1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st 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, SEPTEMBER 22, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5729 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Chinese activity centre lottery authorization. Mr. Macdonald –– 5729

Proclamation of Residential Tenancy Act. Mr. Wallace –– 5729

Wiretapping by RCMP. Mr. Macdonald –– 5730

Revelstoke workers' accommodation. Mr. King –– 5730

Ownership of Government Street property. Mr. Barnes –– 5731

Pharmacare coverage for megavitamins. Mr. Wallace –– 5731

Rights for killing wolves. Mrs. Dailly –– 5732

Need for new Courtenay jail. Mr. Wallace –– 5732

Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 65) . Second reading.

Ms. Brown –– 5732

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation) : Visiting in the gallery today is Mr. Walter Prossnitz of Victoria. Walter recently represented British Columbia at the Canadian Music Festival in Toronto, where he won top prize in his category of piano recitals and took the grand prize over all categories. Walter has also been selected by my ministry as one of four recipients in the province of a professional studies award of $2,500.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, I'd ask all the members and the whole House and staff to welcome a very good friend of mine, a visitor from Vancouver East who will shortly be a Member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party - Margaret Mitchell, our candidate in Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East) : Mr. Speaker, also from Vancouver East, Alfred Higgenbothem, from the Hastings- Sunrise Resources Board, is in the gallery; Buster Foster, Hastings-Sunrise Action Council and the senior citizens drop-in; and Louise Scott, Hastings- Sunrise Resources Board. All of them are working under and out of the VRB to make for a richer life for the people of Vancouver East. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre) : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. John Lynn and Dave Shreck. In addition to these two gentlemen is Mr. Bruce Ericksen, who has asked me to indicate to the House that he has been delegated to attend these deliberations as long as Ms. Brown continues to comment on the VRB in her efforts to educate the Minister of Human Resources. I would like to ask the House to join me in-welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER : An introduction is in order; a speech is not, hon. member.

Oral questions.

CHINESE ACTIVITY CENTRE

LOTTERY AUTHORIZATION

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Speaker, I've got a question for the Provincial

Secretary. Has she authorized a lottery licence to manage and operate a lottery

to the Chinese activity centre, or Sammy Kee or Lila Chen or anyone associated

with that particular group?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary) : Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take the question as notice, but I'll be pleased to bring that information back. Did you say the Chinese activity centre?

MR. MACDONALD : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows the answer to the question.

MR. SPEAKER : There is no supplementary on a question taken on notice.

MR. MACDONALD : Can't you answer? You do know the answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I do not. No, I certainly don't. If I knew the answer I'd tell you.

PROCLAMATION OF

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Hansard records on August 29,1977, that the minister stated that the House should pass the Residential Tenancy Act and that: "There will be an order-in-council forthwith." Since now one month has passed since the minister's statement, can he tell the House why the Residential Tenancy Act has not been proclaimed?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) : I inquired into this matter myself, Mr. Member, because I too am concerned. I find that we have had some problems in some of the regulations, giving rise to the obvious problem, then, of proclaiming the Act.

However, because there is this delay, we intend to give wide publicity to the fact that we are going to pass the order-in-council, voting the matter back to May 1, in order to make this problem known to landlords and tenants alike so that they can make adjustments accordingly.

MR. WALLACE : Since the intention was announced as far back as February,

would the minister care to tell the House the specific cause for the delay in

drawing up regulations for an intended policy which was decided in February

of this year? It is now September. What was the specific reason for the delay?

HON. MR. MAIR : Unfortunately I don't recall the

[ Page 5730 ]

specific part of the regulations which are giving rise to difficulty, but I will take that part of the question as notice and bring the answer back to the member.

MR. WALLACE : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that regardless of -the reasons for the delay the allowable rent increase after May 1,1977, will be 7 per cent?

HON. MR. MAIR : Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, retroactive to May 1.

MR. BARNES : Supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Can you indicate to the House whether there will be a limit on how long a person may have before applying for any overage or vice versa as far as landlords are concerned? Someone may have moved out of town and may have retroactive funds coming. Will you be limiting that to a short period of time or a long period of time?

HON. MR. MAIR : Assuming the last part of the question is the question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. BARNES : No what? Mr. Speaker, it's been since May I that we've been waiting, and it will be the end of the year by the time you get your regulations ready. Will the person have up to a year to claim for any retroactive funds they have coming? Will you limit it to a month or two months to apply? Just what will be the situation?

HON. MR. MAIR : Mr. Speaker, as usual one has to divide the statements made by the member into five or six different questions. If I can assume that the question is whether or not a person has ' some time within which to make application, the answer is, as far as I can see, that it would be a simple debt. He would have as much time as allowed to collect a debt. Most people, however, will fall within the provisions of the Act where the procedure is set out whereby they can reduce their rent by the amount of overage.

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last question is two years.

WIRETAPPING BY RCMP

MR. MACDONALD : Is the Attorney-General aware of any telephone interceptions or bugging by peace officers not authorized in accordance with the law - in particular the Privacy Act of the federal parliament - in British Columbia?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General) : No.

MR. MACDONALD : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Attorney-General undertake to investigate the matter and bring back an answer to the House in addition to what he's just said, based upon that investigation?

HON. MR. GARDOM : Yes, Mr. Member. If matters such as those come to my attention I would be delighted to inform the House, but they have not come to my attention.

MR. WALLACE : Then check it out. Maybe it has gone on illegally.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) : Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General: there was evidence brought to light with respect to unauthorized telephonic interceptions by the RCMP. I'm sure the people of British Columbia wish to be assured that this is not happening in British Columbia. Would the minister undertake to investigate and to assure the people that it's not happening? "Unauthorized" means that it would not normally come to the minister's attention.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Yes, Mr. Member. I'll have to take that question as notice and make some inquiries.

REVELSTOKE WORKERS' ACCOMMODATION

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. With the cabinet appeal committee decision to rubber-stamp the approval of the Revelstoke Dam, a tremendous influx of workers are descending on that city with extreme problems in locating housing. Trailers are being improperly and illegally located in that city. I wonder what plans B.C. Hydro has to develop the sites to accommodate the influx of workers?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications) : I know that B.C. Hydro has a joint committee working within the city of Revelstoke and others in the area. I don't know specifically what the plans are. I'll make inquiries and inform the hon. member. I know that a good deal of attention is being directed to this serious matter.

MR. KING : Is the minister aware that due to the lack of any lead time in developing these accommodations and facilities, there has been a tremendous increase in the incidence of the illegally parked trailers that violate health standards and building regulations and so on? Will the minister undertake to check w.' '1h municipal authorities in that regard?

[ Page 5731 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS : Yes, Mr. Speaker.

OWNERSHIP OF

GOVERNMENT STREET PROPERTY

MR. BARNES : This question is to the Minister of Highways and Public Works. Could the minister tell the House if 1410 and 1450 Government Street are properties under the ownership of Highways and Public Works?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works) : I can't answer that without checking into it. Is it 1410 and 1450? I'm not aware of the ownership of those properties. I'll take it as notice and find out for you.

MR. BARNES : Mr. Speaker, the reason I mentioned the numbers was because he indicated last week when the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked the minister if he had any duplication of space - I'm mentioning the same space with a different name; I think they called it the Mac & Mac building at the time - that he would take that as notice. The building was also the old liquor store. The government had it. I'm asking the minister: does he know his department?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

I Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member knows that a question taken on notice remains on notice until it's answered. You're obviously referring to a question that was already asked of the minister, and he's taken it on notice.

MR. BARNES : On a point of clarification, with respect, this space is empty.

MR. SPEAKER : What is your question?

MR. BARNES : The dimensions are 30,000 square feet....

MR. SPEAKER : What is your question, hon. member?

MR. BARNES : The question is that the minister doesn't even know the space exists and he's renting a space over here on Bay Street and Government.

MR. SPEAKER : You have no question?

MR. BARNES : That's a question. What's he going to do with the space? It's vacant space and not being used.

MR. SPEAKER : That's an observation on your part, hon. member. It's not a question.

PHARMACARE COVERAGE

FOR MEGAVITAMINS

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources with regard to Pharmacare and the fact that megavitamins are not provided under Pharmacare. The minister stated earlier in the House that the British Columbia Medical Association would be taking

part in a scientific study of megavitamins in an effort to determine their precise value in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE : Why don't you shut up for just a minute?

MR. SPEAKER : Is that part of the question, hon. member?

AN HON. MEMBER : Why don't you control that cabinet over there? They're interrupting our questions.

MR. WALLACE : Can the minister tell the House if the study is now underway? If it is not underway, when is it anticipated that it will begin?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources) : Mr. Speaker, it was originally intended that this particular study be carried out under the auspices of Human Resources. There has been a change in that it will now be carried out through Health. We, instead, will be a participant in this study. To the best of my knowledge, it is commencing now.

MR. WALLACE : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since some patients with those conditions I've mentioned show improvement on megavitamins, but since their inability to finance these megavitamins in some cases is resulting in deterioration of their condition, has the minister given any reconsideration to providing megavitamins under the provisions of Pharmacare to those patients where a physician states in writing that megavitamins would be of benefit in their treatment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, most of the presentations that we've received have been pretty well in the Victoria

[ Page 5732 ]

area, and probably from generally one source. If the hon. member has further information I would appreciate receiving it.

I think, perhaps, until we have some further documentation through the study, we will not be getting into it on a large scale or even perhaps on a minor scale, because, I'm sure the hon. member would agree, to make it available in one area would probably mean expanding it to all areas, in fairness. So we're looking towards the end of the study for that. However, if further information is available from the hon. member, we would appreciate it.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston) : Has the minister not received communication from Dr. Erik Patterson of Creston or Dr. Colin MacIlwain of Nelson exhorting him to continue to make megavitamins available when it is recommended by a medical practitioner?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't recall those names, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON : Well, you have. It's not just Victoria.

RIGHTS FOR

KILLING WOLVES

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North) : Recently I asked the Minister of Recreation and Conservation some questions with reference to the government authorization for the killing of wolves. Do you have the answers on those questions?

HON. MR. BAWLF : I did take that question as notice. I don't have the full answers. The question was with reference to the hunting of wolves, and I expect to have those answers shortly.

MRS. DAILLY : When the minister brings back his answer, I'm referring not only to the hunting, but I also understand that his department has approved rights for the trapping and killing of wolves. Is that not correct?

NEED FOR

NEW COURTENAY JAIL

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General with regard to the

recommendations from the inquest at Courtenay into the death of Mr. Gilles Raymond

Perrault, who hanged himself in the RCMP jail on July 7 in the same facility

that a 16-year-old girl committed suicide in March.... The jury found the present

facilities totally inadequate and there have been lengthy efforts by the federal

government to find an acceptable piece of land for a new jail in Courtenay.

Can the minister tell the House if he is aware of what progress is being made

on this very urgent capital requirement for a new jail in Courtenay?

HON. MR. GARDOM : I don't have the specifics to that question at my fingertips, but they are available and I will provide them to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM : I just received a note from your good office, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that we have in the gallery Senator Richard Renick and his wife. Sen. Renick is a member of the Florida Senate. They are visiting British Columbia and I think we'd like to wish them the heartiest welcome to our province.

Judging by the accoutrements across the way, I gather that we're prepared to move to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 65, with leave.

