. I see no evidence whatsoever, despite the press release which

says that the program is being enlarged, that in terms of the estimated

funding for it, there's going to be any increase. We're dealing with a

budget which hasn't changed in any way. We're dealing with a staff

ratio which is going from 2,642 to 2,601, yet we're told in the press

release that this enlarged program will be fully underway during this

year. I want to hear about the enlargement, because it hasn't shown up

in the estimates and I want to know where it's coming from.

The

press release goes on to talk about the family support homemaker

service, and I have to deal with the press release because that's the

only thing coming out of the ministry. It's ministry by press release;

that's all. We've heard that there's $750,000 put aside for the

International Year of the Child. The only money we've heard that has

been spent so far is a salary for Mr. Arnett. He is a press secretary

about to be an ex-press secretary who is setting up a private public

relations firm to deal with that. I'm trying to find whether his salary

is coming out of this measly $750,000. But other than that we haven't

heard of any money that's coming, and I listened very carefully when

the minister spoke for an hour today. We were told the bill is going to

be coming, but she's not going to introduce it until it's written

properly. Heaven knows when it's going to arrive here.

any event, she talks about the family-support homemaker service. Mr.

Chairman, when you look at the estimates, what do you find? You find

that the amount of money set aside for this family-support service is

down by 39 percent. What is it doing in this press release? Is this the

way in which the ministry is going to celebrate the International Year

of the Child?

We are told that the objective of this program

is to provide temporary support and relief in the home to families

under stress, so that children will be able to remain in their own

homes and parents will be helped to resume their own roles as

homemakers as soon as possible. And what happens? The money set aside

for it drops from $7,710,403 to $4,641,670 — a drop of 39 percent. This

is the way in which this department is celebrating the International

Year of the Child.

Mr. Chairman, the next thing mentioned in

this press release is day care. Now it really takes a lot of gall to

mention day care and to talk about the day-care program when she's

talking about improved services for children. The information sheet on

young children put out by the International Year of the Child committee

of British Columbia tells us that more than 40 day-care centres have

closed their doors in B.C. in 1978. It asks: "Where are the children

whose parents were forced to make alternate arrangements?"

points out that there is only one centre for baby day care in the whole

of British Columbia, and homes willing to offer day care full time for

the nominal fee set by the department are rare. So it raises the

questions: "Where are the babies of parents who must work?" The

minister in her press release says: "This program is designed to assist

families in meeting the clear needs of children up to 12 years of age

through a variety of programs and to provide support when the parents

or parents are working, attending an educational institution or during

prolonged illness or other family crisis."

What happens to

the budget for day care? Well, if you accept that the cost of living

has increased by somewhere between 7.8 percent and 8 percent, you

wonder what is going to happen to day care when it has only been

increased in the budget by 2 percent.

Now there would be no

argument, none at all, if the minister had not issued a press release

saying these are the ways in which British Columbia is going to pay

tribute to the International Year of the Child and the Family and then

[ Page 891 ]

proceeds

to list all of these services. Then out come the estimates showing that

all of the money designated to these services have been cut back.

Because the truth of the situation is that services to children in this

province, in this year of our Lord, 1979, have been cut back. They have

been. They have been the victims of the same kind of fiscally

irresponsible decisions that have been plaguing our hospitals. The PR

thing wasn't necessary. If nothing had been said, if nothing had been

done, we would have been able to say the minister is not doing a good

job and then we would have been able to take our seats and that was the

end of that. But the minister can't help this public relations thing.

She just cannot help treating everything as though it was Captain Cook

and it was this big hype — you know, sell, sell, sell. Here we have the

facts on the day-care program.

Incidentally, this

International Year of the Child for British Columbia.... This is not my

information; this is the information of the committee. When I was

speaking to some of the people about day care, one of the women who

lives in one of the homes in that new False Creek project pointed out

to me that the situation for children over the age of 12 is even worse.

In that instance what happens is that the parents give the kids a key,

which is usually hung around their neck on a chain or a string or

something, so that after school they can let themselves in and out of

the apartment. Her child came to her and said to her that she wanted a

key too because all of her friends had keys hanging around their necks

and she didn't have a key around her neck. That's how bad the day-care

situation is in this province. Under 3, 3-12, after-school, any

category at all that you look at, there is nothing sufficient. Not only

have there never ever been sufficient places in day care for the

children of this province, but they have been cut back.

According

to this information sheet, 40 centres alone have been closed; their

doors have been closed. I know the minister is going to say that the

doors are closed because there aren't any children using the day-care

centre. Well, she should look at the subsidy. She should look at that

absolute nightmare of a subsidy structure that operates in the day-care

field and try to find out why it is that all the day-care centres in

the affluent areas of Vancouver and British Columbia are not only full,

but they have waiting lists. That's why it is that the day-care centres

in those areas, where people live very close to the poverty line, or

below, are the ones that are closing. The subsidy is just not

sufficient to keep those children in day care, or the parents just

cannot in any way afford the cost of paying the additional money to the

subsidy in order to keep them in day care.

AN HON. MEMBER: Day care is upper-middle class.

MS. BROWN:

Day care is very much upper-middle class — no question about it. Poor

people can't afford it — and that is where the subsidy was supposed to

have come in to make it possible. Of course, with this complicated

system, nobody qualifies. It's just not possible. The day-care centres

are suffering. The subsidy isn't enough for the centres to operate, and

the people needing the subsidy can't add to it to pay the additional

cost so that the centres can operate. So it's a real Catch-22. The

minister in her press release talked about helping people in

educational institutions. A family where both parents are students

don't qualify for day care. Immigrants don't qualify for day care. I

don't know who is writing your press releases — or, I should say, I

know who is writing your press releases — but you should check them out

before you release them. Because when you talk about making day care

accessible to people who are in educational institutions, or immigrant

parents, you are going counter to the policies of your department. A

family where both parents are students does not qualify for day care,

so it just doesn't work.

There is no kind of a cost-sharing

relationship between the government and a family needing day care.

Either you qualify for day care, and you get a subsidy, or you don't.

There is no kind of give and take, no kind of collective bargaining or

anything going on where you do a little and I do a little and we try to

work things out. It's a rotten system. When one takes into account the

importance of early childhood in terms of forming the kind of human

being that a person is going to be, it is nothing short of criminal

that a Ministry of Human Resources does not take the delivery of

child-care services more seriously. It is the Catholic Church that says

— and I may be wrong in the quote, but the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) can tell me — "Give me a child until the child is

seven and I've got the child for the rest of my life." Is that a myth,

or is it a fact?

MR. LAUK: I don't know.

MS. BROWN: Oh! A Catholic who doesn't know!

But

I certainly know all the research that has been done on racism tells

you the child has formed its prejudices by the time it is three and a

half years old. Those early years are crucial. Those are the years when

the money should be poured in to ensure that the early education and

the needs of those children are being met. It should not be later on,

building detention homes and detention centres, but in the beginning.

Mr.

Chairman, I met with some of the day care workers, and do you know what

their crucial complaint was? They said of a number of the children

coming into day care, because they have to bring their lunch now

because there is no money to be able to afford to give them anything,

that when you open their lunch pails they have cold french fries.

That's what they come to school with. They come to the day care centre

with bread in their lunch pails — without anything else. Cold french

fries, potato chips, garbage, junk food — and they are concerned about

that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Cheese. What have you got against cheese?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

MS. BROWN:

I've nothing against cheese. If there was protein in those lunch pails,

even just a little bit of protein, we would have no complaints. But

what I'm saying is that in the International Year of the Child the

money that is going to be used to pay the salary of a public relations

person to issue more press releases that make absolutely no sense would

be better used to put something either into the lunch pails of those

children or to make it possible for child care centres to serve at

least one hot meal a day. There was a time when they used to be able to

do that. I can remember when my kids were in day care. I had my

children at the

[ Page 892 ]

cooperative

day care and each child got a fruit. That's all. You got one piece of

fruit. If the parents wanted you to have more than that, if your

children ate a lot and this kind of thing, then you packed something

extra. But you knew that during the break the child would be given

either one apple or an orange or something.

As a result of

the increased cost of running a day-care centre, coupled with the

decrease in the amount of subsidy people have to operate with, the

day-care centres can no longer provide that, so the children are told

to bring a lunch. The poverty really shows up in those lunch pails.

When I think of the money spent on printing scrolls and striking medals

and printing songbooks and hiring PR flacks, I can't believe that is

more important than seeing to it that there is something in the lunch

pails of those kids. I can't see that is a greater priority.