Leave granted.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard) : Mr. Speaker, a number of people have been inquiring about my health. I just want to say that the first sign of decay that I had was a pain in the back of my neck.

MR. BARRETT : That was the minister.

MR. BARNES : The source of your problem.

MS. BROWN : That's the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I'm using this podium to rest my copious notes on today. If anyone is planning a filibuster in the future, I just want them to know the first signs of disrepair usually start in the back of the neck.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking on Bill 65, again I was amazed today that I received approximately 32 telegrams. I'm not going to read them all to you, but I would like to acknowledge receipt of them and who they were from. One very long one came from Prince George and I'm going to wait until the member for Prince George (Mr. Lloyd) is in the House because I'd like him to hear it when I read it. He's not away.

There was one from the child abuse team in Vancouver; one from the Burnaby North NDP; one from the secret any-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour; one from Mrs. James; one from a Doug LaLo; one from Grandivew-Woodlands CRAB; Collingwood Resource Area; Sunset East team; First

[ Page 5733 ]

United Church; Chown Adult Day-care Centre; one from a Mr. Doug Light; board of directors of the Vancouver Status of Women; Carol Norman; someone called Laurie, someone called Ron McLeod. This all has to do with Bill 65 because these are all people who are concerned, Mr. Speaker.

One. came from Ann and Brian Collins; one from the Vancouver Women's Health Collective; from the Downtown Eastside Residents - Libby Davis, Bruce Eriksen, Jean Swanson, Francis Journey; another one from the Status of Women; one with a number of names on it that came from Richmond - Percival, Smith, Tolmie, Spears, Petrini, Goldner, Demoray, Elliott, Lackner, Hastings and Sears; one from North Vancouver; another one from John and Vera Patterson, North Vancouver; another one from West Vancouver from someone by the name of Barbara Bread; another one with a number of names on it -Susan Morris, Sanderson, Stickney, Pfeifer, Kimball and Reid; another one from east Vancouver; Dianna Lilian and Cary Moore of Vancouver; Lazaran, West Vancouver; Dave Martin, Vancouver; and Olive and Ross.

Mr. Speaker, the whole point in bringing to the attention of the House the receipt of these telegrams is to again bring specifically to the minister's attention that the opposition to Bill 65 is not concentrated in a small and vocal minority, as he claims, but is very broadly based.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, part of the reason for this debate is the education of the Minister of Human Resources. One of the things about keeping the attention of a pupil that teachers learn very early in life is that you have to vary your programme from time to time. So today I'm going to stop talking about the programmes that I was discussing yesterday and deal specifically with a new topic. The topic for today, Mr. Speaker, is to deal with the minister's statement about the accountability of his evaluation team, about his fraud squad of investigators and about his fraudulent PREP programme. I'm going to be introducing these....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The hon. member has suggested in her remarks a minister's fraudulent statements.

MS. BROWN : Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER : That's unparliamentary,

MS. BROWN : Yes, I wouldn't do that.

MR. SPEAKER : Would the hon. member please withdraw that implication?

MS. BROWN : I withdraw that because I wasn't saying the minister was fraudulent; I was saying the programme was. So I withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER : It's permissible to indicate your opinion of a programme, hon. member, but it is certainly not parliamentary to suggest fraudulent behaviour or statements on behalf of the minister.

MS. BROWN : No, I was not accusing the minister of fraud.

MR. SPEAKER : Proceed, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : On a point of order, this is certainly a reflection on the staff of the ministry to suggest that we're involved in a fraudulent programme. I would insist that the member withdraw that statement.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. minister finds the statement offensive, and under our rules, hon. member, it must be withdrawn.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie) : He's overreacting.

MS. BROWN : That's fine, Mr. Speaker. I'll withdraw it. Before I'm through speaking, you will see why I referred to the programme as being fraudulent.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MS. BROWN : But if it upsets the minister, I will withdraw it. Sure.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

MS. BROWN : The last thing I want to do is upset the minister. I'm trying to get the minister to listen carefully to what I'm saying so that he will change his position. So I'm not trying to upset him, although I can understand why he's going to be upset when I start to reveal some of the information I have about the PREP programme. He himself might discover it's fraudulent. I don't know.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MS. BROWN : But I'm withdrawing the statement anyway.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member knows the rules of the House well enough to realize you cannot do by an indirect method what you're not permitted to do directly. The Chair accepts your withdrawal. Would you proceed with your discussion on Bill 65?

MS. BROWN : Sure, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very

[ Page 5734 ]

much.

Dealing with accountability, I want to start off by reading a telegram from Mr. Ron Fenwick, the chairman of the Vancouver Resources Board, that person whom the minister referred to as being the puppet of a manipulative administration. His telegram which arrived this morning said:

ON BEHALF OF THE VANCOUVER RESOURCES

BOARD, PLEASE ACCEPT MY

CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR SPEECH, YOU

HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE ESSENTIAL LOSS TO

THE CITIZENS OF VANCOUVER: THAT IS, THE

COMMUNITY'S ABILITY TO MEET

TWICE-MONTHLY IN PUBLIC WITH

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY. THE

FACT THAT MANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

ARE REPRESENTATIVES FROM OTHER BODIES,

SUCH AS CITY COUNCIL, SCHOOL BOARD AND

PARKS, ENHANCES OUR ABILITY TO DELIVER

SERVICES TO OUR CITIZENS. AGAIN, PLEASE

ACCEPT OUR SINCEREST THANKS FOR YOUR

CONSCIENTIOUS RESEARCH OF YOUR FACTS

AND FOR YOUR VERY EXCELLENT

PRESENTATION.

RON FENWICK, CHAIRMAN

VANCOUVER RESOURCES BOARD.

Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Resources Board asked for an outside, independent comparison of the efficiency of its service delivery system with the efficiency of other working systems, particularly including the Ministry of Human Resources. Now we know how difficult it is to obtain accurate and timely data on the performance of the Ministry of Human Resources because, as I have brought to the attention of the House on many occasions, we still have not yet received the annual report from that ministry for 1976. There has never been, as far as we know, an external audit of the Ministry of Human Resources.

I hope that the new auditor-general will note many of the comments that follow and will report back to this House after investigating some of the problems to which I will refer as I compare the minister's department with the Vancouver Resources Board. I hope that if I bring any information to light of which the minister is not aware he will make a note of it too and bring some information to this House.

The minister is able to choose his closely guarded information so as to create an impression most favourable to his case. We certainly witnessed this on Friday with his hour-long speech.

I will point to the problems that make it impossible to simply accept the minister's assertions without an outside report and repeat again that I hope the auditor-general, wherever she is, is listening.

The Vancouver Resources Board has referred to itself as an efficient corporation.

Section 24 (

a) of Bill 65 re-emphasizes this fact. As a corporation, the Vancouver

Resources Board is fully self-contained - that is, it operates its own accounting

department, its own purchasing department, personnel department, systems department

and building services department, and it obtains its own legal services. Consequently

the costs for these corporate support services are accurately and properly included

within the operating budget of the Vancouver Resources Board. Mr. Speaker, this

is one of the very many differences that make it impossible to compare the Ministry

of Human Resources with the Vancouver Resources Board, using the data made available

through the minister.

We do know, however, that this is the first year that the Minister of Human Resources has reported, as other departments have, its building occupancy charge under vote 193, as well as its computer and consulting charges under vote 194 in its budget. As you know, every department did that this year for the first time, which is the only reason that the Human Resources department did it. We know that a fivefold increase occurred when building charges were moved from the Ministry of Public Works to the Ministry of Human Resources.

We have no reliable means to compare this $10 million figure that appears in the budget of the ministry with similar costs for the VRBI since in view of changes that the government has made in its accounting procedure, the public is left with inconsistent accounts. We have no standard basis of accounting. Again, I hope that the auditor-general, wherever she is, will certainly look into this.

As for computer services, Mr. Speaker, the ministry claims that its budget is $599,000 this year. However, the VRB alone projects its computer costs, paid largely ICBC, to be $513,000 for the next fiscal year. Since the VRB's costs are based on actual experience, while the cost shown in the ministry's budgets never appeared before, one must conclude that the costs are understated for the ministry. In fact, as we have seen for building costs and computer costs, we will find other administrative costs that are either understated in the minister's budget or buried in the budget of another ministry.

Consequently what the minister claims axe the higher costs of the VRB are actually the results of a more honest and open accounting system, because the Vancouver Resources Board does nothing to hide its costs. For example, if we examine the budget estimates for the ministry, we cannot find anywhere an item for legal services, yet we know that there are legal services associated with court presentations, with the Protection of Children Act, let alone those other legal services associated with labour relations and property management.

Yet nowhere can we find in the budget any estimate for the costs of legal services. We cannot find these costs in the Ministry of Human Resources because part of these costs are hidden in the Attorney-General's budget.

[ Page 5735 ]

By contrast, Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Resources Board budget accurately includes its legal expenses. The Vancouver Resources Board reports an accounting department with 36 permanent staff, as of July 1,1977. These staff persons all perform VRB accounting functions from cheque reconciliations through to payroll.

By contrast, the accounting services for the Ministry of Human Resources are split between his departmental comptroller's office and the Ministry of Finance. It's really easy to do a shuffle and some fancy footwork when you have those kinds of alternatives. The Ministry of Human Resources does not even perform its own cheque reconciliations, which has important consequences for detecting and preventing fraud. Consequently, once again part of the costs for the Ministry of Human Resources are actually reported within the budget of the Ministry of Finance. The Vancouver Resources Board has no such options.

The Vancouver Resources Board reports a personnel department with 21 permanent staff as of July 1,1977. These staff people perform all personnel functions from negotiations and reclassifications to record-keeping. By contrast, personnel functions for the Ministry of Human Resources are split between that department and the ministry's personnel officers, the Public Service Commission , and the Government Employee Relations Bureau.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, he had one person in his ministry - someone by the name of Dianne Hartwick - for months before he was aware of her existence, and discovered her only when she was brought to his attention by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) . Once again, the budget for the Ministry of Human Resources does not accurately reflect the true cost of operating the ministry. If the Vancouver Resources Board had the number of umbrellas and secret hiding places to hide its budget that are open to the Ministry of Human Resources, it would have a very low budget too.

It would not avail itself of those opportunities, of course, because the Vancouver Resources Board believes in open accountability.

With these differences in accounting and the resulting under-reporting of the operating costs in the Ministry of Human Resources, no one can accept the minister's assertions regarding efficiency. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is an independent external examination of the Ministry of Human Resources, exactly like the one requested by the Vancouver Resources Board.

Thus far, my comments have centred on the difference in reporting of operating costs when we compare the Vancouver Resources Board and the Ministry of Human Resources. I'd like to turn to a much more serious financial problem. When the

Vancouver Resources Board was formed there were three groups of social service staff in Vancouver. Those were the former employees of the city welfare department, the employees of the Children's Aid Society and the employees of the Catholic family and children's service. All of these three groups of employees then became employees of the Vancouver Resources Board. The fourth group, provincial employees, remained seconded to the VRB but were actually employees of the provincial government. This fourth group is now being reported as part of the Vancouver Resources Board staff complement.

The 1977-78 Vancouver Resources Board operating budget, therefore, is the $22) 582,756 shown in vote 189, plus $363.6 million for provincial staff historically seconded to Vancouver. What is not reported is the extent to which the Vancouver Resources Board budget is used to pay for operating costs of the Ministry of Human Resources. The ministry uses the Vancouver Resources Board to hide some of its operating costs as well.