I'm

so tired of saying this. We're not an underdeveloped country; this is a

rich and affluent nation we live in. There is no excuse for our

children going to day care with cold french fries and bread with

nothing on it and potato chips in their lunch pails. That's an absolute

disgrace. As the minister who has taken it upon herself to turn the

International Year of the Child into the Year of the Child and the

Family, I think you have to stand indicted on that account. Of all

things to talk about in your press release, you talk about day care. If

I were issuing a press release on anything from your ministry, the one

thing I wouldn't mention is day care. Your government's record has been

absolutely disgraceful in this particular area. On and on it goes: the

family day-care homes, the under-three day-care homes.... They're just

not sufficient for any of this.

You published a brochure —

and I had a copy of it here in celebration of the International Year of

the Child. The symbol on the brochure was so fine that even with my

glasses on I couldn't find it. That shows you what kind of priority it

had. The press release talked about the children's rehabilitation

resources. It says:

"This program enables

approximately 1,000 young people per year, who are experiencing great

difficulty at school or who have dropped out of school, to acquire

basic academic and social skills, making it possible for them to

re-enter the regular school system."

What do we find when we

look at the budget? You've cut it! It's down. The cost-of-living

indices 7.8 percent; the budget is up by 2 percent. You put in your

press release that in honour of the International Year of the Child

this great program is going to do all of these things for children.

Then you estimate a budget which is worse than before the International

Year of the Child came along. It makes sense to me that while

introducing your estimates you just raced right through the

International Year of the Child. As I mentioned to someone this

afternoon, if there is anything at all that this government is doing

for the International Year of the Child, it sure is top secret. Nobody

has been able to find out anything about it at all. The press release

is there. You put it right beside the estimated budget of spending, and

everything is down.

Special services for children. The goal

of this program is to assist families where there is a risk of the

child being removed from the home. You spoke in glowing terms about it

this afternoon, and so you should, because that budget is up by 14

percent. I want to congratulate you on that. If I were writing your

press release, that would have been in it, but I certainly would have

left out the other stuff.

You talked about child protection. You say:

"The

purpose of this program is to protect children from physical and mental

cruelty, to safeguard the young, to ameliorate family conditions which

lead to neglect of children, and to care for those children in need of

protection."

That's interesting. That budget, too, is interesting.

The TRACY people who have made an agenda for the year

designated June as the month to protect the child. The result of that

was that they did a survey which they released on the sexual abuse of

children. They had a press release; we all dealt with it, and you saw

it too. I was really a little bit upset by your response to that press

release. You said that society was responsible. Society has to clean up

its morals. Society has to do a better job. Who do you think society

is? It's you; it's me; it's all of us; it's the government. You've got

children in care. You are responsible for the children of this

province. According to that report, 300 of them are on the streets of

Vancouver during the summer months as prostitutes; they are being

abused sexually. You respond to that by saying that society must clean

up its act.

You've got to do better than that; there has got

to be more than that coming out of the ministry. It is not good enough

for the Minister of Human Resources to stand up and throw her hands up

in the air and say: "Society has got to clean up its morals." That

report brought down recommendations that touch on your ministry, that

touch on the Attorney-General's ministry, that touch on the Ministry of

Health and that touch on the Ministry of Education. There has to be a

commitment from you to see to it that those recommendations are

implemented. You can't leave it to society to clean up its act.

Obviously society isn't going to clean up its act; it's getting worse.

There

are people who are prepared to talk about it and to report on it. We're

talking about children; we're talking about children eight and nine and

ten years of age who are being sexually abused for money. There are

recommendations in that report, and the minister should have stood in

front of those television cameras or that radio microphone or whatever

it was and said: "I make a commitment to see to it that those

recommendations are implemented." Instead we got some mealy-mouthed

thing about society's morals. If that's all there is, why are we here?

If we can't protect the children, why are we here?

Or the

other thing that you deal with in that

section on protection was a

White Paper. You talked about the fact that you had received 1,200

responses to the White Paper. I didn't get 1,200 responses, but a

number of the people who responded to the White Paper were kind enough

to send me copies of the responses which they sent to Mr. J.V. Belknap.

They were unanimous in saying that the White Paper was just not meeting

the needs of the children of the province. The White Paper did not deal

with the kinds of services that had to be implemented. They kept

referring to the Berger report. The job has been done, the research has

been done, the survey has been done, the study has been done and the

recommendations are there. Let's get on with implementing those

recommendations. Someone sat down and wrote this White Paper; it was

sent out. As you said, 1,200 people responded, but over and over the

responses

[ Page 893 ]

that came back said: "You are not touching the problems in that White Paper."

Responses

came from the Association of Social Workers, the Registered Nurses

Association, St. Andrews Catholic League, the Port Alberni Foster

Parents. There were individuals who responded from the St. Stephens

United Church, Nelson District Community Resources, the Status of Women

and the Law, Smithers Community Law Centre, Chandler Parks school in

Smithers, Qualicum Beach Elementary, B.C. Parent Finders, Quesnel

Ministry of Human Resources, Family Life Subcommittee and Outreach of

the United Church of Canada. On and on it goes. The recommendations

laid in the White Paper are not meeting the needs. The School of Social

Work from the University of Victoria did an excellent presentation to

you on that proposed thing. SPARC, which must have your most profound

respect, submitted it. There were also the Coalition Task Force on

Children and the Law — again, individuals; Grandview Woodlands Area

Team, a Human Resource team, on and on it came.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

agree with you. You said the bill isn't ready; you're not going to

bring it in until it has been perfected. I agree with that, because

based on what was in the White Paper, you can't introduce a bill; it

just wasn't good enough. Mr. Chairman, in addition, when we look at the

number of children in care again, we find that the budget for that

particular

section has been increased by 2 percent. I want to tell you

that everything else has gone up by at least 7.8 percent or more. There

has been a cut in staff and the number of children in care is on the

increase. I heard from one Human Resource office in the Okanagan, and

they said that their workers were dealing with an average of about 80

children; one worker had a caseload of about 80 children. I heard from

one worker in Williams Lake who said that his caseload had 118 children

plus 18 Indian reserves and 30 homes. Now be reasonable. What kind of

supervision, what kind of social work, what kind of protection do you

think goes on under those kinds of circumstances?

Isn't

there a better way to spend your money, to spend our money, the

taxpayers' money? Isn't there a better way in which we can deal with

the needs of the children of this province rather than by striking

medals, publishing songbooks and scrolls, and hiring about-to-be-fired

PR hacks from the Premier's office?

Mr. Chairman, there

isn't any question that children who come into care come into care as a

result of the failure of society as much as a result of the failure of

parents. You're not going to lay this on the parents alone. In a lot of

instances we're talking about illness in the home. A lot of the time

we're talking about lack of housing, lack of support services. When I

say illness I mean mental illness as well as physical illness.

Sometimes we're talking about physical handicaps. There are all kinds

of reasons why children come into the home. It's not always sloppiness

or laziness and reluctance on the part of the parents to look after

their children, but once they come into care, then we have to have the

kinds of support services and the staff to see that they are at least

protected while they are in care, and that's not happening now.

Mr.

Chairman, there's not very much left on the press release, but if you

want me to have an intervening speaker and then get up and finish the

press release, I'll see if I can find one of my colleagues to intervene.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'I recognize the member for North Island. Even if the House is in

agreement, the committee has no way in which the committee can actually

absolve the rules, so we'll just proceed with the intervening speaker.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, in the course of this session this has been the best

speech that I've heard, and I want to continue to listen to it.

MS. BROWN: That was a really nice intervening speaker. I really appreciate that.

just want to complete the press release that came out of the minister's

office. She talked about the child abuse team, and about foster homes

which she also dealt with in her press release, and about the care for

the handicapped. Just to give you some examples about what's happening

in these three particular areas before I wind up, I agree that the

child abuse registry is something that was needed. I'm not quite sure

how the Zenith line is going to work, because in fact it's a strange

system. There's a telephone number that you can call from anywhere in

the province. If you can hear your neighbour or someone abusing their

child, you phone in, and the person answering the phone is in

Vancouver. So if the member for Fort St. John is abusing his child, and

the neighbour picks up the phone and uses the Zenith number, the call

goes through to....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

I'm just using this as an example. I know you're much too gentle a

creature to do any such thing — I hope. Then the person in Vancouver

has to phone back to the duty worker in Fort St. John, and the

investigation has to be done at that level. I think it tends to

undermine the community involvement in this. Maybe the minister will

deal with it. It's an expensive thing she's done, and I'm not convinced

that was the best way to do it. I think that every agency has a duty

worker — is supposed to have, at least — on call 24 hours a day. I

think that if the agency's phone number is known to everyone, or if

they have a 999 number, as the crisis centres have in other parts of

the province, and locally it can be dealt with right there, it would

probably make much more sense. But I think the minister would want to

talk about this. Also, I understand it was at a cost of $400,000. Maybe

she can verify that for me. I can't verify it, because it came from

someone in B.C. Tel and they may not be aware of it.

The

number of foster children in care. At the same time when we were

talking about protecting the children in care, the department has

decided that foster children are to be refused dental care other than

the basics of drilling and filling. I don't know whether this is true

or not. They have to go straight to Victoria for specific permission

and a special decision has to be made at that level as to whether these

children should have the additional kind of dental care that they need

or not. I don't think that's an indication of an increase in terms of

caring for children.

Residential treatment centres and

therapeutic homes have been cut back. Their funding has been cut back;

the homes themselves have been cut back. There have been budget cuts in

community grants and guidelines. All of

[ Page 894 ]

these

things have been cutbacks. There have been cutbacks in staffing the

whole way through, yet we hear the minister talking about the

specialized resources for children.

The minister was talking

about her love for the retarded children and how pleased she is that

now she has under her jurisdiction Woodlands and the other homes for

retarded children. What is the first thing that the minister did when

she had jurisdiction for Woodlands? The children at Woodlands once a

year go away on holidays. They go to a little camp, a summer vacation

program at a cost of $84,000. They go out for two weeks to Golden Ears

Provincial Park. Once a year these 250 retarded children who live in

Woodlands go off for two weeks to this camp in Golden Ears Park. What's

the first thing that the minister does by way of recognizing the

International Year of the Child? That program is cut from the budget.

According to this article, it was a request from Treasury Board for

cutbacks. They were told to cut back what they could and they cut out

$105,000 in medical costs, $60,000 in comforts to the patient, $40,000

in clothing for the needs of the patient and $9,000 in pediatric care.

But probably nothing hurt the patients as much as that two-week

holiday. The minister stood on the floor of this House and told us

she's always had this compassionate concern for the retarded children

and how really pleased she is that her ministry is now responsible for

services to them. This is what happened and that is the reason why I

said to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), when his

estimates were up, that he should put up a fight to get the retarded

children back under his jurisdiction. There isn't any way that he would

have tolerated this kind of thing.

We have the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) writing a letter to Merv

Griffin and inviting him to come and visit British Columbia and holiday

here. Does Merv Griffin need a holiday more than the retarded children

at Woodlands? Who can afford to pay their own way better — Merv Griffin

or the children at Woodlands? [Laughter.] I'm really glad you find it

so funny. I hope this means that none of you will ever have to have the

experience of knowing what it is to have a retarded child, because then

you wouldn't find it so funny.

In any event, Mr. Chairman,

letters have come in from a Mrs. Erich, who has a child in Woodlands.

She wrote to the Minister of Human Resources about her daughter and

sent a carbon copy to us. These children need that two-week holiday.

Rather than using $84,000 in the budget to hire an about-to-be-resigned

PR flack, rather than using it to print scrolls and a song book, rather

than using it to strike medals, wouldn't it have been better to use it

so that these 250 children at Woodlands could have had their two-week

holiday at Golden Ears Park? That's the kind of thing that would have

made more sense in terms of the International Year of the Child.

don't know who this came from. It came in the mail without a return

address. Nothing on it. It just says: "I have heard that the

Handicapped Industries Guild is negotiating to turn into a non-profit

society. This means, apparently, that your department is no longer

going to be funding it." Do you know who uses the Handicapped

Industries Guild? These are the same retarded people that you have all

this love and warmth and compassion for. It's a sheltered workshop.

That's what it is. They make the most beautiful garden furniture and

then they sell it through Art Nat's and other nurseries. I don't know

how accurate this is, because it has no identifying marks on it, but

apparently they're concerned that their funding is going to be cut off

too.

Who are we talking about when we talk about the

children of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, in this International Year

of the Child? There are 710,285 children under the age of 17 living at

home in British Columbia. When we look at the welfare rolls, we find

that, of the people on welfare, 58,693 are children. More than half of

the people in receipt of welfare in this province are children. Under

those circumstances, what do we have to strike medals about and give

ourselves scrolls about? This is an indictment. More than half of the

people in this province living not just below the poverty line, but

dependent on government funding for their survival, are children.

Now

in the International Year of the Child, we have an opportunity to get

at that figure and eliminate it or cut it down or do something about

it. There are all kinds of programs that could have been done. Instead

of that we've been subjected to one press release after another, one PR

gimmick after another, dragging kids out of school to come and stand on

the Legislature lawn so that you can hand out medals to them and get

your picture taken. When I met with the day-care workers, I told them:

"The way to appeal to the minister in terms of getting funds is to

offer to hang her picture in the day-care centre. A picture of the

minister in every day-care centre would probably ensure that you get

your funding."

But this is the year that we should be

dealing with those 58,693 children on welfare. Mr. Chairman, when we

talk about that, we're talking about poverty.

Before we get

into the issue of poverty and children in this province, I would first

of all like to hear the minister deal with some of the questions which

I have raised. I have been very critical; I am the opposition critic.

My responsibility is to relate to the minister. And to the new members

who are not sure about what an opposition critic is supposed to do, I

am supposed to offer constructive criticism. The year is not yet over —

it's only half over; this is July — and there is still enough time for

some of that $750,000 to be spent in a constructive way. I want to talk

about the constructive ways in which it can be spent. But first of all

I need some feedback from the minister as to how she can issue a press

release talking about the great things that are happening for children

during this International Year of the Child at the same time that our

estimates indicate she has been cutting back on some very crucial areas

and on some very crucial services to children.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I am really happy to have the opportunity to respond, because I have

just listened for what, I guess, is the better part of an hour and a

quarter to a tremendous amount of misinformation that must be

corrected. Let me just start by correcting your last statements, and

then I'll work up to the other ones.

Throughout your address

in this assembly this evening, hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds, you

continue to talk about public information or public relations, and make

disparaging remarks about lack of information or giving too much

information. I don't know what you want. It is interesting that when we

don't put out a press release, you ask why not. When we do, you accuse

us of public relations. But let me say to you that I have the full

intention in this ministry — as I have had in other ministries and is

what I've done in public life — to make what we're doing in

[ Page 895 ]

this

province and in this government well known to the people of this

province. You can't, on the one hand, say that the International Year

of the Child in British Columbia is a deep, dark secret and then, on

the other, criticize us for having an information program in the

Ministry of Human Resources — you can't have it both ways.

MS. BROWN: It's a gimmick.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Let me just correct some of the things that you have said. You said, on

the basis of an anonymous letter or note, or something that came, I

guess, in a brown paper package, that you think there are cuts in

sheltered workshops. Let me assure you right here and now that there

are no cuts. And if you can ever find a signature on that piece of

paper that miraculously turned up on your desk, let me know, and I will

certainly answer for you. It's very difficult to answer questions that

are anonymous — and you think they're a rumour — and I think that's not

the kind of debate we need in this House.

I want to address

myself to the so-called cuts in the camp budget for Woodlands. You make

light of the commitment that this side of the House, or any member of

this House, has to the retarded children in this province. Let me say

once again that we have the best program and services for retarded

children anywhere in Canada. There isn't any place that gives better.

Addressing

myself to the overnight camping at Woodlands, let me just say that I

too received a letter from a lady who has someone in Woodlands — you

made reference to letters that you received. I'I just refer to a part

of the letter, which was dated and received on May 8:

"Dear Mrs. McCarthy:

received the enclosed from the parent group at Woodlands and it has

worried me no end. My daughter is here, and they all have been so

delighted with the bus trips, et cetera. The government has been

wonderful. I kept my daughter for 35 years, until I became very ill,

and I am now unable to look after her. Everyone is so wonderful. I am

sure she wouldn't be able to adjust in another environment. We all look

so forward to their trips, et cetera.

"Maybe this is an NDP propaganda deal. They are so underhanded

with everything they do; I'm hoping and praying they won't get in again.

You've done a fantastic job in the government, and I wish I could do more

work for you instead of talking. "

Then I want to tell you that in talking to Dr. Pauline Hughes of Woodlands

about the overnight camping, she told me this is the question at Woodlands school.