Not only are the administrative costs for the Ministry of Human Resources under-reported, as I argued earlier, but the costs for the Vancouver Resources Board are being deliberately over-reported. I want to repeat that because I hope the minister is listening. Not only are the costs for the Ministry of Human Resources under-reported, but the costs for the Vancouver Resources Board are being deliberately over-reported.

The Vancouver Resources Board budget is used to pay for staff, legal services, printing and even rent to operate offices outside of Vancouver that have nothing to do with the Vancouver Resources Board. They're ordered to do so by the Ministry of Human Resources.

Legal staff, printing and rent, which they are ordered to supply by the ministry and which they are forced to include in their budget, the same budget which the minister stands on the floor of this House and gives as one of the reasons why he is destroying them as an entity - because they are too expensive - without admitting that the budget is high because he is using the Vancouver Resources Board budget as one way of hiding some of the ministry's expenses.... That is one of the real reasons why he has not tabled his annual report.

His annual report could have been tabled and ready in time for the estimates, but it is being deliberately withheld.

On July 1,1977, the Vancouver Resources Board staff list showed 28 permanent positions seconded to municipalities adjacent to Vancouver. These positions were transferred to Burnaby, West Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond and other lower mainland offices of Human Resources when the Vancouver Resources Board was formed, and caseloads were transferred. This is the kind of information, Mr. Speaker, which the minister never gives.

However, the budgets were never adjusted, and

[ Page 5736 ]

this year $574,000 is being charged to the Vancouver Resources Board budget for these seconded staff, staff who were working for the ministry, not for the Vancouver Resources Board., This is just part of the cost load that the Vancouver Resources Board has to bear so that minister can stand up and under-report his expenses.

MR. BARRETT : Shame!

MS. BROWN : This is one way in which he hides the facts about the kind of money that is being spent by his department. Then he turns right around and uses that as an excuse for destroying the Vancouver Resources Board. Mr. Speaker, the rent for the office used by the regional director in the Ministry of Human Resources, Mr. Ken Levitt, was paid by the VRB up until last month. This was $458.53 a month that was being charged to the Vancouver Resources Board budget that should not rightfully have been theirs. Information pamphlets and forms used by the Ministry of Human Resources are being printed and paid for by the Vancouver Resources Board.

The ministry's new manager of information systems, a Mr. Bill Macbeth, was hired by the Vancouver Resources Board at the instruction of the Associate Deputy Minister of Human Resources, and his salary is being charged to the Vancouver Resources Board. He is not working for the Vancouver Resources Board. He is a manager of information systems for the Ministry of Human Resources. His salary is being charged to the Vancouver Resources Board.

The mailing cost of approximately 30,000 pieces of mail announcing the universal Pharmacare programme was paid for by the Vancouver Resources Board. That was a legitimate ministry expense. The Ministry of Human Resources was responsible for that expense. Instead, in Vancouver, the Vancouver Resources Board was billed $30,000 for the mailing of those universal Pharmacare pamphlets.

The temporary staff costs were loaded onto the Vancouver Resources Board budget, because additional staff had to be brought in to see that the propaganda pamphlets - which did not tell the truth anyway about that $100 Pharmacare programme of the government.... Temporary staff had to be hired to get the minister's propaganda, and it was charged to the Vancouver Resources Board.

Most ironic of all, Mr. Speaker, the staff assigned to integrate lower mainland municipalities into the ministry - Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond, et cetera -were provided for by the Vancouver Resources Board and were charged to the Vancouver Resources Board. So you see that the budget and the costs of the Vancouver Resources Board have been deliberately inflated by the Minister of Human Resources in his attempt to avoid the ministry's own red tape and incompetence, and at the same time to keep hidden the real costs of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Mr. Speaker, as if this kind of financial fancy footwork is not bad enough, the problems are compounded when we try to compare the staff complement in the Ministry of Human Resources with the Vancouver Resources Board staff complement. Now we had some trouble in our attempt to determine how many public servants really exist. I want to show you how staff are deliberately hidden to avoid inclusion in the official count. I want you to compare this with the Vancouver Resources Board, which openly and honestly reports its full staff complement.

The Vancouver Resources Board reported a staff complement of 1,372 permanent and temporary positions as of July 1,1977. Only 928 of these positions were charged to vote 189 as Vancouver Resources Board services. The remaining 444 positions were used in programmes such as day-care centres, nursing homes, group homes and treatment centres for children. Staff working in such programmes rarely, if ever, appear in the staff complement in the Ministry of Human Resources -never, never.

By purchasing services through societies, the Ministry of Human Resources reports programme expenditures without actually having to show the corresponding staff complement. Do you understand what's going on, Mr. Speaker? By purchasing its services through societies, the Ministry of Human Resources does not have to make a public reporting, does not have to state openly and honestly just what its true staff complement really is.

Of the 928 positions charged by the Vancouver Resources Board to vote 189, only 531 are deployed in the equivalent of field services, as shown by the ministry. The remaining 397 positions appear in Vancouver Resources Board departments, such as accounting, personnel, building maintenance, or special support services and programmes. As I pointed out to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, the corresponding positions used by the Ministry of Human Resources frequently appear as staff complements in the Ministry of Finance, in the Public Service Commission, in the Purchasing Commission, in the Ministry of the Attorney-General, or in some other government ministry.

Now I want to do this very slowly because I want the minister to understand that I am now telling everyone exactly what he has not told everyone about the true staff complement of the Vancouver Resources Board, and the true costs and the true budget of the Vancouver Resources Board. In fact, the staff positions which are not reported in his budget as being part of his ministry but are covered by the Public Service Commission, or the Ministry of Finance, or the Purchasing Commission, or the

[ Page 5737 ]

Attorney-General's ministry.... These same services, when they are delivered by staff in the Vancouver area, are honestly and openly reported as being part of the staff complement of the Vancouver Resources Board. That is one of the reasons why the Vancouver Resources Board is being destroyed.

In his speech on Friday, the minister stood in this House and accused the Vancouver Resources Board of being overstaffed. He did a comparison with his ministry and showed that his department, for an equivalent, had less than the Vancouver Resources Board. What he did not show was that there were a number of staff positions that were not reported under his ministry that in fact belong to his ministry, work for his ministry, and would have been reported as such if his ministry involved itself in the open and honest reporting of staff complement that the Vancouver Resources Board does.

By using the same type of reporting, Mr. Speaker, as that used by the Ministry of Human Resources, the Vancouver Resources Board staff complement could have been not 1,372, but 531. That's if the Vancouver Resources Board had resorted to the kind of reporting used by the Ministry of Human Resources in arriving at its staff complement.

One of the things about the Vancouver Resources Board that made it impossible for it, even if it wanted to, to indulge in that kind of fancy-footwork reporting is the fact that the Vancouver Resources Board is accountable to the community of Vancouver, and at their open, accountable meetings, they would have had to justify that kind of fancy-footwork counting of their staff. They couldn't have gotten away with it even if they had wanted to.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : Is that called politics?

MS. BROWN : Politics? But of course. There couldn't be any other reason, surely.

MR. LEA : Maybe he can't count.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What do you mean, "politics"? Why would there be politics? That's a terrible thing to say. Why would you say that? Are you suggesting it's political?

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, not even these 531 positions can be compared to field services in Human Resources. I want to do this by reading to the House a recent advertisement in The Vancouver Sun so that we can see how some of the positions in the Ministry of Human Resources can be hidden, and are hidden, as programme expenses rather than being shown as staff complement. The ad, Mr. Speaker, is for a handicapped guild marketing co-ordinator, and there is another one for a handicapped guild executive director.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's a totally new programme. It helps Vancouver, too. Great stuff. It will help Vancouver tremendously.

MS. BROWN : Well, if your way of showing your staff complement is any indication of the way you would have wanted the Vancouver Resources Board to do its business, then maybe it's better that the Vancouver Resources Board doesn't exist. The people of Vancouver would not have tolerated that kind of flim-flam.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, this director is going to be responsible to a board of directors appointed by the Minister of Human Resources for his new project called LIFE. The minister admits that it's his project coming out of his ministry.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What have you got against it? What have you got against that programme?

MS. BROWN : Aha! You're 'getting twitchy. I was wondering how long it would be before it came through to you that we had found out what you were up to.

Mr. Speaker, who does this person, who is going to work for the Ministry of Human Resources, have to apply to for the job? This person has to apply to the Community Care Services Society, not to the Ministry of Human Resources, despite the fact that this executive director is going to be directly accountable to and responsible to a board of directors appointed by this minister to carry out one of the ministry's projects.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to see by these two advertisements - which I'd be very happy to table in the House in the event that the minister has not yet seen them - that the minister is using, the community Care Services Society to once again hide his staff complement. Otherwise, why would the ad say that applications should be sent to the Community Care Services Society?

I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, one other serious thing that this ad does. This is a union-busting ad, because the employee who applies to this ad would not be eligible to join the B.C. Government Employees Union. Because the VRB doesn't involve itself in this kind of travesty, the VRB is condemned to die.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What a bunch of garbage!

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, the minister smiles and swings in his chair. He -referred to it as garbage, so I ask him to report to this House his ministry's use of

[ Page 5738 ]

the Community Care Services Society. You didn't say "garbage"?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Are you going to sit down?

MS. BROWN : Oho! You'd like me to, wouldn't you, but there are still a couple more things you haven't mentioned that I'm going to mention on your behalf.

Again, I want to ask if the minister, in winding up the debate, would report to the House his ministry's use of the Community Care Services Society. I want him to tell us all about how he's using it to hide his staff complement.

Perhaps the minister would also like to be the first to tell us who the directors of that society are. Also, we want to know how much government funding is being channelled through that society, funding that's not showing up in the budget of the Ministry of Human Resources. How many staff are being hidden in that society, staff that should be a part of the complement of the Ministry of Human Resources? What do these staff do that is in any way different to the staff he actually does report as employees in his ministry?

Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to do, as calmly and as quietly as possible, is to show how the true costs of the Ministry of Human Resources have been deliberately under-reported. I have shown how the expenses arising from the Ministry of Human Resources have indeed been used to deliberately inflate the budget of the Vancouver Resources Board, and I have shown how staff complements cannot be compared, because the Ministry of Human Resources hides so many of its staff members through societies.

All of these, Mr. Speaker, are things that the Vancouver Resources Board, with its open, honest and accountable way of dealing with the community at large, does not indulge itself in. Yet the minister stands up in this House and makes statements to the effect that the Vancouver Resources Board is not accountable.

The Vancouver Resources Board, as I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Speaker, is doubly accountable. It is accountable to the community of Vancouver and it is accountable to the minister. The Ministry of Human Resources, as I've pointed out to you, is accountable to no one. This Legislature doesn't know what that ministry's doing. We have not received an annual report for 1976. Even when we do look at the ministry's budget, it does not accurately reflect the expenses of that ministry or the staff complement. There is no accountability.

MR. NICOLSON : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I bring this to your attention at the first opportunity that I have had since becoming aware of this. I refer you to standing order 123 of our standing orders, which says: "A proper catalogue of books belonging to the library shall be kept by the librarian or person in whom the custody and responsibility thereof shall be vested."