They lose staff time on overnight trips because of "overtime" arrangements.

Overnight camping is not 100 percent discontinued, but there is now greater

utilization of daytime camping and more use of staff for this purpose. At Woodlands

School, for example, a worker attending a 24-hour period at camp receives the

following benefits, which were agreed to prior to this administration taking

office. For a 24-hour period they have two days off in time, plus four hours

additional pay. The specifics are all in the collective agreement in the hospital

and allied components. Some overnight camping is being done with all their lodge

residents on the special program of the Coquitlam school district, and a Woodlands

staff member attends this situation. Woodlands goes to Camp Squamish Lions

Club camp facility, and about 50 will attend. The part of the agreement which

makes it difficult for Woodlands to do a lot of overnight camping is that which

gives employees all overtime compensation in cash. Employees who are required

to work in 24-hour camp operations are to be compensated with two days off and

four straight-time hours cash for each 24-hour day spent in camp. The result

is that those who worked at Woodlands and wanted to take the youngsters on an

overnight camping trip decided that those impositions — some made years ago

and some not too long ago — in their agreement unfortunately precluded them

from doing so, because it is insisted that they be paid overtime. They did it

on their own before, but they are not allowed to do that any longer. The dollars

that used to be spent, and the time that used to be spent in a dedicated way,

are now changed. It is all changed around and it is a different way. The youngsters

and the retarded adults there do still get overnight camping trips, and they

get more of the daytime camping trips. Again, what you have said is completely

erroneous.

Let

me just address my remarks now to the Zenith line of which you were

critical. I think that it is important for everyone to know that the

crisis lines of which you speak are being used in the system, and they

will be called upon because they have done a tremendous job. Just

recently I attended a ten-year anniversary of the Vancouver Crisis

Line. I was there when it was started, and I helped them to launch that

crisis line. I can tell you it has really been a great service for the

city of Vancouver. But that service isn't available all over the

province, and the Zenith line will be. We believe that will be an

excellent program for the Year of the Child and Family. It will be a

legacy for the Year of the Child and Family. It will be a child-abuse

education program, a public education program. We will make the number

known, so that it will be well enough known to every citizen who would

be prompted to call in, either anonymously or not; it doesn't matter.

It is a program to afford them an opportunity to advise the people of

British Columbia of this program so that they will be educated too.

There are a lot of people in the province, both abusing parents and

people who have never heard of child abuse, who all need the education.

I'd

like to also answer your question regarding rehabilitation resources.

You say that there have been dollars diminished in that program in the

estimates. That's not true at all. In 1975-76 the estimates were $1.2

million — I'I use round figures — 1976-77, $1.7 million; 1977-78,

almost $2.1 million; 1978-79, $2.6 million; and 1979-80, almost $2.7

million. You seem to be surprised that we didn't dramatically increase

it, but let me tell you why we didn't. The rehabilitation resources

are, as you know, at the request of the school system. We place those

workers within the system as a special resource, only on the call of

the school that needs their assistance. In this regard let me tell you

what the demand has been. In 1975-76, 45 percent of that budget was

called on; 18 percent in 1976-77; 25 percent in 1978-79. In this new

budget the reason that it is only increased by the 2 1/2 percent — it

wasn't decreased, as suggested by you, but increased — is because the

actual expenditure in 1978-79 was less than was called upon, as it has

been in other years. That has been the experience with that budget. The

budget for this year is actually over the expended amount by almost 14

percent — 13.7 percent.

[ Page 896 ]

You

asked about the White Paper, and you asked why I don't just implement

the Berger report, why I had to have a White Paper. Let me remind you

that the NDP government did not implement the Berger report, and when

the White Paper came out, it was a discussion paper. As I reported

earlier today, it has had a good discussion. It has had good public

input. It is on the basis of reports that have been brought before us,

including the Berger commission report, that legislation will be

brought before you in the spring of 1980, in order that we may all

address ourselves to the accumulated expertise and wealth of

information brought to us through that White Paper. I think that was an

excellent process. I really think that the extent of public input which

we have had on such an important subject has been worthwhile. I don't

make any apology for not having it on the floor of the House this year,

because there just has not been time to do it well. Again, I say that

it has to be done well.

You talked about the TRACY report on

the sexual abuse of children. You referred to a press release, but

unfortunately you only referred to it in part. I'd like to refer to it

too. In my response to the TRACY report, I mentioned that we would be

very happy indeed to study the report and implement as much as

possible. I also mentioned in that press release, and in the public

commentary following the recommendations of the United Way task force

on family violence, as well as the TRACY report, that some of the

things mentioned in both of those reports had already been done. You

are taking the report and you are forgetting the response that came

from my ministry. They talked about putting up transition houses; we

already have eight transition houses throughout the province. They

talked about support from Human Resources and from the

Attorney-General's office; that support has not only been pledged; it

has been forthcoming. I said that all of the recommendations would be

considered by my ministry. I said that in my press release; I've said

it in my public statements; and I mean what I say.

You said

that in last year's budget there was no increase for family support

workers. However, those positions were already in last year's budget.

They weren't filled until later in the year, but 169 of them were

incorporated in last year's budget, and the balance of over 250 on

staff are people who left other areas of government and filled those

positions. So there was not a decrease, as you have led the House to

believe tonight. In fact, the family-support workers service is one of

the best we could possibly have put in. We're very proud of that

program, and I hope that you are too, and I hope that you are aware of

the work they are doing within the community.

Let's talk

about day care and some of the things you have said tonight in terms of

day care. First of all, in subsidized day care we're averaging over

1,000 more children per month than one year ago; that is for all types

of day care. We have over 11,000 children this year, and there were

10,056 last year. You mentioned False Creek. I haven't had anyone

writing to us about the False Creek area. May I just remind you that we

have in-home care for the very latchkey children you speak of. For

those parents who cannot afford to have baby-sitting in the house, and

for those parents who cannot afford to have care in the home, and for

people on shift work or who have to be hospitalized or who have to be

away for some reason or another and cannot be at home, we do have a

home-care, day-care service for children that incorporates that. In the

province today we have 682 families taking advantage of it. That's not

a lot, but the service is there. That couple you talk about in False

Creek could apply. You didn't read the letter or read anything into the

record on that, but if you'd like to talk to me about that letter, I'd

be very glad to look into it for you. If there's a need there, the

Ministry of Human Resources will certainly respond to it.

Let

me talk to you now about the family homemaker. The family homemaker

service is a great service. You say it has been decreased by 39

percent. Written into the record is that in this International Year of

the Child and Family we have decreased the support for homemakers. Let

me say here and now that is absolutely untrue. Is it correct that you

said 39 percent?

MS. BROWN: Yes. From $7 million down to $4 million.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Let me tell you about the $7 million. There was a $7 million homemaker

amount in the budget, which took care of the elderly, families, and

children. Of that $7 million, 75 percent was for service to the

elderly, and it was transferred to the great program which is under the

Ministry of Health and is in his estimates which you have just debated.

Seventy-five percent of that care has been taken over by the greatest

long-term care program in Canada by the Ministry of Health. The member

puts her hand to her head. She doesn't like hearing about the long-term

care program, but it's a great program. We're very proud of it; we

think it's a good job they're doing. Now if you took 75 percent of $7

million away to look after the elderly under Health, that would

ordinarily give us $2 million, but let me tell you what our budget is

for this year. We should have really got $2 million, but instead we

have $4.6 million. So instead of diminishing by 39 percent, we have

increased our care for the children in our care, for the families in

our care and the elderly citizens are now being looked after well under

the long-term care under the health program.

Another

erroneous statement that you would like to place on the floor of this

House and to the people of the province — somewhat like the election

campaign that we have all lived through, where we saw a political party

represented by your side of the House putting the fear of God in the

people of British Columbia who are in need, who are ill, who are sick

and who are needing the kind of understanding and the kind of support

and the kind of non-partisan attitude that should come for care....

When

one says that they have decreased the budget 39 percent when indeed we

have increased the budget, that kind of commentary is nothing else but

just straight misinformation.

I want to address my remarks

too to the adoption process. I am very glad you brought up the adoption

process, because I'm proud and very pleased to tell you that this month

— in spite of the fact that we have had a reorganization of the

physical office as well as the staffing and so on in the adoption

program — we have processed more adoptions, and we are very pleased

about the record. We hope that will continue, and we hope that the

speed in which it is being done is going to continue, because it's a

good record that our ministry is starting to have. Let me just tell you

that the cost of maintaining children in hospital only

[ Page 897 ]

has

been decreased. You and I and all of this House should be very, very

pleased about that, Mr. Chairman, because you know what that says? That

says that we are moving the adoptive child out of that hospital sooner.

That's the only part, and we can decrease it every year, Mr. Chairman.

If that's one part of my budget that can be decreased every year,

everyone in this House should say hallelujah, because that's getting a

child into a caring home immediately.

Let me also refer to

your comments regarding the Year of the Child and the logo and the

United Nations concept. We do not take away from the United Nations

concept. In fact in just about every single thing that we do in terms

of the Year of the Child — in British Columbia, the Year of the Child

and Family.... The reason that we wanted to emphasize the Year of the

Child and Family is because we believe that even those children who do

not have their natural parents, who are in group homes, who are in

institutions, who are in foster care homes or who are in adopted homes

and not with their natural parents, they have a loving British Columbia

family.

The citizens of British Columbia are caring. It's

not the ultimate; we would like to have the ultimate, but there is a

need to think of the child in the family concept. We don't have the

socialist point of view that you have to divide everybody up and

separate them from their families. We want their family to be together,

and we are emphasizing that in the Year of the Child and Family.

You

made some remarks about public relations and achievements — scrolls and

things like that. Let me tell you, there are achievement awards being

given out for the Year of the Child and Family because there are great

achievers in our province. Let me just tell you about one couple....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. The minister has the floor. Please continue.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I don't think that all of the catcalls and the humour exuded from the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) are really fitting for what I'm

going to tell you, because I'm talking about a Year of the Child and

Family presentation that was made, and there are several that have been

made. We could talk about them all, but let me just read you one of

them, because I think it is a very special case.

This couple

— and I'I name their names because they were honored publicly in their

own area — are Celia and Frank DeVries. They have five foster and

adopted children — some with physical and mental handicaps — as well as

two natural children. For eight years the DeVries have been foster

parents to Patrick, a nine-year-old native Indian boy who is blind,

severely retarded, partly paralysed, and has epilepsy.

Michael,

now six, has lived with the DeVries for the past two years. He too is

blind, retarded and has epilepsy. The DeVries are adopting Donny, a

six-year-old with one kidney and minimal brain damage. They have two

other adopted children, Julie, 14, and Margaret, 13, who are both

native Indians.

They have been foster parents since 1970.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we say to the people in the

province, the people who have gone out of their way like the DeVries,

the people who, when the members over there have long gone from this

House and have gone back into their homes.... When those people stop

laughing, the DeVries will still be caring for those children. They'll

still have that care, and they're taking that care for the whole

community. I think they should be honoured, and I make no apologies for

them — none whatsoever.

You mentioned, by the way, day-care

centres that have closed. But let me tell you that if they have been

closed, it's because an inadequate assessment of the need was made in

the first place. But there have been others that have been opened, and

you didn't mention the others that have opened.

You see, Mr.

Chairman, there's where this member places statements before this House

and where we find we differ so much. You see, the day-care service in

this province is a good one. It's based on the need in a community.

There will be day care. You know, the day-care centres and the day-care

service in this province wasn't started under the NDP government. It

was started under the former Social Credit government.

the day-care centre service — the ones that were started in those days

and some of the ones that were started under the NDP — those youngsters

have grown out of that day-care centre and there are not younger

children in the home to take up that slack. So the need goes somewhere

else, and that's fair. You don't want to keep an empty building with no

use for it. That's what happens. I'm sure you wouldn't be advocating

that.

Could I, please, just respond to the special youth

services program, the Davie Street program, which has been started as a

response to the problems that were outlined in the TRACY report? We

have a special youth team project that has just been started in the

last few days to address ourselves to that problem. The youth team is

going to work closely with police and juvenile probation. It is also

going to have some of our people from the Ministry of Human Resources —

we are on that team as well. They have a very good program working out

of the West End district offices.

It takes all the community

programs, all the correctional services, the city social planning

department, the provincial court, Gordon House, the West End community

police team, the juvenile liaison police team, and it is led by our

representative, Leslie Arnold, manager of our Ministry of Human

Resources.

It will address the issues of teenage

prostitution in the West End neighbourhood and attempt to work more

cooperatively with other agencies involved and responsible for

children. I know I am running close to the time, but I do want to just

give you this because I think this is a very important committee. They

will address the following issues: alternative housing, employment

opportunities and alternative education. The committee plans to attend

the interministerial children's committee of our government in

September to present a report and their recommendations.

One

of the successes of the committee to date has been to provide some

street recreational programming. Through Gordon House, contact has been

made with the Vancouver Parks Board, and also the committee has been

able to obtain access to recreational programs on a no-cost basis

offered through the YMCA and the YWCA.

On the initiation of the committee, the city department of health is currently developing a proposal to provide a

[ Page 898 ]

community street nurse, who will be available to children on the street in an attempt to provide preventive medical attention.

Another

area the committee has addressed is the issue of charging adults who

become involved in juvenile prostitution. In this regard, close

consultation is being maintained with the A-G and Crown counsel. The

committee is working profitably with TRACY to plan a workshop which

will be presented this fall, providing information on services

available to children.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sorry hon. member. Under standing orders....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

All right. Could I just say that on those issues that you've raised in

your talk this evening, many, many questions were on the order paper?

I'm filing some answers this evening, and the rest will all be answered

the same way.

MS. BROWN: I'd just like to continue

very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to be long this time, because

my colleagues are threatening me. They're all dying to get in on the

debate.

The last thing the minister did, of course, was to

reinstitute a program which the previous Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) wiped out when he wiped out the Vancouver

Resources Board. The youth workers used to do that, and this whole

issue of the increase of sexual abuse of children in the Vancouver area

has increased as a result of the youth workers being wiped out and that

program being wiped out when the Vancouver Resources Board was wiped

out. What we're having is the result of the incompetence and inept

decisions which were made by your predecessor, so I'm certainly not

going to blame you for that.

I just want to deal very

briefly with this comment of yours of the loving British Columbia

family, which all children in British Columbia have. I hope you read Hansard

Blues, Madam Minister. I know you don't hear a word I'm saying. From

your responses, it's clear you don't hear a word I'm saying. As long as

50 percent of the people on welfare in this province are children, I

don't think we should be called a loving family here in British

Columbia. As long as 50 percent of the people of this province are not

only living below the poverty line but are dependent on government

funding for their income, I don't see how you can stand in your place

and talk about a loving British Columbia family. As long as 300

children are being abused on the streets of Vancouver alone, to say

nothing of the rest of the province, how can you dare to stand there

and talk about a loving British Columbia family?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There

are children going to their day-care schools with cold french fries in

their lunch buckets, and dry toast and potato chips. And you talk about

a loving British Columbia family. That is hypocrisy. That's what that

is.

MR. BRUMMET: Are you going to ridicule those people who do serve?

MS. BROWN:

Nobody in this province has the right to hang a scroll on a wall or

stick a medal on a chest as long as those kinds of statistics remain.

And for the minister to use the money for the International Year of the

Child in this way — that's a travesty. We are not dealing with the

doers of good deeds. We're dealing with the evils being perpetrated

against the children of this province. As you are the minister

responsible, I am merely saying to you in as soft and gentle a manner

as I know how that all your government has put aside for this year is

$750,000. Spend it on the children. Don't spend it striking medals, or

making scrolls, or printing songbooks, or hiring PR flacks.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'd just like to respond to the comment the member made: "We're not

dealing with those doers of good deeds." Yes, we are. We're dealing

with people in this province who do good deeds, with people who are

positive and who want to change the Davie Street situation. We're

dealing with people and volunteers all over this province, with

citizens all over this province, who want to do the right thing, and

who are doing it in many ways.

The Ministry of Human

Resources is doing it in every way they possibly can. My staff is doing

it in every way they possibly can. My colleague the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom), because he has all the problems in corrections with

the problems of juveniles, doesn't blanket every juvenile in the

province as being all wrong, and neither do we as a government. What

you're saying is that because there are those problems, you blanket the

whole province with that. You don't need to celebrate the Year of the

Child and Family.

I'm telling you, as long as we have people

in this province who care, and I believe we have.... I believe in the

people of this province and I believe in what they want for the

children of this province.

Don't try to put the prostitution

of children or the abuse of children on any party in this province.

Don't try to place that on any political party. You and I both know

that's a North American and a world phenomenon, and that we're trying

to do our best with it. What we want in this province is to have those

doers of good deeds given the kind of support that makes them do the

good deeds, and continue, and want to do them, and not be called down

derisively for that kind of recognition. I'm not going to apologize for

recognizing them.