This is not the pertinent part of this, Mr. Speaker. But the important part of this which I wish to bring to your attention is: ". . . who shall report to the House, through Mr. Speaker, at the opening of each session the actual state of the library."

This session has been going since some time last January, and I'm not as yet aware that we've had your report. I would like to know, before we go any further, Mr. Speaker, in order that we can, perhaps, research and make our best efforts on this most important Bill 65, the plain truth: what is the state of our library?

MR. SPEAKER : The plain truth, hon. member, is this: it is not relevant and it is certainly out of order to interrupt the debate which is taking place on second reading of Bill 65 on a point of order of this nature. The point of order which can only properly be taken is one that deals with the discussion on Bill 65 which is presently before the House. Certainly it would be beyond the imagination, I'm sure, of yourself and all of the other members of this House to relate standing orders 123 or 124 to the debate which is presently taking place.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, would it be in order, then, if I were to bring this up just before the adjournment time?

MR. SPEAKER : It would be in order, hon. member, to bring such a point before the Speaker in his chambers, if it was your desire to do so.

MS. BROWN : Like the Vancouver Resources Board, the members of the opposition would also like to call upon the department to have an independent investigation of their department, because without such an investigation this legislation, Bill 65 - and certainly one of the basic reasons given by the minister for it - is not warranted.

As you will remember, on a number of occasions he has clearly stated that one of the reasons for the termination of the Vancouver Resources Board is the size of its budget. Another reason given is that it's expensive, that it could be run more efficiently if the services came directly from the department in Victoria. What I've tried to do, Mr. Speaker, is to discredit both of those reasons and to call immediately for an investigation which will clearly show that those reasons are not legitimate ones, and that in fact those could not be in any way construed as reasons for destroying a -system as efficient, as open and as accountable as the Vancouver Resources

[ Page 5739 ]

Board.

If there was any way, Mr. Speaker, that we could make the Ministry of Human Resources as open and as accountable and as efficient as the Vancouver Resources Board, that's what we would like to do. The fact that the Ministry of Human Resources is inferior in every way in the way it's run to the Vancouver Resources Board should not be reason enough for the Vancouver Resources Board to be destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has mentioned his own , evaluation team. Do you want to hear what this team says about his own ministry in order to compare its efficiency with the Vancouver Resources Board? I want to read from some of the reports. Mr. Speaker, I really hope that you got the message about the efficiency and the accountability, because I now want to go on to the second issue which I said I would raise today, and that is one dealing with fraud.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , just brought to my attention the backbenchers all sitting in a row. I'm still discussing Bill 65. They're all sitting in a row as I discuss Bill 65. As I see them sitting there, it reminds me of one of T.S. Eliot's poems. I want to share it with you; it has to do with Bill 65. It is very directly related to Bill 65.

MR. SPEAKER : I Would caution the member to relate it to Bill 65.

MS. BROWN : It's very related to Bill 65, Mr. Speaker. The title

of the poem is "The Hollow Men." They're the ones who are determined

to destroy the Vancouver Resources Board through Bill 65.

It says:

We are the hollow men

We are the stuffed men Leaning together

Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Our dried voices, when

We whisper together,

Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass

Or rats' feet over broken glass

In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,

Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed

With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom

Remember us - if at all - not as lost

Violent souls, but only

As the hollow men

The stuffed men.

I'm sure when T.S. Eliot was writing that, Mr. Speaker, he was thinking of those members in the back bench over there.

Now I want to talk about Freud. Not Freud - fraud.

AN HON. MEMBER : A Freudian slip.

MS. BROWN : Yes, a Freudian slip. I want to talk about fraud because it's certainly one of the topics that the Minister of Human Resources discusses quite often and is again one of the reasons that he's given for the destruction of the Vancouver Resources Board.

I want to talk about the attempt by the minister to do a provincewide survey to show how the incidence of fraud is much higher in Vancouver because Vancouver has the Vancouver Resources Board, rather than the other way around. I want to read a memo, Mr. Speaker, from a D.I. Smith, supervisor, evaluation programme of the Ministry of Human Resources, and head of the minister's evaluation team on June 20, to a Mr. H.E. Saville, acting executive director, social services and income security.

Right at the beginning of the memo, Mr. Smith cautions the acting executive director and says:

"Attached as

schedule A is a listing of the district offices, regions, and the province of the percentage of misrepresentation (fraud) revealed in the evaluation report.

Schedule B provides the names of the cases referred to in

schedule A. I would caution readers of

Schedule A that the percentages listed probably do not reflect a true percentage of fraud cases of the total population of income assistance cases." And he gives the reasons.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the results of that evaluation, what do we find? I might say that it was broken down into regions: Grand Forks, Kelowna, Oliver and Penticton were in region 3, for example; Castlegar, Creston, Fernie and a number of others were in region 4; region 5 had Fort St. James, Prince George, Vanderhoof; region 6 had Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope; region 7 had Burns Lake, Kitimat, Prince Rupert and others; region 8 had Fort Nelson, Fort St.

John; region 9 had Cache Creek, Kamloops, Lillooet; region 10 had Campbell River, Courtenay, Duncan and others; region 11 had Fairfield, Sooke, Oak Bay, James Bay - James Bay? I wouldn't think there would be any fraud in James Bay - Victoria West; region 12 had Delta, Richmond area; region 13 had Coquitlam, New Westminster; region 14 had Bella Coola ' North Vancouver; region 15, VRB. So it's the province versus the VRB.

What do we find? That the percentage total for the province is 2.26 per cent. That's for the 14 regions. For the VRB, the Vancouver area which takes in Hastings, Sunrise, Point Grey, Sunset, Fairview and Mt. Pleasant - region 15 - the percentage total is 1. 15, which is almost half. Yet the minister in his

[ Page 5740 ]

attack on the Vancouver Resources Board gave as one of the reasons why the board must be destroyed the fact that the Vancouver Resources Board was not cracking down on fraud; that there was more fraud in Vancouver as a result of the delivery of services through the Vancouver Resources Board. So he sends out his own evaluation team, which did a very, very thorough job.

I don't want to bore you, Mr. Speaker, by reading the whole list of the 15 districts to you. If you're particularly interested in your own area. I could probably read you the percentage for that. But the final analysis is that we find the province with its 2.26 percentage points and the city of Vancouver with its 1. 15 percentage.

Mr. Speaker, do we have a quorum?

MR. SPEAKER : Is the member asking for an official count?

MS. BROWN : Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, it is very obvious to the Speaker that a quorum is present.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, here we see an incident where one of his own...

Oh, I just want to interrupt, because the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is here and I wanted to read the telegram. I'm glad we called for a quorum and rang the bell, because that brought him into the House so that he could get an opportunity to hear this cable which came from his riding.

MR. SPEAKER : I'm sure this relates to Bill 65.

MS. BROWN : Oh, yes, absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I'm in order. It comes from Prince George.

CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR COURAGEOUS

AND PRINCIPLED STAND AGAINST BILL 65 AND

AGAINST THE DEMISE OF THE VANCOUVER

RESOURCES BOARD. WE SUPPORT YOU 100 PER

CENT. AS MEMBERS OF THE PRINCE GEORGE

WOMEN'S COLLECTIVE WE ARE THE TENANTS

OF THE PRINCE GEORGE COMMUNITY

RESOURCES SOCIETY BUILDING THERE. THE

BUILDING'S LOW RENT AND SUPPORTIVE

ATMOSPHERE....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN : Isn't the member interested?

MR. SPEAKER : Will the member for Vancouver Centre quite interrupting the hon. member who has the floor?

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, even though the member for Prince George (Mr. Lloyd) has his back turned to me, I would like to continue reading the cable because I think his constituents would like to know that he heard it. It could be that he hears better....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca) : Then why didn't they send it to him?

MS. BROWN : Well, maybe they've learned from experience.

AN HON. MEMBER : Who'd read it to him?

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, can I proceed?

MR. SPEAKER : I would hope you would.

MS. BROWN : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WE ARE TENANTS OF THE PRINCE GEORGE COMMUNITY RESOURCES SOCIETY

BUILDING HERE. THE BUILDING'S LOW RENT AND SUPPORTIVE ATMOSPHERE MADE IT

POSSIBLE FOR US TO WORK FOR AND WITH THE WOMEN OF PRINCE GEORGE. THIS BUILDING

IS NOW UNDER ATTACK, AS THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES HAS THREATENED TO WITHDRAW

FUNDING TO THE COMMUNITY RESOURCES SOCIETY.

So you know, it is important that the Vancouver MLAs of that government have

not stood up to fight for the citizens of Vancouver when the Vancouver Resources

Board is threatened; and the member for Prince George is not fighting for the

people of Prince George, now that the Minister of Human Resources has decided

to terminate funding to their Community Resources Society too.

The cable goes on to say:

WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT THIS CALLOUS ATTACK ON AN IMPORTANT

PEOPLE'S RESOURCE IN PRINCE GEORGE.

There he is, Mr. Speaker, fanning his hand at me again, when I'm trying

to relate to him information that his constituents need somebody in this House

to fight for them.

Mr. Speaker, the cable goes on to say:

YOUR FILIBUSTER HAS INSPIRED US TO FIGHT EVEN HARDER. YOUR KIDS

ARE RIGHT; YOU CAN DO IT. OTHER SERVICES IN PRINCE GEORGE THAT WILL BE JEOPARDIZED

WHEN OUR BUILDING IS AXED ARE, AS IN VANCOUVER: THE CRISIS CENTRE; THE HOMEMAKERS

SOCIETY; PARENTS' EFFECTIVENESS TRAINING; CENTRAL INTERIOR

SPECIAL SERVICES TO THE CHILDREN'S SOCIETY; McGREGOR ACTION GROUP; BIG BROTHERS;

CARIBOU ACTION TRAINING SOCIETY; IMMIGRANT SERVICES

[ Page

5741 ]

SOCIETY; HIGHWATER FLOOD CO-OP; HOME CLEANUP SERVICES TO THE

ELDERLY; INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE; BACKDOOR COFFEE HOUSE; PRINCE GEORGE RECEIVING

HOME SOCIETY. OTHER AGENCIES WHICH USED THE BUILDING FOR MEETINGS WOULD ALSO

BE INCONVENIENCED SUCH AS THE ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, 'TOPS, FENCING CLUB AND

THE MULTICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. WE HOPE YOU'LL LAST ALL WEEK, ROSEMARY - LONGER

IF NECESSARY. DARE TO STRUGGLE, DARE TO WIN. IN SISTERHOOD, THE PRINCE GEORGE

WOMEN'S COLLECTIVE.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really distracted from my original plan with this, but I wonder if you notice the similarity between the services which are going to go under in Prince George and the services which are going to suffer when the Vancouver Resources Board is terminated as a result of Bill 65. They're very much the same: the Crisis Centre, the Indian Friendship Centre, the Home Cleanup Service, Immigrant Services - all of those services to that segment of society that can least protect itself and can least fight back against a bully.

Those are the services that are going to go under in Prince George, as in Vancouver, as a result of the direct decision made by that Ministry of Human Resources - inhuman resources.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince George (Mr. Lloyd) still has his back turned to me. I would like the record to show that because I'm sending a copy of this Hansard to Prince George. I hope that the member hears as well through the back of his head as he does through his ears.