I know a lady who goes to the Children's

Hospital and takes out a child who is handicapped three times a week.

She's not related to that child, and has done this for months and

months and months; it is getting into years now. No one ever gives her

a scroll at a chamber of commerce meeting. No one ever asks her to

stand up and be counted in a social services meeting in the city of

Vancouver. Nobody recognizes that lady, and this year we are. For the

few pennies that it's going to cost, I tell you that it's worthwhile,

and I don't make any apologies for it. I don't make any apologies

either for the kind of support that we're trying to give. I make no

apologies for the kind of work that my ministry is doing and will

continue to do. Hopefully we'll be able to overcome the problems that

you've identified, listed and made inventory of tonight.

You

have made erroneous statements and non-factual statements in the House

tonight. I wish that you would take a look at the programs we have,

because there is a great

[ Page

899 ]

story

to be told there. It's a good story in this Year of the Child and

Family. We're doing things for families in this province. We've got

families together. We've got some good programs going, and we're going

to continue to do it.

MS. BROWN: I would just like to

continue, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the people who are doing the

good deeds are not doing them because they'd like to have a scroll

handed out to them at a chamber of commerce meeting, or because they

would like to have a medal to hang on their chest. We all know people

who do good deeds, and those people do good deeds because they care

about people and they care about children. They are the first people,

if they were asked, who would say: "Use that $750,000, a measly

$750,000, on the children."

The doers of good deeds are the

first ones who would say: "Don't use it to make a scroll for me to hand

out to me at a chamber of commerce dinner. Use it on the children. Do

what you can about those kids who are going to school without any food

in their lunch buckets." If that money can be used to give one hot meal

a day to those children, those doers of good deeds would appreciate it

much more than having a scroll to hang on their wall or to have a medal

to pin on their chest.

I'm not asking the minister to

apologize for her ministry. I know they're doing a good job. They were

doing it before she came there, and they're doing it despite her being

there. I'm not asking for an apology. I am merely saying that the money

that is there should be spent on the children. Please. That's all I am

saying to the minister.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'll

be gentle — no, really. Naturally I have memories of the past. I am

almost tempted to ask the minister where her secret police are, but I

realize that she must have left them in her last ministry, and it's a

possibility that this is why she got moved.

Now how is she

going to move them to where she is now? That minister should not have

stood up in this House and suggested that a responsible MLA like my

colleague might possibly be stretching the truth. That is the minister

who walked around this province for three years accusing the government

of the day of having a secret police force, of having ammunitions

stowed away here and there. Fast Gun Harry Cocke is what I was known as

in them thar days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you do it?

MR. COCKE: "Why did you do it?" that simpleminded little minister for the Okanagan says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask you to withdraw that statement, please.

MR. COCKE: "Simple-minded"? Yes, I'm sure I'll withdraw "simple." Yes, I'll withdraw minded as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To all members, I would like to point out that we are discussing vote 140. Administrative actions are not the issue.

MR. COCKE: We're discussing the responsibility of a person who made

the kind of charges that she made. I'm suggesting she is very poorly fit

for this ministry. This is a ministry involving human beings, a ministry that

requires real integrity, a ministry that requires a good deal of human instinct.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether she's wanting.

The

one thing that I stand in this House tonight to discuss just for a few

moments is something that's very close to my heart: Woodlands. I

listened to the minister a few moments ago. She quoted Mrs. Hughes. She

quoted Dr. Pauline Hughes. I mean she quoted the wife of the candidate

that ran against me in New Westminster — the Social Credit candidate,

not the Conservative. That Woodlands program has been going on for

years under this ministry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this a big expose?

MR. COCKE:

If I needed a big expose, do you know where I'd go? I'd go to the third

chair on that side of the House. I would say that the people are not

being well represented in Delta. That would be a big expose. He only

sits in his seat and never stands up and talks.

The Golden

Ears Park program for retarded children in Woodlands has been a

first-class program. It's a camping program that has been a boon to

those children. Why has it been cancelled? It's been cancelled for the

same reason every worthwhile program that this government should be

supporting has been cancelled. It's because they're squeezing for

dollars. My colleague points out that they're prepared to spend

$750,000 on a PR program; they were prepared to spend multi-thousands

of dollars on a Captain Cook program. Yet they will not take the

children from Woodlands to Golden Ears Park for their camping program.

That's not all that's suffering.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Parks and recreation — this applies to one of your parks.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which one of the hundred?

MR. COCKE:

Well, you wouldn't know. You haven't had time to find out where the

washroom is yet; by the time you do, you'll be moved somewhere else.

You've been found wanting in every ministry you've had to date. Why

should this be a change?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: He's been down talking to a colleague of his, I'm sure. I can tell by the sound of his voice.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to read you a letter. I won't identify the

person, but it's a letter that's signed and very.... But it gives an

idea, I think, of what's happening in Woodlands. This is a letter to

the minister, and if she cares to look it up, it's dated June 1 of this

year. It starts out:

"Dear Mrs. McCarthy:

"I am writing to you for help. My daughter has been a resident of Woodlands school for 20 years."

Remember, it wasn't long ago that she was telling about this marvelous letter that she got.

[ Page 900 ]

"She

will be 31 years old in November. Up to now she has been very happy and

content, thanks to the dedication and high quality of the staff.

Recently she was moved from ward 21 to ward 33 in the Fraserview

building. The quality of the staff is still excellent but she has

become very unhappy. Instead of progressing she is regressing. I can

only attribute this to the decline in the quality of her environment."

They're

concentrating people in Woodlands and they are putting people in the

wrong kind of situation because of the stringent budget — just exactly

the same as we find in the hospital situation. She goes on:

"While

in CP 21 she and the other residents had access to the auditorium and a

patio. There were ramps for wheelchairs, and sufficient staff to take

them to all the functions and dances, which were a great source of

pleasure to her. It is no longer physically convenient for the staff to

take the residents to the various functions, and now we understand that

as of June 15 the staff is being cut by three."

Doesn't this

sound like more of the same old Socred stuff? International Year of the

Child? Loving family of British Columbia? Marvellous minister? Well,

well!

"As a parent I would like to see the

former residents of CP 21 returned to that building, and I would like

to see conditions returned to the way they were then. I do not

understand why this should not be possible. Woodlands has had decent

conditions for over 20 years and there is no justification for this

sudden decline. But if this is not possible then there are many things

that can be done to improve things at ward 33, both for the staff and

the residents."

She then goes on to outline what those things might be. She says:

"If the staff is made more comfortable in their

positions then it must follow that the residents will benefit. So my

first request is that the staff be maintained at levels which would be

sufficient to enable them to maintain the programs which were the only

source of enjoyment and pleasure for most of the residents. Cutting

staff will mean that my daughter and the other residents will get only

minimal care, feeding and bathing. I have worked in private hospitals

and I know very well that a minimal staff never has time for any extras.

"My

second request is that the residents not be required to eat their meals

in the boys' dormitory. As things stand they eat in a very crowded

dormitory, and should one of the young men become ill or nauseated,

they still must sit there and eat their meal.

"My

third request is that an alternative be found for the fire escape

system. As it is, all the fire doors are kept locked. We were told that

this is because the former residents of 21 CP are now housed with

people who are security risks, which I take to mean people who will use

the fire doors to escape from custody of the staff. This is hazardous,

especially since my daughter and many others are in wheelchairs and

could not escape if their lives depended on it. I think that mixing

high-risk residents with zero-risk residents is grossly negligent

practice and should not be tolerated.

"My

fourth request is that a better day-room be provided. The present

day-room is so crowded that should one of the residents have a seizure

or require immediate attention for some other reason, it is very

difficult for the staff to get to them to administer the required aid;

it's almost impossible to get them out of the room."

She

goes on to request air-conditioning, because it's so hot as the sun

shines in the huge southern-exposure windows which are not open.

"There is neither air-conditioning nor ventilation. It is

my opinion that this is a health hazard."

Can you imagine that poor kid this week?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Dennis, what date is that?

MR. COCKE: June 11, 1979.

"My

sixth request is that a covered patio be provided so that the residents

can sit outside on warm evenings. As it is, they are put to bed at 6 to

6:30, which is cruel. It's cruel because it's unfair to have to go to

bed so early when they get few enough pleasures in their lives, and it

is cruel because of the lack of air-conditioning.

"My

seventh request is that ramps be provided so that the staff does not

need to use the little elevators to get residents up and down. It's a

lot of extra work for them and very dangerous in case of fire or other

emergency.

"My eighth request is that the

residents be provided with certain facilities that they have already

been promised: side tables, individual wardrobes and privacy curtains.

think it's very little to ask. I hope you'll look into this matter

because if these things continue, I know that some of the residents —

my daughter included — will regress severely and become vegetables. She

already dreads returning there when we take her home on visits for a

few hours on Sunday. She has never before in her life been reluctant to

go back; she has always looked forward to going back to her home. Now

she fears it. We would appreciate it if you, or a representative, would

visit ward 33 without giving notice to the administration. Please

insist on looking at everything. It is our understanding that some

parts of the building have been closed to official visitors. I am sure

the staff would cooperate fully, because they are just as concerned as

the parents about the treatment that our children are getting."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Was that letter addressed to me or to you'?

MR. COCKE:

It's addressed to you, Madam Minister. That's what I said at the

outset. A copy was addressed to me and a covering letter was addressed

to me, as the local MLA, which I didn't read. Mr. Chairman, I'm not

singling out the minister as being specifically responsible for this

case. But I am saying that this is the kind of symptom that we have

when we overlook priorities, as we have in some of the human services

and particularly in a year such as the year that we have now, a year

when the children should be recognized as

[ Page

901 ]

being extremely important as the United Nations has expressed in their resolution.

would hope that the minister will look into this situation. She can

have another copy of the letter if she wishes. As I say, it was

addressed on June 1 and it went to her office, I'm sure, at that time.

But this is a very sad case.

I want to say again that

Woodlands has been going through a transition period. It was moved to

the Ministry of Human Resources, I think, and well it should have been.

It was under the Ministry of Health for years and years and years in

this province. When I was Minister of Health, it was transferred to the

then Minister of Human Resources and has remained there ever since...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Aye.

MR. COCKE: ...the Attorney-General notwithstanding. Or he is standing — he's not with.

Mr.

Chairman, it's a situation that department is going to have to come to

grips with because the service has been declining and will continue to

decline until it becomes a priority in the eyes of the minister.

suggest that when that report came out in our local press some months

ago, when the cancellation of a simple camping program for retarded

children came to public light, that was enough to send people in my

town into orbit. We have absorbed many of the people from Woodlands. I

think New Westminster has a very high population of people that are

considered retarded. I think that we handle them well. I think that we

treat them well. We have workshops and we also have many boarding

places where they live. Many of us know a great part of that population.

But

when the people in Woodlands can't get out into the community and are

stuck there with nothing to look forward to, and then one of the great

adventures that they have every summer — the camping program to Golden

Ears Park — is cancelled, that is just too much. We're talking now in

terms of 250 young people who deserve our support. There isn't a

taxpayer in this province that would deny them access to that if they

had their way. It's just this government, in their tight-fisted way of

doing business with their institutions, that has created this kind of

havoc and this kind of very unhappy situation in Woodlands School.

hope, Mr. Chairman, that there will be second thoughts about this

question. I know that the minister is going to have to think over a lot

of the things that she said in her opening remarks. She was giving all

the loving kindness expression in those opening remarks. She could have

struck a few less medals, and she could have printed a few less

songbooks and scrolls and let those children have their day at Golden

Ears Park.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, my intention

is to be quite brief this evening. I wanted to make a couple of

non-related comments about the minister's responsibilities. The first

is that earlier this year, when I realized that the program of the

ministry and of the government in relationship to the United Nations

resolution was to fly in the face of and contradict the decisions made

by the United Nations, I didn't know whether I was angry or just sad.

It was one of the saddest days in the history of this province. It's

not terribly significant in the overall scheme of things, but it's a

symbol of the lack of understanding of some members of the party in

power at the present time. It's a lack of understanding about what it

was that the United Nations was trying to do with its International

Year of the Child.

To change the name — not just the symbol

— and the focus and the emphasis, and to deny the whole purpose that

the United Nations had set is, in my judgment, one of the greater

mistakes made by the government. It's not that it's of any big

significance to people's lives in this province; it isn't. But I think

it establishes a kind of absolute lack of understanding about what

problems children face in our society. I guess my initial reaction was

a combination of anger and disappointment. My response now is one of

simple sadness that the government chose to go in that direction. I

think it was wrong.

There are so many problems that children

face in our society. If we as MLAs would all stand up and make speeches

about all of the individual cases and all of the situations, we would

be here for many days discussing these estimates.

I want to

say that the minister's response concerning child care was not

necessarily inaccurate, not necessarily wrong, but it totally

misunderstood the situation concerning child care in the community. I

know a great many people in this province who, because there are no

adequate child-care facilities, give their children keys so the

children can go home after school. In the holidays the children are

free to roam the streets. I know a great many parents in this province

who allow their children to go into illegal baby-sitting situations —

the mother down the street who is home and who takes in any number of

kids, not through the licence program but just on an ad hoc basis,

because there are no child-care facilities.

I know a great

many women in this province who are forced to stay home — particularly

in remote communities. They are forced to stay home, unable to go to

work which they would like to do, simply because there are no

facilities for child care. If the government had a commitment to make

those kinds of facilities available, then you would find they would

fill up very, very rapidly. I can guarantee you that would happen from

Vancouver to Port McNeill, and in every community in between and beyond.

The

only other matter I wanted to raise tonight is one that I have had

several cases of lately. It relates to a decision of your predecessor

to merge HPIA and social assistance, to in effect have Handicapped

Persons Income Allowance treated as welfare. It's treated that way in

the estimates; it's all lumped into the one sum under social

allowances. Under the NDP government, we had HPIA as a separate

function. That allowed people who were handicapped and refused to go on

welfare, because for some reason they found "welfare" demeaning, to

accept a handicapped pension and hold their heads high. I have had

three cases in the last couple of months — since the election — of

people whom your staff tell me are eligible for HPIA, who are not on

HPIA because they will not apply for "welfare." It's a very simple

matter. I don't know whether you are getting notes prepared to argue

with me, but don't, because your staff, your social workers in the

field, are telling people that it's welfare. They have to because it is

under the vote and under the way the ministry is run. I'm asking you

sincerely, not in a political way, just as a sincere request from one

MLA to another, that you seriously consider taking HPIA away from

social allowance, so that people who — for wrong reasons,

[ Page 902 ]

in my judgment — feel that welfare is demeaning can apply for HPIA and hold their heads high.

MS. BROWN:

I thought that maybe the minister was going to respond, but if she

doesn't want to, I will just complete a couple of statements I was

making about the International Year of the Child. I started to talk

about poverty just at the time when the light went on, and I couldn't

speak any more. I want to specifically talk about something that was

done by the ministry, that in fact affects children more than any other

group in British Columbia. This is the wiping out of the special-needs

category of the welfare rates.

What happened, Mr. Chairman —

and this is really very interesting — is that when the federal

government decided to reorganize the whole family allowance system so

that people below a certain income level could receive more benefits

than others, the federal Minister of Health and Welfare asked the

provinces not to take this sum of money into account and categorize it

as income for welfare purposes.

In other words, under the

old system the family allowance cheque that used to come for $20 a

month or whatever was not considered income, and so your welfare rate

was not affected by it. So when the federal scheme changed, and it went

to a lump sum payment at the beginning of the year, the federal

minister approached the provinces and said: "Don't tax this. Don't

accept this as income. Allow it to go through."

She received

a commitment from the provincial minister saying: "We wouldn't tax it.

It's not going to be considered income. The families are going to be

allowed to keep their $300."

But what did she do at the same

time? At the same time, she eliminated the special-needs category from

the welfare rates. And what the special-needs category does — for the

benefit of the Attorney-General, who is really interested in this — is

that in those instances where children need a winter coat or additional

blankets for the bed, or shoes or boots for school, or any additional

kind of expense, they would go to the social worker. The social worker

would make an assessment of the request and the money would be given

out of the special-needs fund.

Ninety percent of the

requests on special needs, maybe more than that, went to children,

whether it was to purchase a new mattress for a bed or an additional

piece of furniture, or clothing, or whatever. The special-needs fund

took care of that. By the process of wiping out special needs, what the

minister in fact did was to put the family in a situation where they

had to use the family allowance cheque. This lump sum now became their

special-needs cheque. So she achieved the same goal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Worse.

MS. BROWN:

Worse. That's right. They say, "no, it's not income, we're not going to

tax it," but wipe out the special-needs category. On the special needs

a family could get up to $500. The family allowance lump sum payment is

$300.