The Vancouver Sun of July 16, in talking about the cases given by the minister for his decision to introduce Bill 65, said that there was still no case. The minister says he was forced to introduce Bill 65 because the VRB was reluctant to follow his ministry's policies. As a result of the information I have just given you about how the ministry keeps its staff complement hidden, and how it deliberately under-reports its budgeting, I say: good for the Vancouver Resources Board. That was a good and positive thing they did when they refused to follow the minister's directive. I agree with The Vancouver Sun of July 16 that he certainly has not given reason for its demise.

The third area, Mr. Speaker, that I want to talk about is the PREP programme. I'm dealing with these three topics specifically today because I know that these are some of the major reasons given by that minister in his non-speech on Friday last as to why the Vancouver Resources Board should die. A memo dated July 27, to Mr. Saville, executive director, social services and income security, from Mr. D.I. Smith, supervisor, talking about the PREP office -and I want to remind you that Mr.

Smith is one of the minister's own employees - says: "There appear to be a couple of points with regard to the PREP statistics which need some clarification." As you know, in that ministry they just wallow in euphemisms. When they destroy something they refer to it as "integrating" it. When he is telling us that their statistics are strange, he says they need "clarification."

"A column titled '1 (2) - savings' on the weekly statistics form presumably shows the total monthly dollar amount the PREP office has reduced income assistance. It would appear earnings exemptions are not taken into consideration. If the maximum earning exemption is not exceeded by the client, there will be no reduction in the income assistance whatsoever for that individual. Also, if a client finds a full-time position, there is no guarantee that this employment will continue and that the income assistance savings will continue.

"Further, there appears to be some problem with regard to the classification of placements, specifically with the part-time and casual classifications. For example, at the Langley PREP office, if a job is found requiring an employee to work eight hours a day but the position is only available for one month, should this be classified as a part-time position, a full-time position or a casual position? The Langley co-ordinator stated that he considered it a full-time position - one month."

It goes on to say, and this is his own evaluator, Mr. Smith: "I feel that this classification is inappropriate. . . ." That's not my opinion. My opinion is not allowed on the floor of this House. This is your own staff person saying that. He says: "I feel that this classification is inappropriate and that it should be classified as casual." One month, , and it shows up on the statistics - those marvellous statistics out of his PREP programme - as full-time. Another point is that there appears to be a problem with determining what is a job-ready condition.

The "Services ' Policy and Procedural Manual, " page 1.81, contains the following under the heading "Determining job readiness": "The following factors are to be considered to determine a person's job readiness: (

a) work skills necessary to hold a prospective job; (

b) educational or training requirements necessary to hold a prospective job; (

c) previous work record."

On the same page of the manual, under "Full exploration of work opportunities and eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits before income assistance is granted, " point (

b) states:

"All applicants considered to be job-ready for immediate employment shall be referred directly to an employer that has actual or potential job vacancies, and/or sent to the Canada Manpower office and to any other

[ Page 5742 ]

employment referral or employment counselling service that may

be in operation within the local area."

Again, I'm not editorializing; I'm reading straight from the memo: "This has caused clients to be sent to PREP offices in a drunken condition. . . ." Well, that makes sense to me. You can be drunk and meet all of those criteria. You can be drunk and have skills. You can be drunk and have educational training, and you can be drunk and have a previous work record. It has been known to happen.

It goes on: ". . . and/or not properly attired to be referred to a potential employer." Again, that makes sense to me. He goes on to say: "It would appear that the policy manual should be amended to indicate that the clients should be counselled as to what constitutes a job-ready condition and then the appropriate referral should be made."

Now do you know why the manual doesn't say that, Mr. Speaker? Because if the manual said that ' what the manual would be directing the staff to do is precisely what the people working for the Vancouver Resources Board in the job-finding department were doing before the fevered brain of the minister gave birth to PREP. That is the reason why the manual doesn't say that - because, in fact, the Vancouver Resources Board recognized that having the skills, having a history of having been employed, and whatever the third reason is, is not enough.

There are situations when you have to work with a person more than that before you can send them out on a job. So here we have it - PREP is sending out drunks on jobs.

There is another point, and again I'm reading from the "Services, Policy and Procedural Manual." At page 1.87, under "Procedures I, " it states: "An administering authority may authorize an incentive allowance to any recipient of income assistance under 60 years of age in order to provide work experiences designed to prepare the income assistance recipient for employment." The only indication in the incentive allowance

section of the policy manual as to what types of agencies the individual may work for is contained in paragraph 8 under "procedures, " page 1.88, which states: "An individual, granted the incentive allowance to work in a non-profit agency or non-profit organization, must not displace regularly employed or part-time staff. Union officials should be consulted where appropriate." It goes on to say:

"There is nothing in the policy manual which states that clients are not to receive the incentive allowance for working in commercial or profit-making enterprises. It is recommended that this matter be clarified and the policy manual be amended appropriately. It is further suggested that this amendment should inhibit such placement in commercial, profit-oriented establishments."

Mr. Speaker, that was what I had in mind when I raised the question on the floor of the House as to whether any people were being referred by the PREP office to work at the Vancouver Hotel during the period of their labour disputes.

No. 22: "It appears that there has been no action to date to develop the

rehabilitation aspects of the PREP programme."

Again, these are not my criticisms. These are criticisms coming from his own ministry.

"Therefore the programme is primarily catering to job-ready individuals who have not been chronic income assistance cases and who would probably have stood the best chance of finding employment on their own."

This is precisely what the workers of the Vancouver Resources Board have been saying all along - that in fact, if you're dealing with the other group, the group who are not job-ready, then you have to go about it a different way. PREP is not the solution.

Point No. 23 in this manual:

"We have noted that PREP offices do not maintain supplies of goods and services, authorization forms for issuance to clients. Instances occur where tools or protective clothing are required by a prospective employee prior to commencing work. The delay involved in having the client referred back to the district office for a worker to approve such grants involving nominal amounts may result in either the job being filled prior to the applicant's arrival or in a cooling-off of the work-oriented enthusiasm which a client may possess."

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a memo signed by D.I. Smith, supervisor. It was sent to the executive director of social services and income security in the minister's department.

He ends up by saying that it's not a complete report and does not cover all of his findings to date. So I'm looking forward to receiving the rest of this report.

Mr. Speaker, here is another report by the minister's evaluation team on PREP. I think we all remember this one, because he certainly made a lot of statements on TV and radio about it. It's a survey which was conducted in the first two weeks in August by his evaluation team to see if people were avoiding jobs. Now in view of what I said yesterday in speaking on poverty, and in view of the genuine reality of unemployment in this province, it's difficult for me to believe that anyone would avoid an opportunity to work. But, of course, the minister, accurately reflecting the philosophy of his government, believes that nobody likes to work, and that, in fact, work is punishment.

[ Page 5743 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I believe that?

MS. BROWN : I know you believe that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Work is reward.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, this survey was dated July 29, and it went to all of the PREP officers. It was a request from the Minister of Human Resources, Hon. William N. Vander Zalm, to the deputy minister, Mr. Noble. "The whole of the PREP organization is to undertake the following measures to test the effectiveness of PREP." Now it sounds as though he has his doubts too, doesn't it? It sounds as though the minister himself doubts the effectiveness of PREP, and well he might. "Test period commencing the week of August 8,1977, and continuing through Friday, August 19, inclusive.

All PREP job-finders are asked to keep running records of every referral of an income assistance recipient to a job or job interview, " That's the survey.

The survey was conducted, and what the survey showed was that there were 230 people in Vancouver who are euphemistically referred to as "avoiders." I've never heard of an avoider before, but in the survey they are referred to as "avoiders" because they avoided following through on a PREP appointment. Mr. Speaker, as early as August 11, a memo went out from Mr. Boyd, the head PREP officer in Vancouver, to all of his PREP staff dealing with what is referred to as "PREP alerts." Now a "PREP alert" is the same as an "avoider." You practically have to learn a new language to understand PREP, but you don't, really, because it's so patently clear that PREP is a fraud.

Anyway, these avoiders on this sheet are referred to in this memo as "PREP alerts." As he said:

"It has come to my attention through conversations with some of our colleagues in other VRB teams that some PREP alerts appear to have been issued for no appropriate or for inappropriate reasons. In order to avoid any misunderstanding or undue hardship on the part of our clients, I wish to take time to remind all staff about the seriousness of, and the reasoning behind, issuing a PREP alert."

As early as August 11, it says:

"Keep in mind at all times that a PREP alert may effect the income assistance of a client, and may result in the client being denied further assistance."

[Mr. Haddad in the chair.

Mr. Speaker, on August 3, at a management meeting on West 10th, the subject of PREP programmes was discussed. It says:

"Managers reported verbally on the PREP alerts distributed

at the last management committee meeting, and agree to follow this with a memo

to Mr. Boyd. It appeared that the majority of the PREP alerts" - or the

avoiders, as they are called - "is due to the fact that these people had

found jobs."

They'd gone out on their own and had found jobs. That's why they didn't follow through on their appointments to go for their interviews at the PREP office. Yet it turns up in a libelous statistic used against the Vancouver Resources Board.

It goes on to say:

"It appeared that the team co-ordinators were not receiving the PREP alerts directly in some instances. Managers agreed to advise team co-ordinators that the PREP alerts would be directed specifically to them and the PREP co-ordinators would follow this up to ensure that the thing was being done properly."

In fact, what it showed is that a number of these people are going out and finding their own jobs, because they're finding that PREP is so useless. But b because they don't follow through on appointments, they show up in a statistic, and that statistic is used as argument by the minister and justification for destroying the Vancouver Resources Board.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a couple of more things about PREP, because it's certainly one of the programmes which the minister likes to stand on the floor of the House and yell about: "PREP is great. PREP is wonderful. PREP is beautiful." All of this information is coming from his own staff. This is not coming from people outside of the system. These are people within the PREP system who are sending the minister or his deputy this kind of information which shows that there is some discrepancy between the kinds of comments that he makes about PREP and the reality of PREP'

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Are you talking about PREP Vancouver or PREP B.C.?

MS. BROWN : The first memo I read was for PREP in B.C. - for the whole province. That's the one that was really devastating. What I'm dealing with now is the statistic on the Vancouver PREP, about the 230 avoiders. It turns out that one of the reasons that the figure was so high is because most of those people had gone out and found jobs on their own.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You're wrong.

MS. BROWN : Oh, your people are wrong - your own staff.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, you're wrong.

[ Page 5744 ]

MS. BROWN : But I'm reading from the memo.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I know. You got the memo, Dave just gave it to you. It's the wrong memo.

MS. BROWN : Oh, I've got the wrong memo. The minister says I've got the wrong memo, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, the September 12 memo.... Now where's that one? I guess I was reading from the September 12 memo from the deputy minister to all of the executive directors of the Ministry of Human Resources, asking for an explanation of the results.

MR. BARNES : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you indicate to the House whether there is a quorum or not?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney) : Mr. Speaker, before you ring the bell, can you count? There is a quorum here, and nobody can count them.

MR. BARNES : The Speaker is not a voter right now. The Speaker can't vote. No wonder he's the Whip! He doesn't know what's going on. The Speaker can't vote. He's impartial.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. members, we have a quorum. Would the first member for Vancouver-Burrard carry on, please?

MR. MUSSALLEM : Point of order.

MS. BROWN : Oh, I'm trying to get on with this debate, Mr. Speaker, and the member keeps interrupting. The government members keep interrupting; I can't get on with the debate.

MR. MUSSALLEM : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am incensed that we would call a facetious lack of quorum in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order!

MR. MUSSALLEM : Mr. Speaker, I wish to have order. I have the floor on a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM : I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I drew your attention before you rang the bell....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM : I brought to your attention before you rang the bell that there were 10 people in the House including you, and that is a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, we thank you for your point of order. We have a quorum.

MR. MUSSALLEM : Mr. Speaker, I want you to understand this clearly and I want it on the record clearly that the points of order are facetious. If they want to help their member, say so; make it proper and honourable. But there were 10 people in here....

MR. BARRETT : Order!

MR. MUSSALLEM : I've got the floor. Sit down! You sit down!

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order!

MR. MUSSALLEM : Sit down! I bring out on a point of order that there were 10 people in this

House and yet you insisted ... to your shame. It's a total disgrace and a charade of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. BARNES : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES : I'm in my chair. Mr. Speaker, he's talking about facetious inquiries and facetious points of order. But all I did was ask. All he had to do....

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member is not on a point of order. He obviously made an observation.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, help!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MS. BROWN : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In debating Bill 65, 1 just want to say how very sorry I am that the members of the government are bringing their fighting out in public, and that the Whip should attack that poor little member from Cranbrook publicly. It breaks my heart.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN : The hollow men again.

Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the PREP figures and the number of memos out of the ministry that questioned whether PREP was effective or not, and the minister's own statement that he wanted a survey done to check on the effectiveness of PREP.

I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that always on the welfare rolls in the city there are a

[ Page 5745 ]

large number of employables who get on and off the rolls very quickly - about 40 per cent. This has always been so. Young people who lose a job and immediately start looking for another one are just on welfare very briefly until they find another. People are laid off for a while and then they get back on and so forth.

So these statistics are really unreal. Really, what the previous reports have shown is that most people remain on assistance - most single employables, anyway - for a maximum of four months. In the Vancouver area I have been told that there is a turnover of approximately 1,000 cases a month. As I said before, no one enjoys being a welfare recipient, and it makes sense that they would try to find work and get off welfare as soon as possible.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, to date the figure of 230 has been issued from the ministry and bandied about by the minister. But to date no names have been given to the staff so that they can follow up, find these 230 people, find out who they are, find out why they didn't show up for their appointments and why they are avoiders.

Until that is done, the statistic is irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything whatsoever, because these people could have found themselves jobs, They could have moved to other provinces. They could have died, but as far as the minister is concerned it is still a statistic that he bandies about, and one of the reasons he gives....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's not relevant.

MS. BROWN : I wish you were relevant, Mr. Minister. I really do. The tragedy of the situation is that we are stuck with you. Mr. Speaker, until the ministry makes available to the staff the list of those 230 names so that they can check them out and ascertain the facts, the minister should not be permitted to continue maligning the city of Vancouver in this way. He certainly should not be permitted to use this as one of his reasons for destroying the Vancouver Resources Board. As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons given is their failure to take

part in the jobfinding programme. Again, I draw you to The Vancouver Sun editorial of July 16, which says: "The minister says the VRB has been reluctant to take

part in the ministry's jobfinders' programme, preferring instead to concentrate on the rehabilitation of the individual, not finding jobs for him."

If you remember, I pointed out to you that his own ministry memo said that finding the job before you rehabilitate the person was kind of nonsense. They were sending out alcoholics who couldn't hold down the jobs, in some instances. "The minister is saying here that the VRB does not want to duplicate his dubious and overblown PREP programme." They're not my words so I don't have to withdraw anything. That is The Vancouver Sun editorial.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN : Of course not - the two programmes are essential halves of the whole: one to train a welfare person to present himself for a job and hold on to it; the other to find the job for the welfare person to go to. What the minister did not'say was that at his request the VRB's job-counselling programme has been run since November by the same person, Mr. Stew, who runs PREP. You're very selective, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, about the things you talk about and the things that you don't. It is my responsibility to talk about the things that you have refused to talk about.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I like the positive.

MS. BROWN : You like the positive. That's the reason why you hired half of your staff in other departments so it doesn't show up on your statistics sheet, and why you burdened the Vancouver Resources Board with some of your expenses so it doesn't show up on your budget. That's your way of how you like the positive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN : Through you to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you the opinion held by other people, not by myself, about the PREP programme. There is a quote from a social worker in the Kitsilano area who says that "the programme is completely useless, since there are no jobs. Financial assistance workers rarely use it, if ever." Last week somebody at the PREP office, a secretary, said that the Kitsilano office was not to send any more people to them because they just did not have any jobs. It goes on to say: "We had a Jobfinder in our office. Now he is in the Manpower office with PREP. He found jobs when he was here with us, but now he doesn't have anything to do."

Mr. Speaker, if I can draw your attention to The Province of December 2,1976, when a Province reporter decided to test out his chances of finding a job through the PREP offices you remember what a fiasco that was. He ended up by saying: " 'It's tough, ' the PREP person says, 'but what about this guy, Stew, who is tossing jobs around by the thousands? A smile, a shrug. 'You know what these people in government are like.' " That took care of that one.

[ Page 5746 ]

Anyway, he was never able to find a job because everywhere he went the PREP people assured him that there just wasn't any work. He said: " 'It's nothing more than a campaign, ' the PREP person says. 'You know these politicians. One office had placed 35 out of 350 interviewed in six weeks.'

They're totally discredited.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's the Vancouver office.

MS. BROWN : Do you want me to tell you what happens in the Richmond office?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, the Richmond office would not be relevant to Bill 65.

MS. BROWN : You should tell the minister that because he doesn't know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Back to the principle of the bill.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, he is chastising me for using Vancouver statistics when I'm dealing with the Vancouver Resources Board. So you should draw it to his attention that Richmond is not yet part of Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, you are the member who has the floor at

this point in time on Bill 65.

MS. BROWN : I thought you might want to chastise him on my behalf.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, The Vancouver Sun of November 25 says: "B.C. Jobfinding Programmes 7,000 Shy of Target. B.C. Jobfinder Admits He's 7,000 Short of Goal." The minister talks about wanting to emphasize the positive. "The provincial Jobfinder, Ron Stew, admitted Wednesday that he's fallen short of his goal to place 12,000 welfare recipients into employment by Christmas." He was 7,000 jobs short. He admitted that himself.

Now the only reason I'm adding these clippings to what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is because on the one hand / we have the memoranda and the information from his own ministry that discredits him internally. But the press have not had access to that yet so there has -been nothing in the press about it. On the other hand, we have the press discrediting him externally, but we haven't been able to get our hands on the memo which exists internally, I know, dealing with the topic of juggling the statistics.

"Jobfinder Quits His Job - Blames Programme Inefficiency." He went on to say that a large number of the jobs were subsidized. "Jobfinder Figures Padded After Memo." This was in the Colonist: "An attempt to pad the jobfinding abilities of the provincial rehabilitation employment programme has been halted by Highways minister, Alex Fraser." You remember that debacle, don't you, Mr. Speaker?

"Twisted Statistics, " an editorial of March 19,1977, compared PREP with PAB. I remember PAB was Mr. Gaglardi's programme, Mr. Speaker, for doing exactly the same thing, and he used the same twisted and convoluted way of dealing with statistics as is being used by PREP now. All of this has to do with Bill 65.

Then there's the editorial in the Sun by Frances Russell: "The problem isn't lazy people; it's the lack of permanent jobs." Then there's the final editorial in The Province: "Vander Zalm Has A Job Defending PREP Figures." It's a totally discredited programme - totally discredited. As I said before, the press were operating on instinct when they discredited it before now. Now we have the memos from inside the ministry telling the minister that the programme isn't working. It isn't, and he himself is questioning its effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, before I go back to the business of the programmes touched on

or served through the Vancouver Resources Board, I want to deal with an

article

that was in The Province this morning and share it with you:

"The provincial Legislature this week is playing out the final act in the long and bitter drama over the government's decision to dismantle the Vancouver Resources Board. That the VRB will soon be dead is obvious . . ." I'm just watching that smile playing around your lips. ". . . but less obvious are the calculations made in 20 months since the Socred return to power that led the Bill Bennett government to kill the NDP experiment in what the former government called 'the humanization of social services.'

"In 1974, the Barrett government sought to push decision-making down virtually to the neighbourhood level, giving welfare recipients a voice in what aid they got and how they got it. The VRB irritated the Bennett government, almost from the day the Socreds resumed power i n late 1975, because the decentralization weakened the provincial politicians' grip on the day-to-day implementation of social policy.

"The Socreds, elected in part on a promise to stem profligate NDP spending, particularly on welfare, found such a structure intolerable. So did a number of Victoria civil servants long accustomed to dispensing money and ordering priorities with a stroke of their pens. Now they were expected to share that power with those near the bottom of the social ladder.

"The Community Resources Boards Act,

[ Page 5747 ]

which set up the VRB, initially got the support of Human Resources

minister, Bill Vander Zalm, but as early as January, 1976, a month after the

election, he sounded the first warning that change was in the wind. He told

reporters: 'My philosophical approach is quite different from the previous

one, NDP, but if you want a programme to work, you must have the support of

the workers in the field.'

If you think that the VRB doesn't have the support of the workers in the field, I'm going to be reading you those letters which I've received from workers -more than a hundred.

"Vander Zalm's philosophical approach has never had the support of the workers in the field. To begin with, he is quintessentially a Socred, although, at one time, he was a B.C. Liberal."

Yes, I checked it, actually. I looked it up in my dictionary this morning. You see, I yellowed it out because I'm going to go into a definition, a description of what a "quintessential Socred" really is.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN : Yes, I've got about 15 or 20 pages of notes on it.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, it would have to be relative to the bill at hand.

MS. BROWN : Oh, it is. It is very relative to the bill because The Province is saying that that's the reason why Bill 65 is on the floor of the House and the reason why the Vancouver Resources Board "will soon be dead."

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it points out that: ". . . at one time [the minister] was a B.C. Liberal leadership hopeful - most of whom take an accountant's view of government financing and equate surpluses with efficiency. Virtually all party supporters think that individuals ought, by God, to make their own way in this world,

"In. other words, Vander Zalm's experiences in 'making it' are distinctly different from those of people whom social workers encounter daily in their rounds - the ill-educated, the unmotivated and the handicapped.

"These are people whose life histories have shut them off from entering the great middle class which is Vander Zalm's constituency.

"On the other hand, the NDP sees political virtue as the provision of programmes for people who need them at the expense of those who can most afford to pay - largely business and middle-class wage-earners.

"It is against this philosophical difference that the battle over the VRB is being fought."

Then it goes on to say that there's a lot of money involved and it points out that the budget - the true, honest, clear and accountable budget - for 1978-79 is $102 million, up $2 million from last year.

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me three things. I can't remember the date that that thesis was done, but four students at the school of social work did a Master's thesis on the social worker philosophy of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. It has everything to do with Bill 65 because it's been tied in by the following statement: what we're really dealing with in Bill 65 is political-philosophical differences.

In the study - and I am just using parts of the thesis - what they did was to go back and look at first, Aberhart's philosophy on social welfare. You know, Aberhart's philosophy was that almost every social ill can, according to his theory, be alleviated by establishing a Social Credit monetary system. That was the root of his belief.

There existed in his philosophy a confusion, however, as to whether a person should be required to work for the benefit derived or whether they should just just get it because they needed it. It's interesting, because that debate is still raging today. The minister is still talking about work for welfare. The members of the government are still confused and they're still dealing with that philosophy. However, Aberhart concluded that an individual should receive his support as long as there was no opportunity for him to be employed. Of course, in this province, with this incredibly high level of unemployment, that would mean a very, very long time indeed.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and closely allied, he saw poverty and unemployment as basically the result of two things: failure to have a Social Credit monetary system; and a result of the individual's own fault, either because of age, physical or intellectual disability, or because they just didn't want to work.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you know very much about the history of the development of the philosophy of Social Credit, and the development of the philosophy of social welfare within the Social Credit philosophy. According to the original Social Credit view, social reform is something that can. be achieved through monetary reform, and individual freedom is conceptualized as something that can be purchased through manipulation of the money system.

The thesis goes on to tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the focus is a middle-class one upon those whom it is assumed will, given certain material opportunities, achieve comfortable, happy homes and lead well-ordered, family lives. Without expanding unduly, the thesis goes on to say:

"one would note that there does seem to

[ Page 5748 ]

be some stereotyping of people in this objective and, further,

it is assumed that by and large monetary reform and the hoped-for affluence

that evolves are the basic solution to happy family life."

Now as someone who has spent part of their year in counselling, it really intrigues me that the problems in terms of unhappy family life can be solved if all we have is a Social Credit monetary policy. Every day you live you learn something new.

"The need for sustenance and protection of family life through a system of family and social services beyond the provision of health and education is not considered."

These are your political roots, Mr. Speaker, that I'm talking to you about.

Then the philosophy goes on to talk about "our worthy poor." Because if the poor are worthy we accept responsibility for them. It deals with the resolutions at the convention.

"In reading the resolutions, one finds a carryover of some of the influences that were apparent in 19th century England and are probably quite widespread in Canada and elsewhere today. The royal commission into Poor Law administration and operation set up in 1832 advocated that outdoor relief should be reserved only for 'the worthy poor.' "

I know you're having difficulty . seeing the link, right?

MR. SPEAKER : I think you're going back quite a way to establish something.

MS. BROWN : No, Mr. Speaker, because you have to understand what I said yesterday - even though I talk about the Minister of Human Resources, the minister is merely carrying out the policies of his government, and his government is a Social Credit government. To understand Bill 65, you have to understand the policies of the minister's government, and to understand that, you have to go back quite a way. You really do. You have to go back to the Poor Laws in the 1800s, because that's what they're rooted in.

"Outdoor relief should be reserved only for the worthy poor, the sick, the aged, and widows with children whose destitution is something beyond their personal control. What it didn't add is that those widows had also to be of chaste character or they would not be eligible either. On the other hand, all able-bodied applicants were to be placed in a workhouse.

". . . the principle of less eligibility. As a means of keeping the shiftless off assistance . . ."

Listen to the key words, like "shiftless" - same words we're using today. See what you learn from history.

" . . . was widely supported, and the feeling that welfare encouraged people to be lazy and spineless."

Sound familiar?

"In the resolutions, in advocating increased pensions and facilities for the aged, we again find advocacy of the principle of outdoor relief for the worthy poor. In encouragement of the institution of work for relief, we find something of the principle of less eligibility. As a means of keeping the shiftless off assistance it was widely supported, as was the feeling that welfare again encouraged people to be lazy and spineless."

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say:

"The views expressed certainly suggested a rather skeptical view of a social assistance client, who is seen by and large" - again those two key words - "as lazy and shiftless, if not dishonest" - that's where the whole fraud thing comes in - "and to be the subject of investigation and limit-setting."

You understand the link now, Mr. Speaker? The fraud squads started way back then.

"This is in sharp contrast~, however, to the position taken with the worthy poor" - that's your aged, remember, and your widows with children - "where there seemed to be a general assumption of moral responsibility and of one-time industry, and therefore of a right to generous service. Douglas' position on work, as indicated in

chapter 1, was a rather nebulous one in an age of leisure where he said that the dividends would be paid to all and should be adequate to sustain those without income. Elsewhere he goes on to state that payments of this support should be dependent upon past or present contribution to the productive systems."

So they tie the whole of welfare into your contribution to ' the productive system. If you don't produce, you shouldn't get unless you are worthy. To be worthy, you had to be old or you had to be a widow.

It goes on with exactly the same kind of arguments, the same kind of statements being made by this minister of this government today. They're doing precisely the same thing: tying everything into monetary principles. It doesn't matter that when you cut back on services to children now you end up having to spend more money later when they become juvenile delinquents or later when as adults they somehow come into conflict with the law or with society. It doesn't matter. What matters is that his budget now be low. He will stop at nothing, including hiding his budget in the budgets of other

[ Page 5749 ]

departments, as I pointed out earlier, to live up to the philosophy of Aberhart and Douglas and the early social welfare philosophy of the early Social Credit League and the early Social Credit Party.

In commenting on these resolutions, the thesis goes or to say:

"One would note, firstly, the commitment to the idea of work as being in itself a moral value and as strengthening the fibre of the individual. Secondly, those who fail to work are suspect and are thought to be morally defective. Thirdly, the idea of a basic right to support is a strictly limited one, in that it is felt that to give money to an unemployed person is both immoral and demoralizing. Rather, that person should work for his relief. Rather, that Rather, that person should be handed a shovel. Do you know what?

Because the Vancouver Resources Board recognized that there is more to need and more to services than this narrow, limited commitment to Social Credit monetary policy in dealing with need, the Vancouver Resources Board is going to die.

The thesis goes on: "A final general point that should be made in this area is the lack of concern with the level of support paid to the social assistance recipient today, as it was yesterday and as it was the day before that." By contrast again, Mr. Speaker, it points out the difference between that and the interest shown in subsidies and pensions to old-age pensioners and people who come under the category of "the deserving poor" - your widows with children.

The lack of concern exists in the face of a considerable amount of widely publicized professional concern that social assistance rates were not then - and are not, even today - adequate. The report to the Community Chest council on the adequacy of social assistance allowance in the city of Vancouver, published in 1958, reached this conclusion:

"A revision of this study completed this year showed that payments in certain instances fell as much as 40 per cent below meeting basic needs, and at least one study has indicated that social assistance rates are similarly inadequate when applied to the rural family."

Again we have this lack of concern. This lack of concern is indicative of a punitive approach to the social welfare recipient. This is not a political document. This is a thesis done by students and the UBC school of social work a number of years ago. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Human Resources at that time was Mr. Black, I think. It's not even the Gaglardi era that they're talking about. It goes back before that.

It goes on to say:

"The Social Credit Party may be characterized as a right-of-centre, free-enterprise party with a stress upon rugged individuals. The individual should always be responsible for protecting himself against the effects of such unavoidable hazards as come with aging.

"Policies are to be geared towards widening the opportunity for rugged individualism. There is certainly no cry for the general expansion of welfare service to those who are unable to fit the mould. The residual welfare client appears to be viewed with some distaste, as one who is to be ignored if he cannot be coerced into conformity."

The Vancouver Resources Board did indeed contravene these concepts - there isn't any question about it - as does the church, if you'll remember the number of letters and telegrams I read from various church groups yesterday, I don't know who still believes in that.

"It is assumed that given the opportunity, for any sane and reasonable person, the pursuit of material self-sufficiency and prosperity is sufficient rationale for living. Those who fail to conform are morally deficient."

I want to read that again, Mr. Speaker, and remember: I'm talking about the social welfare philosophy of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. This is what the minister is interpreting through Bill 65, when he deliberately introduces legislation to destroy the Vancouver Resources Board, because it contravened this philosophy.

"It is assumed that given the opportunity, for any sane and reasonable person, the pursuit of material self-sufficiency and prosperity is sufficient rationale for living. Those who fail to conform are morally deficient."

There's nothing about helping people in need, nothing about being aware of the rest of the world and our commitment to it - nothing like that. It's strictly, totally internal-, looking into yourself; the me generation; 1, 1, 1; give me the chance to go where I want to go. If I have to step on other people to go there, that is okay, too. And because the Vancouver Resources Board did not conform to that philosophy, the Vancouver Resources Board will die. Now remember - that was a Minister of Human Resources back four ministers.

I want to bring in some more up-to-date information. I want to quote from the election pamphlet, "Get B.C. Moving Again." The leader of the Social Credit Party, Bill Bennett, put it this way: "Bill Bennett has put it this way - government should do things for people, not to people." What's this government doing now for the Vancouver Resources Board? What is Bill 65 doing for the people of Vancouver? The people of Vancouver have made it patently clear that they want the Vancouver

[ Page 5750 ]

Resources Board to be continued. They want their social services delivered through that system. They want to retain control at the local level over those services and over the decisions that affect their lives.

Bill Bennett has put it another way: "Government should do things for people, not to people. But no matter how you say it the issue is very clear. Either this province will develop through individual initiative and a large measure of local control over community development. . . ." I know, you're looking up. It doesn't sound familiar, does it? I didn't believe it either, when I read it. I thought somebody was trying to blackmail the Premier. That's what I thought. I was about to call the fraud squad to check it out but it is a bona fide pamphlet: "Get B.C. Moving Again."

It says: "Either this province will develop through individual initiative and a large measure of local control over community development or it will sink into the state knows best, state does best philosophy, leading to central government control of people." He's introduced legislation that directly opposes the philosophy of the leader of this party. He is embarrassing his leader, which is the reason he took off for Brussels and wouldn't be here in this debate on Bill 65. 1 am in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Premier's trip to Europe is not relevant in this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER : You're right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Back to Bill 65.

MS. BROWN : He is right, it's not relevant. Mr. Speaker, Bill 65 runs counter to a pamphlet used by the Premier in the last election called "Individual Opportunity vs. State Direction, " in which he said very clearly that if we did not have a large measure of local control over community development we would sink into the state knows best-state does best philosophy, leading to central government control of people. That's what is happening, but it's not coming from outside, it is coming from within his own party. He takes off for two weeks, and what happens?

While he is away he finds all of his policies being shattered, his members fighting publicly on the floor of this House, disagreeing with each other, and legislation being rammed through here that goes absolutely counter to his own philosophy. That member, who is not in his seat and is leaning against the wall, knows it too.

I'm not finished, because I really like this pamphlet. It says: "The British Columbia Social Credit Party believes that the future of British Columbia rests on the idea that individuals can be asked to take a great deal of responsibility for themselves, and for the development and fulfilment of the communities in which they live." That's what the VRB is all about, that's what the community resource board concept is all about. That's why the Premier has made it his business not to be here for this debate.

Bill 65 is going to destroy the very things that this pamphlet - which was used by the Government Leader in the last election with his picture on the front of it, smiling - states are what the Social Credit Government is all about. "The British Columbia Social Credit Party believes in both sharing power and revenue with local government." It just doesn't make any sense. But anyway, you can't always believe what pamphlets say because, you know, you prepare a pamphlet and you send it to the printer and you never know what comes back, right? So it may have been interfered with. The printers may have played around with what the Premier said.

So let us look instead at a speech given to the Rotary Club in Richmond in December, 1973, when someone by the name of Bill Bennett was the Leader of the Official Opposition. What did he say?

"If the roads, the railways, the banks, the insurance offices, the great stock companies, the universities and the public charities were all of them branches of government; if, in addition, the municipal corporations and local boards with all that now devolve on them became departments of the central administration; if the employees of all these different enterprises were appointed and paid by the government and looked to the government for every rise in life, not all the freedom of the press and the popular constitution of the Legislature would make this or any other country free otherwise than in name only."

Did you hear that? As far as I know, this is legitimate; this is the speech which was given by someone by the name of Bill Bennett, Leader of the Official Opposition, in Richmond in December, 1973, in speaking to the Rotary Club.

How could things have changed so drastically? What about this great commitment to local involvement? What about this criticism of centralization? How is that Minister of Human Resources interpreting his role of that of destroying grassroots involvement and community involvement as manifested in this piece of legislation? What has happened to Mr. Bennett since then, aside from the fact that he's become Premier?

Mr. Speaker, he talks on page 3 of his speech about a document which talks about "community-level, " "widely expressed needs, " "locally elected boards." Then he says this remarkable document was "framed very deliberately . . . " - do you know what document he's talking about? He's criticizing the New Democratic Party government - " . . . to force the

[ Page 5751 ]

public education system of this province into the path of central state control." That's how he talked about the bill. "It is a matter of historical record, " he goes on to say, "that the great advances in public education within British Columbia have always come either from the classroom itself or from locally elected boards who saw a community need and acted upon it."

Well, isn't that what the Vancouver Resources Board is all about? The minister in his speech on Friday stated that one of the evil things about the Vancouver Resources Board was that its members are elected. Therefore they were political. "They had not been able " I think his exact quote was, "to cut the political umbilical cord." Yet we find his own leader telling us: "It is a matter of historical record that great advances have always come either from the classroom itself or from locally elected boards who saw a community need and acted upon it."

Mr. Speaker, on page 5 of his speech the Premier, in addressing the Rotary Club in Richmond on December, 1973, and criticizing the New Democratic Party government, again said:

"I believe they are systematically downgrading the importance of consultation with local governments for the express purpose of concentrating power and more power in the hands of a central bureaucracy, a bureaucracy responsible only to cabinet ministers who dictate local policies by remote control." I don't believe it. I just don't believe it. I cannot believe that the same person who would stand up in a public forum and make a statement like this would tolerate Bill 65, which clearly violates everything stated in that speech.

I believe that they are systematically downgrading the importance of consultation with local governments for the express purpose of concentrating power and more power in the hands of a central bureaucracy - a bureaucracy responsible only to cabinet ministers who dictate local policies by remote control, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . I'm not going to reflect on

section 42 of Bill 28, or

section 18.

DEPUTY -SPEAKER : Hon. member, it is out of order to reflect upon a vote.

MS. BROWN : Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to reflect on all the other centralizing Acts of this government, but certainly Bill 65 is a centralizing Act and is totally opposed to the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, and now Premier.

I want to read you another statement from that speech:

"In my view, the greater the percentage of provincial resources which are spent locally, the greater will be the effectiveness of the dollars spent."

But that's what the Vancouver Resources Board has very clearly demonstrated. He was right. It is true that when the dollar is spent locally, when the decisions about its spending are made locally, it is spent in a more effective way. For that, the Vancouver Resources Board is going to die.

I think the mistake we made in the first place was to believe the pamphlets, the speech and all the promises made by this government when it was running for election, because in fact it has not kept any of its promises. It certainly is not even living up to the statements made in the Premier's speech. What it is doing is putting into practice the philosophy which was revealed by those students who did a kind of historical research on their welfare policies,

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to talking about the projects and the programmes served by the Vancouver Resources Board which are going to be destroyed once Bill 65 becomes law. Yesterday I was talking about the Little Mountain Youth Project Review and some of the recommendations that came down, and specifically the perception of the parents in the area that that project had been a valuable one and certainly one they wanted to see continue.

Another one I want to talk about is the Kits youth worker, because I really think the youth worker programme - the youth programme dealing with adolescents and young people - is one of the more positive things in our community today. The Vancouver Resources Board has to take credit for funding this programme.

"In response to the evaluation of the staff and board through a recent community survey, and many conferences with parents, school officials, et cetera, it has been determined that the community house should be more active with the youth of the community and sponsor those programmes that contribute to social development of youthful persons within the area, fully realizing that existing institutions such as the school and parks board, and community centres, offer some services that enrich their lives. Many of these youths are not accommodated because of limited hours, and these and other inconveniences." These are the very same things that the Little Mountain review found.

Again it was through the youth worker that new programmes were developed at Kits House. Doing things through a normalization process was the theme. Participants were not isolated or labelled. The kids were not known as "problem children, " or "children with special needs, " or any of these things. The youth worker worked with them in conjunction with teachers, child-care workers, and other groups serving units in the community, in order that a number of events could be supported, many of whom have been identified as having special needs. Some

[ Page 5752 ]

of the events scheduled were, again: crafts, woodworking, hiking, group game-playing, camping, films, discussion. The report goes on to say that the normal number of participants in this twice-weekly programme was somewhere between 10 to 15 - 30 people for two group leaders, or one group leader and one volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Vancouver Resources Board has also been accused of is that they're irresponsible. They spend money in an irresponsible way, and anyone who applies to them for money gets it. I want to demonstrate, certainly in one instance, where this was not the case. I believe that because the resources board is based in the community at the neighbourhood level, they have a really deep understanding of the kind of services they need and how they can best be met. They make some very hard decisions about what services to support and which ones not to support.

I want to talk about one project which the community recommended should be rejected until a full survey was done, and the project was delayed. This project came before the Frog Hollow Community Services Centre Society, and they put in, again, for a youth worker. The recommendation of the board was that a complete survey should be done of the neighbourhood to ascertain its very real and genuine needs, and that this should be done before any decision was made about giving them their funding.

So you see, the minister's statement about the Vancouver Resources Board being irresponsible in the way it distributes its money and how it gives away funding is not a fair one, and it certainly does not bear close scrutiny.

The Strathcona Youth Service Team - again, this is an interagency team model, a community-oriented, street-work approach, with staff and back-up services. Again, it was working, like the team in Little Mountain and like the team in Kitsilano, with the youth in the area, to be sure that their needs are being met. There's nothing really special or very different about that. It's simply that the community recognized a need and made every effort to meet it.

MR. LEA : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, today, to my knowledge, there have been two quorum calls in the Legislature. I would like to draw your attention to standing order 7, on page 2.

AN HON. MEMBER : I hope there won't be another. He can't count that high!

MR. LEA : It says: "Whenever Mr. Speaker adjourns the House for want of a quorum, the time of the adjournment and the names of the members then present shall be inserted in the Journal." I would like to check with you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether, indeed....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The House has never been adjourned for lack of a quorum, hon. member. That is not a point of order.

MR. LEA : I would like you then, Mr. Speaker, to give me your opinion on what an adjournment is when the House had to stop its ordinary business for want of a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, the proceedings of the House were discontinued temporarily while the Speaker counted the members in the quorum.

MR. LEA : I see. Could you tell me the difference between a discontinuance temporarily and an adjournment?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt) : Go to the library and find out!

DEPUTY SPEAKER : An adjournment, hon. member, would have only taken place if the count had not indicated that there was, in fact, a quorum present at that point in time.

MR. LEA : Well, there wasn't a quorum present.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Speaker's ruling was that there was a quorum present at that time, hon. member, and I would not challenge that ruling.

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, respectfully - then why did he ring the buzzer to get us back?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, that is part of the ' procedure clearly outlined in May, on page 299 of the 18th edition.

MR. LEA : But did Mr. Speaker then run the House properly in not having an adjournment when there wasn't a quorum? I would like a ruling on that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, that's a facetious point of order. There was a quorum. The Speaker ascertained that in fact there was a quorum, therefore the House was not adjourned and the normal proceedings were then attended to.

MR. LEA : There has to be 10, Mr. Speaker. Doesn't there have to be 10 for a quorum?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, the Speaker of the House ascertained at that point in time that there was in fact a quorum.

MR. LEA : Then why did he ring the buzzer?

[ Page 5753 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Because that is part of the procedure clearly outlined on page 299, 18th edition of Sir Erskine May when a quorum is challenged. He's merely following the rules of the House.

MR. LEA : That doesn't seem to....

MR. BARRETT : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Once you rang the bell, then, of course, standing order 8 comes into being. I would like you to inform the House as to what members under standing order 8 have informed you or have had leave of absence from the House under this standing order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, this is not the correct time to raise this point of order. It should have been raised at the time the quorum call was given.

MR. BARRETT : Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : That is my ruling.

MR. BARRETT : I challenge your ruling.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS - 18

Waterland

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Gardom

McGeer

Chabot

Fraser

Calder

Jordan

Mussallem

Loewen

NAYS - 9

Nicolson

Lea

Dailly

King

Barrett

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. MUSSALLEM : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although I must recognize the valiant but misguided effort on the part of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, it still is a tampering with the rules of this House when at 5 o'clock, as happened yesterday and the day before, the hon. Leader of the Opposition comes in with a facetious point of order, obvious as can be. It is time the House would not allow any further abuse of the rules, although I would like to give the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard a rest. Let us recognize it as a rest, if it must be, but let's not play with the rules and tamper with the rules of this House.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's your duty to see that this is stopped once and for all. The hon. leader was not here all afternoon. I told my friends beside me ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, I think you've made your point.

MR. MUSSALLEM : ... he'd be in at 5 o'clock to raise a point of order, and at 5 o'clock on the dot he came in.

MR. LEA : I would want the record corrected, Mr. Speaker. It was the member for Prince Rupert who raised the point of order, not the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Dewdney was mistaken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you. You've made your correction....

MR. MUSSALLEM : It's not a correction at all!

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, he's holding up the debate.

MR. MUSSALLEM : I rise now on a point of privilege, because I was personally attacked.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : That's not a point of privilege.

MR. MUSSALLEM : Yes, it is. Mr. Speaker, in this House there's a point of order and a point of privilege. When a person is attacked then I've a right to reply. Mr. Speaker, do I have your permission?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : If you will state the instance where the personal attack arose.

MR. MUSSALLEM : He inferred that I was incorrect - that was the attack. The hon. member for Prince Rupert said he raised the point of order. Yes, he did, but it was carried on by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I said they came in at 5 o'clock, which they did. Let's have that clear on the record.

MR. BARRETT : It would only be an attack if it was said and you were correct.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. I

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, I really would appreciate it if the member for Dewdney would quit interrupting, so that I can get on with my debate. He's slowing down the business of this House with his continuous interruptions. He's wasting the taxpayers' money with his continuous interruptions. He's

[ Page 5754 ]

slowing down the business of this House. I don't know what we can do to the member for Dewdney to make him stay in his seat as I try to continue, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER : He's been drinking Fraser River water again.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member is now going to get back to Bill 65.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, I want to continue my statements about the efforts by the Vancouver Resources Board on behalf of the youth of the city of Vancouver, and to talk about some of the other youth counsellors that were funded through this service. The Franklin Community School, of course, had one, and the Strathcona Youth Service Team. Yesterday I read the entire list of youth counsellors who were funded by the programme just as an example of one way in which the Vancouver Resources Board recognizes a need at the local level and tri