So three things happened to the family. The monthly

family allowance cheque went down to a lower figure, so that was an

immediate cut in income for the welfare recipient family; the

special-needs category disappeared totally; and the family ended up

with $200 less to operate with as a result of this new system. All of

this was instituted and became part of the system, part of what this

loving British Columbia does for the children, in this the Year of Our

Lord Nineteen Hundred and Seventy-Nine, the International Year of the

Child. Poverty is worse, and the impact of poverty on the children of

this province is worse as a result of that minister's decision to wipe

out the special needs category.

If the minister is serious

about the International Year of the Child, and wants to do something

meaningful about that, the first thing she should do is to reinstate

the special needs category. I know there is a crisis category. I've

seen the memorandum part of the manual that goes out that says that if

the child's life is in danger or in the case of a crisis this thing

will be viewed under those circumstances. I have a letter here from a

minister of one of the churches in Vancouver who tells of a case of a

family who were moving from rotten, filthy housing into decent housing,

courtesy of the government's willingness to pay the full rent

supplement, but they couldn't go because there was no money for moving

costs. That's what special needs would have done. It would have picked

up the tab for the moving costs. But there is no special needs, so

unless each member of the family moves with one piece of furniture on

their heads back and forth or something — they can't move.

rather than the scrolls, rather than the song book, rather than the

medals or whatever else — gimmickry — that the minister has in mind,

here is a concrete thing that can be done for those more than 58,000

children on the welfare rolls. The children make up more than half of

the welfare rolls. Reintroduce that special-needs category and still

allow them to keep that $300 without it being considered as income.

The Attorney-General is getting fidgety. Would you like me to move?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No. The minister's got an answer for you.

MS. BROWN: But I haven't finished my questions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you going to be on tomorrow, Rosemary?

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You wouldn't want the facts to get out tonight; you want to wait until 1 o'clock tomorrow.

MS. BROWN: This is not an occasion for facetiousness, really.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN:

It isn't. I am trying to make a serious suggestion to the minister, and

she has chosen to use it as an opportunity to be facetious. I do want

the facts to get out; that's precisely why I am raising the issue at

this time. Now if the minister has a response, I'm quite willing to

hear it, but it's not necessary to be facetious.

[ Page 903 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In response to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, first of all, let me say

that we were the first province to exempt for the tax credit in

response to the federal administration. Let me just explain the new

system. You're saying that it diminishes the special needs. When we

increased the shelter allowance under income assistance, we made

provision in two ways: first of all, we still retain the special needs

for work-related expenses, and we still retain the special needs for

people who can prove they have a very special need, such as a crisis

need, as you well explained.

Let me tell you what the

difference is between the system we had before, which you speak of, as

compared to now. We had a squeaky-wheel system. Those who went into a

ministry office and talked the longest and loudest got the special

need. There were people, though, who were in housing which was not

adequate, and they did not have those special programs. It was a

squeaky-wheel system. We have substantially increased the rates,

particularly in the shelter allowances. Maintenance is included in the

shelter allowance, which it didn't include before. We also pay the

Hydro and the telephone, which was not included before. That's a

departure that wasn't under any administration until April of this

year. And that's a good departure. I think you would agree with that.

Can I just explain to you that we encourage people to seek better

housing by virtue of that change? And they have. They've improved their

housing. They've upgraded their housing, and this has made it possible.

I'm awfully pleased you agree and nod your head in support of that.

Could

I just say that in regard to the family tax credit, which was brought

in by the federal government, it was our government that said we should

not deny the children's allowances for the first month of the year? The

$8 allowance, which they would feel very strongly, was continued under

this administration. That wasn't done in the other provinces. So I

disagree with you on that. I just think that now everybody is getting

special needs by virtue of a better deal, and the squeaky wheels are

getting it too. They're all getting it.

To the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who made the comments regarding the

$750,000 for the Year of the Child, I could tell you that was just the

first part of the Year of the Child allocation. We have asked for more

funds for the Year of the Child and Family, and when you consider that

the federal government is spending only $1 million in all of Canada for

the Year of the Child, I think British Columbia is doing pretty well.

I'll answer the others tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I file an answer to a question standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

[ Page

904 ]

APPENDIX

25 Mr. Hall asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister

of Government Services the following questions:

With reference to the Queen's Printer-

1. Was any work contracted out in the years 1976/77, 1977/78, and 1978/79?

If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (

a) what was the total dollar value in

each year and (

b) what was the number of jobs involved in each year?

3. What was the total number of employees of the Queen's Printer in each year?

4. What was the name of each successful bidder or recipient of the contracts awarded and the amounts they received?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) 1976/77, $2, 75,624.12; 1977/78, $3,500,309.16; and 1978/79,

$5,500,004.82.

(

b) Queen's Printer records do not reflect this information. An inordinate

amount of time and effort would be required to obtain same.

"3. The total number of employees of the Queen's Printer as of the

beginning of each fiscal year was: 1976/77, 138; 1977/78, 129; and 1978/79,

"4. The following is a list of commercial printing firms to which the

Queen's Printer awarded contracts in the three fiscal years. The amount

for each firm is the total of the invoices paid in each of the fiscal years:

1976/77

1977/78

1978/79

Accent Press

5,838.20

460.00

Ad-Print Markings

601.74

A-1 Instant Printing

205.94

1,365.11

Agency Press

176,083.72

350,148.36

663,618.37

Antonson Publishing

210.00

Avery Products

2,497.56

7,776.33

6.289.99

Baker Lovick

5,243.84

Benwell Atkins

7,359.21

Canada Decal

25,433.20

47,465.84

45,576.85

Canada Envelope

4,252.41

6,911.46

2,185.95

Capital Business Forms

55,115.59

323,121.78

Chapman Printing

150.00

Computype Service

4,070.00

Control Data

12,535.44

Cowan Signs

990.00

R. L. Crain

16,508.54

7,028.28

40,367.33

Crest Screen Printing

332.60

562.50

586.00

Crossman-Goldstream

3,634.01

Evergreen Press

648,704.78

678,969.18

1,187,468.35

Fleming Review

16,122.50

51,789.00

11,731.00

Foto Print

15,975.16

Gehrke Printing

212.00

Globe Envelopes

40,850.95

Hazeldine Press

16,215.00

98,113.30

Hemlock Printers

35,580.76

64,901.00

Hodgson Printing

98.75

Instant Printing

650.00

114.75

Island Business Forms

2,257.12

9,783.08

Island Envelopes

685.33

Island Graphics

82.60

495.00

Keystone Business Forms

55,616.18

31,835.85

99,515.08

Kingsway Quick Print

1,685.00

Lawson Business Forms & Lawson

Graphics

289,879.62

218,250.09

307,314.38

McBee Company

9,254.34

3,625.13

8,235.41

Mills Printing

863.95

[ Page

905 ]

1976/77

1977/78

1978/79

Mitchell Press

250,933.17

385,541.11

491,976.89

Moore Business Forms

671,843.29

819,762.16

1,061,770.85

Norfield Hard

9,862.83

155.45

1,985.55

North West Graphics

450.10

One Write Accounting

1,494.90

46,696.43

58,037.00

Park Stationery & Printers

499.00

Peerless Printers

35.72

Barber Ellis (approximate dollars,

combination supplier)

210,000.00

225,000.00

280,000.00

Pioneer Envelopes

246,054.44

309,454.22

355,244.97

Prestige Printers

332.30

592.35

Price Printing

23,195.84

29,665.80

122,657.20

Prince George Printing

73.50

The Printing House

316.20

443.05

1,792.93

Pro-Printers

487.12

34.38

Royal Printers

3,312.75

744.10

Safeguard Bus Systems

1,146.10

332.75

Security Printing

1,095.00

355.20

Shears Printing

108.00

198.55

3,361.65

Sign Ads B.C.

1,371.20

Southarn Farwest

57,055.95

48,033.43

53,743.25

Spee-dee Printing

825.00

696.77

Springer Engr. Stat.

27,341.95

33,689.79

37,538.69

Superior Reproduction

875.00

Surrey Graphics

2,126.20

Trade Engraving

9,511.01

26,191.25

67,246.61

Venture Press

4,154.00

Victoria Speedi Copy

2,372.40

Western Re-producers

51.12

Zenith Graphics

6,362.70

9.922.04

38,426.10

---------------

---------------

---------------

Totals Firm/Year

---------------

---------------

---------------

Total

2,775,624.12

3,500,309.16

5,500,044.82"

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada