1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th

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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 895 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): Mr. Speaker, I would like

the House to join me in welcoming a group of New Democratic Party

ladies from the Municipality of Burnaby.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in our

galleries today are 50 students from King George High School in

Vancouver's high-rise district of the West End, and it should be

mentioned, I think, that King George School is one of the first schools

to adopt what is known as the modular time table, which wouldn't be a

bad idea for this Legislature. They're accompanied by their teachers

Mr. Buium and Mr. Kelso, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I also would

like the House to welcome some men from Burnaby.

Introduction of bills.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message

from

his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PODIATRY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a

bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Podiatry Act , and recommends

the

same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House, March 21,

House in committee on Bill No. 99.

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 99,

An Act to

Amend the Podiatry Act , was introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I beg

leave to introduce a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Pollution

Control Act, 1967.

Motion approved. Bill No. 102 read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move the House

move to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Resumed debate on Bill No. 49, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill

No. 49. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the

principle of this bill is to put into the hands of the Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement what was originally absolute

authority — undefined authority now — in terms of determining social

assistance rates for the people of British Columbia.

This Minister is asking for complete authority to make decisions

over funds that are not exclusively the funds of British Columbia.

Because, Mr. Speaker, 50 per cent of all social assistance costs are

paid by the federal government. That's part of the equalization process

that the Premier rejects. But nonetheless, 50 cents of every welfare

dollar — that's not equalization in actual fact but it's certainly a

federal grant of trying to equalize the shared programme to provide

people of all parts of this country with a basic income. That's what it

is.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I know that the Premier says that he

believes in guaranteed annual income. But I keep on pointing out to him

that under the Canada Assistance Plan such a programme could be

implemented right now in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Minister that at the present

time the cost-sharing under these particular programmes is 50 per cent

Ottawa, 35 per cent provincial government, 15 per cent by the

municipalities.

Yet you wish by this bill, through you, Mr. Speaker, to take 100 per

cent of all the authority. Have you consulted — I ask this question,

Mr. Speaker — with the federal government, and the federal Minister,

Mr. Munro? Is he in agreement with this particular bill? Have you

consulted with the federal government, Mr. Minister?

Well, Mr. Minister, I don't think you have consulted with Munro, the

Honourable John Munro, who is the Minister of National Health and

Welfare, and after all, if the federal government is going to pay for

half the costs, then perhaps this Minister through this legislation may

be jeopardising the federal share of social assistance rates. Does the

Minister know whether or not he is doing that?

Mr. Speaker, I will bring to your attention questions recorded in Hansard ,

March 13, 1972. And I'll read the questions and the answers.

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis, Vancouver-Kingsway, asked the

following

questions.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the

Minister of

National Health and Welfare. Can the Minister inform the House whether

in light of the provisions of Canada Assistance Plan with respect to

persons in need and

[ Page 896 ]

the appeal provision included in that

legislation he has studied

Bill No.49 introduced in the British Columbia Legislature by Welfare

Minister Gaglardi, which would give the Minister absolute discretion to

decide who should receive social assistance and who would deprive

welfare recipients of the right of appeal?

Now, this is his answer — the Honourable John C. Munro:

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Honourable Member that

I have just heard about this proposed legislation in British Columbia,

and I'm looking into the matter now. After I have had a chance to study

it I will be pleased to report back to the Honourable Member.

No consultation! Who do you think you are, Mr. Minister? Who does

the Minister of Social Improvement and Rehabilitation think he is?

Fifty per cent of social assistance paid by the federal government — he

brings in legislation dealing with a federal Act, no consultation

whatsoever with Ottawa. But even worse he places us perhaps in jeopardy

of receiving those federal funds.

Because I read the next question. Mrs. MacInnis:

In looking at the matter would the Minister consider

measures to deal with the problem, including the withholding of federal

money from British Columbia and all other provinces that are violating

the Canada Assistance Plan, if he finds they are, and make an early

statement to the House on his findings?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Well we don't know. We've had no consultation,

we certainly might be; the federal Minister has announced that he's

going to look into it and this is the federal Minister's answer. Mr.

Munro:

Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the Honourable

Member, the question is truly hypothetical at this stage. I should

like to have a chance to find out what the legislation is all about;

then I'll report back.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the Minister should fly back

to Ottawa right now, or get on the phone and discuss this legislation

with the federal Minister right now. We're dealing with vast sums of

money that the federal government has direct share in. It may be a

violation of the Canada Assistance Plan, and before any legislation

like this is brought into the House all these things should be checked

out.

What is the point of bringing legislation into this House when the

federal Minister himself has not even had the opportunity of

consultation with the provincial Minister?

We've been through this before, we've had other Acts passed in this

House that we'd have to set aside because they violate federal laws.

There's been little preparation done on this. This is a propaganda

bill, Mr. Speaker. It's a bill based on propaganda and pique. The

Minister did not like the idea of someone actually having a right to go

to court to question his decisions in terms of welfare matters.

Mr. Speaker, we're not here to create petty tsars, or mandarins, or

any other kind of emperor-like device. You were elected by the people,

we're all elected by the people, and the people should have the right

an appeal procedure from any decision by any politician.

Look what the U.B.C. law faculty thinks about the government's

legislation, Mr. Speaker. Here's a statement signed by 28 of the 31

full-time teachers of the faculty of law at the University of British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker, with the Minister's experience with lawyers,

more than any other Minister he should recognise that any time you've

got 28 lawyers out of 31 agreeing on something then there must be

something really bad with what this legislation is.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: These are the law faculty themselves. The

students also signed it, but I am just referring to the fact that 28

out of the 31 law faculty signed it. "The recent proposed amendment to

the Social Assistance Act would confer upon the Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement the power to grant social

assistance in such amounts as in his discretion he considers

advisable." That's right.

You haven't checked with Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister

be so absolute when he knows nothing about what the Act really means?

That's why he's absolute; he's reduced himself to communicating with

hand signals that are generally a reflection on his own interests

rather than examining the bill, Let the record show that part of the

Minister's answer was some kind of gesture with his hands. The

amendment would repeal that part of the present Act which sets out the

standards for determining grants. It would substitute no standard at

all. There would be no control over the decisions made by the Minister,

as those decisions would be within his discretion. What about the

appeal boards? You're abolishing the appeal boards.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, the legislation itself says that that kind

of authority means that any kind of appeal that you would set up would

have no way of getting around your discretion in this bill. There's no

standards.

They go on, Mr. Speaker, to say:

Our system of public administration has evolved along

lines which recognise the need for administrative decision-making to

take place in an environment of articulated principles and standards.

Administrative decisions are subject to review if the decision-maker

disregards those principles or standards, or if the decision-maker

allows factors to affect his judgment which are irrelevant to the

principles and standards he is directed to apply.

Mr. Minister, you have no right, in my opinion, to take unto

yourself

such powers as to make these decisions on the basis of people's

behaviour or attitudes. And I quote further:

Legislation which fails to include standards or

principles but confers an absolute discretion on the decision-maker

constitutes a frontal attack on the system of public administration and

represents a major threat to the rule of law and to any idea of decency

in public affairs.

And they quote a very interesting comment by a judge, Mr. Speaker.

"As former Chief Justice McRuer of Ontario noted, excessive or

unnecessary power conferred on public authorities corrupts and destroys

democratic institutions, and gives life to all forms of tyranny, some

petty and some extreme." Well, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about

the principle in this bill that defines that the Minister himself will

have this kind of authority.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: No way!

MR. BARRETT: No way? Then withdraw the bill, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker. Withdraw the bill.

[ Page 897 ]

Consult with the federal Minister and make sure

that you are working

in harmony and cooperation with that federal government. Because of all

pieces of legislation before this House, none more directly affects the

lives, the hopes, and the aspirations of people than this bill does.

The whole poverty cycle, Mr. Speaker, has been a dilemma in North

America that many, many administrators and many governments have tried

to break to allow people to forge forward into new horizons in their

life. And more than anything else, that poverty cycle can only be

affected by flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, when that flexibility is not guaranteed by law, is not

imbedded in the legislation, we find that we retain attitudes that

psychologically prevent people from ever breaking out of that poverty

cycle.

If we pass this legislation we build up in the public's mind the

idea that one man is boss over all people in need, either it be

temporary need or short-term need, and the effect of that is for a

person to focus on how does one gratify the boss rather than how one

gets oneself off welfare and onto another path of fife.

The psychological damage created by this concept in terms of one man

calling all the shots goes toward conditioning people who are already

conditioned to be dependent on the state. It goes further and

conditions them to be dependent on one individual in that state.

That's bad. The idea that welfare recipients must look toward one

person, whether it is that Minister or someone who replaced him, the

idea that they must look toward one person as their benefactor or their

detractor because under that legislation it now gives that power….

Mr.

Speaker, that kind of absolute power means only one thing — that those

people who are already on welfare will be frightened to show any

initiative to get off welfare.

At the present time under the present conditions and now more

sharply focused under this legislation, people spend more time trying

to figure out how to beat the system within the system rather than

their energies being focused on getting off welfare. With this kind of

legislation all focus will be made to gratify one person — one person's

discretion — rather than concerted efforts being made to get out of the

welfare poverty cycle.

Have you examined this bill closely? The principle in it means that

the Crown will pass on to one Minister that absolute authority. It

could even mean that if someone wrote a letter to the Minister

protesting his particular decision — I don't say he'd use the power — but he would have the power to punish a critic of his who happened to

be on welfare. He'd have the power.

There would be no way that that critic could appeal. I'm not saying

that the Minister would do it. But I am saying that the potential of

him taking that kind of action exists in that legislation. I tell you

people who are so beaten now, in the present economic system, and who

have been on welfare for years, will be even more frightened and more

cowed by the

interpretation that this legislation could have on it.

It's not wise. It's not just, Mr. Speaker. It's not valid in the

present context. We have fought for years to accept what is considered

to be a human obligation to other people, by saying that there are

basic needs in our society that all of us must provide through a

welfare scheme.

After having arrived at that level of interpreting need, we're now

going to abolish 50 years of fighting to bring it to that level by this

kind of legislation. I don't think that the Minister — to be fair to

the Minister — I don't think he really understands how damaging this

bill is. I don't think he really appreciates the effect this will have

on many, many people as individuals and groups within the welfare

system who are trying to break out of that poverty cycle.

Mr. Minister, you have obviously not examined what the implications

of this bill are — not only in law but psychologically. Mr. Minister,

if you reflect on the public reaction, through you, Mr. Speaker, to

your role in decision-making in this process, you must understand that

there is a lingering attitude out there towards your whole approach.

You came into this House and you attacked people who were

"dead-beats." For many people that definition, of the word "dead-beat",

meant everybody that was on welfare, and if that didn't throw the fear

and anxiety and hostility down through those people who are on welfare,

no other word did.

You already have a bad image. A very bad image. Most of the work

dealing with people is around a humanistic feeling — it's a

psychological attitude that one must develop to make people feel

confident and secure while they're facing adversities in their life.

When you build up that confidence and security, only then can they

forge new corridors, new avenues, new approaches to get out of the

welfare cycle. But Mr. Speaker, this Minister has created an image of

himself that he's against the poor, and now with this legislation he

wants to be the lord of the poor, and it only does further devastating

damage to these people. It's oppressive, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker.

I suggest this bill be withdrawn and immediate consultation take

place with the federal government, and let's get on with the business

getting people out of the welfare cycle, instead of spending all the

Minister's time looking for jungle legislation that keeps these people

trapped in a system of life that never allows them to develop new

horizons or new hope. Not just for themselves, Mr. Speaker, but for

their children.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker. It's not a pleasure for me to speak on this particular

piece of legislation. I don't think it's a very happy day for the

Province of British Columbia when we're faced with such legislation.

It does a number of things — (1) the amount of money that's involved

in here in total indicates that no longer will the Premier be able to

avoid the statement or misconstrue the statement that we're now engaged

in deficit financing. That's point number one.

I think we can all agree that we are all concerned about the welfare

situation in the Province of British Columbia. Certainly in my

constituency the people have been very concerned at the rising numbers

of people who find themselves on social welfare. I said in an earlier

debate the fact that we do have able-bodied, capable men and women

drawing social welfare in this province in 1972 is a reflection of the

failure of this government in its economic policies and its failure to

develop jobs in terms of industries in British Columbia.

The Premier has said time and time again that it's not his intention

to develop job-intensive industry. He takes ads in newspapers all

across the country which practically beg people to come to this

province, and then he says we can't help the unemployment because

people

keep coming here. Then he starts this campaign, along with the

Minister….

[ Page 898 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: He's not that small that I can't see him.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh, he's not there, all right. He's gone. I

don't

know where's he gone — by plane or by helicopter — but he's gone.

However, that's all right. The fact still remains that we have these

people — we can do two things with them. We can either see that they're

adequately fed and housed and clothed and that their children are taken

care of, or we can let them starve to death.

Now, what we've done in this — so far as being a Christian nation — is that we don't allow people to starve to death quickly. We prefer to

let them starve to death slowly, and that basically is what we've been

doing. Then we heap scorn on their heads and drive society against them.

The Minister calls them dead-beats, even though they live in an

economic system that has failed and failed to give them the opportunity

to provide for themselves and their families, time after time. You can

say: "Oh there's jobs available."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, whose fault is it they didn't inherit

money? I want you to remember too, that people in our society have

differing intellectual ability and differing capacities, and in the

kind

of society that we have developed more and more it requires people with

special training. The jobs that were once available for the man whose

capacity was limited to digging with a pick and a shovel has finally

disappeared. There's just no place for these people to fit into society.

I've travelled around this province — gone door to door and met

many, many of these families just living on the edge of the world ready

to fall off. Holding on desperately. The man finds himself out of a job

and leaves Vancouver, and he goes up to the interior, gets a job at the

end of a green chain in some little gypo-mill. Just about the time that

he's got enough money to get his family there and he finds some

abandoned shack somewhere to live in, he gets his family there for a

month, and the job folds.

So he takes off for Prince George or somewhere else and gets a job

splitting a few shakes, and again just about the time that he gets

enough money to get his family to move to where he is, that job runs

out. These are the people who are trying to stay off welfare, but there

comes time after time when they just can't run any more — because of

our failure. I've met hundreds of them all over this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: I have. We have failed to provide them with the

bare necessities — above what all Canadian standards say is the poverty

line. So we're all concerned about it, but part of it is the failure of

this particular government.

I looked at this piece of legislation, and I find that the wording,

it's now before us, allows the Minister in his absolute discretion to

determine what will or will not happen. And in the explanatory notes

this is said to be "redefining." That's moving it from a situation

where there was a chance for appeal and where appeals had been won onto

the Minister and his desk and gives him absolute discretion.

Now, I know he intends to remove the word "absolute", but what is

the

difference between "absolute discretion" and "discretion"? If the

Minister in his absolute discretion can do something, then the Minister

in his discretion can do something. What's the difference?

It doesn't say in here that the Minister "at his discretion and in

consultation with others" may do something; he still has exactly

the same dictatorial powers under the amendment he proposes as he does

under the Act that is written.

What is he allowed to do? I know the Minister doesn't want to

listen,

but that's all right. He doesn't care anyway. Let the record show that

while the bill was being discussed the Minister was wandering in and

out in his usual way — let the record show that the Minister was

chatting with other Members, let the record show that the Minister was

yak, yak, yakking all over the place while this most important piece of

legislation affecting the poor people of this province was being

discussed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: No, that's not contempt. I can't find

parliamentary words that would describe that kind of conduct.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's true, that's true.

MR. STRACHAN: It's him using his absolute discretion to act

in contempt of the House and contempt for people, as is his normal

attitude, so I'm not a bit surprised. He has absolute discretion to do

so.

It allows the Minister to fix the rate or amount of social

assistance for those persons and discontinue, reduce or increase the

rate or amount of social assistance.

Now, before the bill came up for continued second reading today, the

Minister went out yesterday and made an announcement about increases in

the rates. Tremendous increases in the rates, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier made the announcement.

MR. STRACHAN: The Premier came in here and made it first, and

then I guess the Minister was told and somebody else was told….

But when we work it out, Mr. Speaker, we find that for the single

person on welfare it amounts to 17 cents per day. But don't forget that

under the Canada Assistance Act the federal government will pay

cents per day. But don't forget that the municipalities pay about — in

my constituency — about 25 per cent of the total social welfare costs — so it's about 4 cents or 5 cents per day for the single individual on

social welfare.

Let's go to when it's a two-unit situation. A man and wife. That

addition adds about 10 cents per day for a wife.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: The federal government pays 50 per cent of it,

the municipality pays 50 per cent — that's 5 cents per day for the

wife. Out of the exchequer of this government. Big deal! A nickel a day

for the wife. A nickel a day for the wife — that's what he's giving.

[ Page 899 ]

Let's go to the dependents. What does that work out to? The

dependents — it works out to 6 cents a day — 50 per cent by the federal

government, and that leaves three. The municipality pays half of the

rest — 1½ cents a day for a child. That's what they're giving to the

social welfare recipients in the Province of British Columbia. A

cent-and-a half a day for the needy children of this province.

This man who wants to be absolute dictator, out of the public purse

of this province we pay almost $4,000 to keep a suite for him in the

Vancouver Hotel — $4,000 a year, and he's going to give the kids in

this

province 1½ cents a day. $4,000 a year to keep him a suite that he's

not in one-tenth of the time.

I've been through the public accounts — he doesn't pay any attention

to social welfare. He goes all over the country making speeches to

conventions and contractors' associations and businessmen all over the

place — all over the world — all over the country. There they are.

Dozens of them.

Look at them. Look at the lists of them. San Francisco, Toronto,

Montreal — not on the people's business — political propaganda all the

time. A cent-and-a-half a day for the kids. Almost $4,000 a year for a

suite in the Vancouver Hotel. A cent-and-a-half a day for the kids — 3

cents for the wife.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: After this bill came in, I kept looking for a

sceptre and an orb, a sceptre and an orb. A golden sceptre and a

diamond-studded orb — this king of kings. This dictator. This absolute

discretionist. But I did find a few things. I found the throne. There

is a vote here somewhere for furnishings and so on. But under the

Provincial Alliance of Businessmen — that blank cheque he's got….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! One moment please. The Honourable

Member is not now discussing the principle of the bill but is probably

dealing with matters that could be more properly discussed during the

Minister's estimates. They don't belong in the discussion of this bill.

MR. STRACHAN: All right. I just want to draw your attention,

Mr. Minister, by way of comparison — the absolute

section of this bill,

how he applies the funds which as Minister he controls. That's what I'm

addressing myself to. He has absolute discretion as to how he uses the

funds he controls. And we find, under purchase order 372479, "Pacific

Office Equipment Ltd., One only 1352 executive swivel tilter chair,

$356." Oh no, no. It's a slight reduction — less 15, less 12 — $299.58.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I know the Member realizes that he

is not talking to the principle of the bill in discussing office

equipment by any Minister, or this Minister is particular. He should

get back to the principle embodied in this bill, which has nothing to

with either travelling expenses or with the purchase of furniture, as

knows full well.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is it possible for

me to answer these outlandish charges when I get up to speak?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Minister should be allowed that

privilege, yes.

MR. STRACHAN: You know, it took about two weeks to find that

chair, it's definitely in the Minister's office, and nobody believes it

would cost that much because it didn't look as if it was worth that

much….

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Will the Member get back to the

principle of this bill, or his speech is over.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, yes, I'm speaking to the bill. I'm talking

about how this Minister uses his absolute discretion. you see, and how

little attention he actually pays to the matter of social welfare, and

that's why this bill should not be supported the way it is.

You know, there is all these problems of meeting the needs of the

people on social welfare. When the man rents a helicopter at $135 to

fly the 40 miles from Kamloops to the opening of Logan Lake, well….

MR. SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the Honourable Member to get

back to the principle of this bill for the last time, or his speech is

over.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression I

was speaking to the absolute discretion of the Minister in the moneys.

It says here: subject to this Act and regulation, the Minister may

grant,

out of moneys appropriated for that purpose by the legislature, social

assistance and amounts and so on and so on, you see. He has absolute

discretion, and he's the Minister. And this is his Act.

However, I just want simply again to register my protest against the

bill. I think it is unfortunate there are people in our society who

find themselves dependent on the rest of us for their well-being. I

suggest that we must have some sympathy for them.

We have two choices. Either we have sympathy and understanding for

them and provide for them in a fair, just, honourable manner so that

justice will be done and seem to be done with some form of appeal

other than to the Minister who makes the decision. Or we can provide

them with jobs.

We've failed to provide them with jobs. I think the least we owe

them is a fair system of welfare with the right of appeal.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In

speaking to the principle of this bill I think there is only one

principle in the bill, and that is something which I think is

undemocratic in giving such total power to any one individual — to any

individual, be he the best example of humanity you could find. I still

do not think that we believe in this province, or in this country, in

legislation which gives total power to one man.

I think that from the letters that I have received that this

particular bill perhaps has drawn more correspondence than any other

bill perhaps, other than Bill No. 3, this session. And actually the

principles are somewhat the same, in that people are having imposed

upon

them decisions which could be more correctly taken in other avenues.

I mentioned earlier in the House when I spoke, and I think this

point

can never be mentioned too often, that among people receiving social

assistance a very high percentage, between 80 and 90 per cent, are

unfortunate individuals in a

[ Page 900 ]

modern society where they're unable to compete.

They're either

unable to compete for medical reasons or for social reasons or for

reasons of marriage breakdown and families to look after and so on.

I think too often, Mr. Speaker, that when we discuss social

assistance either in this bill or in general context we do tend to lose

sight of the fact that those members on social assistance who get the

most attention — one might even use the word "notoriety" — are by far

the

minority of people receiving social assistance.

In my experience most of the people in this province receiving and

requiring social assistance are well deserving of it for reasons beyond

their control. And I also think that if there's one group of society

that requires the broadest range of social assistance in a wide sense

of the word "assistance" — I don't just mean financial assistance, I

mean in terms of counselling and further education, sympathy and

consideration on a wide basis — that is this group in society. It's for

this particular reason that I feel it is totally wrong that in such an

area of human needs one man should be given such excessive and total

power. And I would repeat, Mr. Speaker, I am not referring personally

to the one man concerned. I would oppose this bill no matter who that

one man was, holding this absolute power. The bill is spelled out in

such a way there can be no mistake; the subsections and

section 2 are

very clear. It covers every possibility regarding rates to continue to

reduce, increase, decrease and so on, and in

section 7 the regulations

are very widely spelled out.

I may add this is one reason that I have concern about this

government in total, and one of the reasons why I personally decided to

leave the Social Credit government was this ever-increasing tendency to

give greater and greater power into the hands of one man. In this

particular case we are now dealing with, I think this merely

accentuates

a very dangerous trend in this province, a trend which brings in

legislation which in my view and from my correspondence is widely

unacceptable in this province. And I certainly oppose the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I just

want to speak very briefly on this bill to indicate the dismay of the

Liberal Party at yet another instance of the rather cruel streak that

seems to run through our social policy in British Columbia.

So much is made of the good life here in our province. Vast amounts

of the taxpayers' money are spent by those in power advertising the

riches of British Columbia, the successful budget — Time

magazine, the

Eastern Press — the bragging about the surplus funds which the

government has accumulated. All of this going on at a time when the

government is standing up demanding that the taxpayer be protected,

playing upon the ill luck of those who have chronic disease, those who

are unemployed, those who are on the poverty line.

I must disagree, Mr. Speaker, with the evaluation from the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I've sat here in this House for 10 years now

— I said nine the other day, and I had forgotten that this is really

the

tenth year. Mr. Speaker, I have seen no change in philosophy during

that time. I think the Social Credit government has always been

arrogant, I think that the bills it has presented have always given far

too much power to Ministers and particularly one Minister, the Minister

who is never in the House when critical bills like this are being

discussed — and of course I refer to the Premier and Finance Minister

(Hon. Mr. Bennett), and this bill is quite obviously for his benefit.

Mr. Speaker, during the time when the Member for Oak Bay supported

the Social Credit movement and stood on the platform with the former

Minister of Health there was no question about how the luckless in

British Columbia were being treated at that time. The streak that ran

through our politics was just as cruel then as it is today.

More people in politics and in business and in every aspect of our

lives in British Columbia must begin to speak with some compassion, and

reveal this streak of cruelty for what it is. Because we have wealth in

this province, there is no question about it. The government has wealth

— there is no doubt of its huge surpluses. Business has wealth, and

individuals have wealth. But the disparity grows ever wider because

there is huge unemployment in this province.

There is a large proportion of our population who are elderly and

retired, and there are those who are too ill, or otherwise handicapped

and kept out of the work force.

Because our province is wealthy, Mr. Speaker, we do not receive the

kind of bulk government assistance that goes to the deprived areas of

Canada. We do not get the help in regional and economic development

that goes to Newfoundland or the Maritimes. We do not get the

assistance that comes in equalization payments. But, Mr. Speaker, we

are entitled to every dollar that the federal government makes

available in any of its shared-cost programmes.

MR. SPEAKER: I do wish the Member would get to his point,

because at the present time he is not talking to the principle of this

bill.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, I am talking to the principle

of this bill because…

MR. SPEAKER: Not yet.

MR. McGEER: …the federal government allows money to go

directly to individuals through the social assistance programme.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is not concerned with such a

programme. This bill is concerned with social assistance as

administered by the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, he determines in his absolute

discretion what federal moneys shall reach individuals in British

Columbia, he determines that — not the Minister for Welfare for Canada,

but the one for the Province of British Columbia. And, Mr. Speaker, he

acts as the impediment to those federal funds flowing to the luckless

in this province. In his absolute discretion, Mr. Speaker, because

that's what he is asking from this Legislature through this bill, he is

asking us to give him absolute discretion which controls not only the

provincial funds, but the federal funds as well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, he doesn't have it now, Mr. Speaker. Because

we have established a mechanism in this province — and I submit it's an

essential mechanism, a mechanism of

[ Page 901 ]

appeal which allows people who have different

judgment about need in

this province, who have more compassion, who have better feeling for

the needs of the underprivileged. I quite agree with what the Member

from Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) said, because I've seen how this

Minister lives, and he lives like a king on public money, Mr. Speaker,

there's no question about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. McGEER: And we'll have a great deal to say about how this

Minister lives. He's not at the poverty line. He might have been, Mr.

Speaker, had he not been elected to politics, but I can tell you he's

not at the poverty line now.

Mr. Speaker, we must have a change in philosophy and direction in

this province. We've got to rub out now and for all time this streak of

cruelty which is a curse on British Columbia and which is emphasized by

this particular bill.

Compassion has gone out the window in British Columbia, and the

general public, those who are rich, are invited to support a government

who is cruel to those who are poor. This bill is no break from the

past; it's no different from what the Member from Oak Bay used to

support, Mr. Speaker. It's exactly the same. Our position has been

known in the past, we make it known today, and we make it known for the

future. And that is to bring social reform to this province, and we

oppose this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People on welfare must exchange their right to privacy for the payments

which they receive. And now through this bill, Mr. Speaker, with this

incredible bill which we have before us in this Parliament, the welfare

recipients are not only going to lose their privacy for the meagre

payments which they now receive, but they are also going to lose the

security of that payment.

Because all through this bill we have stated that those payments are

now going to be made in the future and based on the subjective decision

of one man. So not only are our welfare recipients losing their

privacy, what security have they when they now find that no longer are

there any amendments to this Act which point out that they will have to

receive their basic needs, as required under the Canada Assistance Plan?

Now there has been a discussion on whether this actually contradicts

the law — the Canada Assistance Plan. Perhaps that will have to be

decided and perhaps the Honourable Minister will inform us about this

when he stands up.

However, it still contradicts the Canada Assistance Plan in spirit,

also. Because the Canada Assistance Plan says that assistance must be

based on need. And yet in this Act there is no reference to basic

requirements of people — food, shelter, clothing, food utilities,

household supplies and personal requirements — no reference left at

all. And this is well described in the Canada Assistance Plan in

section 2A-1, as the Minister well knows.

Also nowhere now in this social Act is there any reference, as there

is in the Canada Assistance Plan, to the provisions of adequate

assistance to and in respect of persons in need.

This has been completely removed. This is the great concern that we

on our part and any other people in the Province of British Columbia

have, Mr. Speaker, with reference to this Act.

I wonder if the Honourable Minister when he stands up to reply to

the number of comments that have been made would explain to us why he

has removed those specified provisions from the Act. What is the

rationale for removing them? Did he have any discussions with social

workers, with welfare recipients? How did you come to this decision Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker?

So first of all I would hope that when you stand up that you will

answer why you have decided to exclude reference to the basic intent of

the Act which should be the provision of adequate assistance to those

who can't provide for themselves. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that

the Minister would also explain to us why he has removed the appeal to

the courts by persons who believe that their basic requirements have

not been met.

I think you owe it, not only to the people on welfare, but to the

other citizens of British Columbia who see a great threat to the

individual and the individual needs, the individual spirit and dignity

of the people in our province, with such

an Act, Mr. Minister. Who,

actually, are being affected? It always gets down to children, Mr.

Speaker.

You know the one-parent families constitute as much as 40 per cent

of our welfare rolls in this province. Those welfare one-parent

families all mainly have a number of children. So, who's going to

suffer from this, from this absolute discretion of the Minister? Who's

going to suffer from this lack of security of not knowing what payments

are going to be made?

Also, who makes up another large group of our welfare recipients?

Thirty per cent are handicapped, at least 30 per cent. Can you imagine

the state these people are in, wondering what is going to happen to

them if this Act passes through this Legislature? And what about the

people who are unemployed through no fault of their own, but just

through the fault of a government that cannot provide a proper economic

system to provide jobs for them?

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe ever has such a piece of legislation

come forward in any House with reference to welfare. I would call upon

the Honourable Minister to stand up and vindicate to the House why you

have brought this in. Mr. Minister, I don't think there can be any

vindication for any such legislation. We're ready to listen, but I can

assure you that we are frightened by this Act and we will vote against

it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Coming from

Surrey with a higher-than-average social welfare roll, coming from

Surrey where there's been a great deal of trouble in the last year on

social welfare, some of which has been occasioned by rulings from the

department, I feel I've got to add my voice in opposition to this bill.

Firstly, on the grounds that I consider in my view, and in the view

of others, that the bill is likely to be challenged on the grounds of

being unconstitutional. We'll leave that to a later date, to a later

challenge, as I'm aware of the numbers in this House as much as

anybody else.

What the bill does seek to do, however, is to take us back into the

1850s, take us back to the days of the poor law administration, the

absolute discretion of the work master. What will happen next, if this

Minister follows the kind of attitudes that have been developed in the

area that I

[ Page 902 ]

represent, is "work or no welfare, work or no

welfare."

We had instances last summer where the people in his department

supported the fact that nobody could get social welfare in my area as

long as there were berries to be picked in the fields. As long as there

were berries to be picked in the fields, you couldn't get social

welfare. Completely at variance with the principle of the Act, both

here and in the Crown federal.

But investigation of the department of this government that has to

do with this Act, Mr. Minister, showed that when the social welfare

recipients of our province go to court, and I use the word with a small

"c," the only court that's available to them, they show conclusively,

Mr. Speaker, that they're not getting a fair shake. Every year since

I've been here, I've asked the question of the Minister, whoever he was

at the time, about boards of review, which this amendment seeks to

eliminate. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that the figures are rather

interesting.

In the year 1968, even though the question of boards of review are

not well known to the vast majority of people on social welfare, there

were 24 boards held. There were 24 boards of review held. In 50 per

cent of those cases, the board found in favour of the applicant.

If the department were a judge, I'm sure the benchers or somebody or

the government would have something to say about his batting record on

a 50 per cent failure rate. But the following year, which happened to

be the year that this current Minister took office in this department,

the rate went to 19 cases heard, 15 cases resolved in the favour of the

applicant — nearly 75 per cent of the cases resolved in favour of the

applicant, 75 per cent. That means for all the time that they were

existing under this government's rules prior to the hearing of the

case, they were not getting what they were entitled to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have the Minister open every case.

MR. HALL: Now in 1970, Mr. Speaker, the figures were roughly

70 per cent — 70 per cent of the cases heard resolved in favour of the

applicant. That's a shocking batting record for any department of

government.

Then we come to the last year. My question was answered on February

15. Mr. Speaker, the question is the same question I've been asking for

six sessions. This time the answer is much longer because of the case

that we know prompted some of this legislation that's before us.

Mr. Speaker, there were 62 boards of review held in the Province of

British Columbia during 1971. Fifty of those cases were resolved in the

applicant's favour. That's 80 per cent of the cases resolved in the

applicant's favour. It shows that those people were not receiving the

kind of justice that one would expect.

Now we've got the kind of discretionary power that does away with

that appeal procedure. Those figures only include, in the case of a

number of areas, those applications received up to August.

In fact, Mr. Minister, 473 applications were filed in the City of

Vancouver alone. Let's look at this list. I think it bears interest to

all the Members of the House. In the Municipality of Abbotsford, Mr.

Speaker, two cases were applied for, and in both of those cases, the

board of review found that they should receive better treatment than

that which they were getting — 100 per cent. The same in Chilliwack,

four out of four. Dawson Creek, one out of one. Duncan, where my

friend, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) represents, six

cases out of six found in the applicants' favour.

We're going to do away with the ability of a social welfare

recipient to try and get a better shake, to question somebody regarding

the rules and the application of those rules.

Kelowna, 100 per cent resolved in the applicants' favour. Langley,

two out of three. Mission, 100 per cent. Murrayville, 100 per cent,

Nanaimo, 100 per cent. Nelson, 100 per cent. Port Coquitlam, 100 per

cent,

Prince George, eight cases heard, seven resolved in the applicants'

favour.

It goes right the way through, nearly 100 per cent in all the cases

until we come to Vancouver — 473 applications, only one was resolved;

the rest are pending regarding the decisions and the appeals in the

courts.

In my own area, it's been the case for some time now that the boards

find 100 per cent of the applicants to be justified, the applications

to be justified.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is

that by doing away with these regulations, by doing away with these

procedures, it makes meaningless the appeal procedure which was set up

and transgresses a longstanding position of Canadian justice.

Any time we see that take place in our Legislature and in our

courts, we have to squeal. Mr. Minister, I'm telling you: I'm squealing

about this one. All the time I've been in this House, I've tried to

explain to the Ministers having this portfolio about the problems that

I face in an area that is growing at a rate that's not possible to

administer successfully by my municipal council.

Problem after problem. It doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker, what report

you look at that's laid on the table of this House by any department of

government, whether it's School District No. 36 or the municipality of

Surrey, as an authority from which our problems come and are traceable,

we find they're always higher than the average in the rest of the

province.

I for one, Mr. Speaker, must stand up and complain bitterly that

this legislation is not only unfair; it's badly designed; it's cruel

and absolutely needless in this day and age. I will vote against it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, as most of the Members of the Legislature are aware, it was

during the time that I was then Minister of Welfare that the Canada

Assistance Plan was signed. It's quite clear that the operative

sections of the Canada Assistance Plan apply to the agreement as

reached between the federal authorities and the provincial authority,

and it's so stated in the Act.

The provincial authority, of course, must be in a position by nature

of the Act itself to establish the conditions under which allowances

are paid.

I only want to make one point here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and

that has to do with the suggestion, presumably by intent, to suggest

that the Minister in British Columbia is attempting to take upon

himself powers which are not common across the land or in fact is

trying in some vicious way to be responsible absolutely in some other

fashion than that which exists elsewhere.

I take particular exception to this because one of the provinces

that the Members opposite happen to currently have the responsibility

for government has

an Act as well.

[ Page 903 ]

The suggestion being thrown around British Columbia

now that this

government is attempting in some way to take on dictatorial powers is

completely false, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to specifically state why that

is so.

I'll read the Act, my friend. This happens to be Manitoba, for which

my friends opposite have the responsibility. Establishment under the

Canada Assistance Plan, the establishment of the cost of basic

necessities which is in effect the language of the Canada Assistance

Plan.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may by regulation

made by order-in-council establish for the purpose of this Act and as

to the time of making of the regulation the cost of the several basic

necessities or of those the cost of which should in his opinion be

established from time to time.

I read on:

The fixing of the amount by the director. If he deems

that an applicant should receive a social allowance, the director shall

in accordance with the regulations and subject to sub-section 2 (Which

is the operative

section establishing by order-in-council the rates) by

his written order fix the amount of the social allowance that shall be

paid to him.

I read on, Mr. Speaker, because if we're going to have a fair

discussion of what's involved in this bill, we should certainly make

some attempt to keep to the facts.

Regulations under the Social Allowance Act of

the

Province of Manitoba,

section 19.

For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this

Act according to their intent, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may

make such regulations and orders as are ancillary thereto and are not

inconsistent therewith, and every regulation or order made under and in

accordance with the authority granted by this

section has the force of

law, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may make regulations and orders not

inconsistent with any other provisions of this Act:

A. Approving the kinds of expenditures made by

municipalities that may be included by the municipality in the cost of

municipal assistance provided by it.

B. Establishing the cost of the basic necessities as

provided in

section 6 (which is the establishment of the rate of

allowances and other things, rates of adopted care and foster care and

so on).

C. Prescribing the rules for determining the income

and the financial resources of applicants and providing that certain

income or classes of income shall be excluded from or included in the

calculation of the income and the financial resources of an applicant.

D. Prescribing the rules for determining the amount of

social allowances that a recipient is entitled to receive.

E. Prescribing procedures to be followed in the

administration of the Act and prescribing forms for use for any purpose

under the Act or the regulations or providing the forms prescribed by

the Minister shall be used for any purpose under this Act or the

regulations.

F. Prescribing conditions that a recipient is required

to comply with in order to be eligible to continue to receive social

allowance.

G. Prescribing the manner in which and the time at

which returns and information required to be submitted by the

Municipalities under this Act or the regulations shall be submitted.

H. Respecting the work activity projects or welfare

services that may be approved by the Minister under

section 14.

I. Prescribing the costs that may be included in the

cost of a municipality for work activity projects or the welfare

services.

J. Defining special care for the purposes of

section 5

(which is the

section having to do with ancillary services and

additional services and special benefits to special categories of

recipients).

Mr. Speaker, we have had a diatribe throughout this afternoon which

is completely contrary to the facts across this country, and is

obviously for political purposes. I will go further, Mr. Speaker, and

say right here that if the Members opposite would care — I've just

taken the document from the Statutes of the Province of Manitoba.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hand it over.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: You can read it all. You can go and get it

yourself. It's going back to the library.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the

statute in Saskatchewan, the statute in Ontario, just for openers, the

statute in Alberta, I have found to be exactly in the same fashion and

in exactly the same language.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, the thing we

object to in this bill, I think can be simply stated, is the

distinction between the bill that the Honourable the Minister read to

the House and its present proposal in this bill.

It says here: "The Minister may in his discretion" and of course it

used the words, "his absolute discretion determine the eligibility of

persons for social assistance" — not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council

setting rules. The Minister in his absolute discretion may fix the

rates or amounts of social assistance for those persons, and the

Minister in his absolute discretion may discontinue — that means take

away, take away the right of a person to have welfare. He may, in his

absolute discretion, reduce -- that means the Minister may reduce. Or

the

Minister in his absolute discretion may increase the rate or amount of

social assistance. Now our complaint is not at the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council applying certain rules…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: …but this Minister in his discretion whether

"absolute" or just using the word "discretion." When I look at the

judicial definition of the word discretion in Words and Phrases and

Legal Maxims , a book lawyers often turn to for

interpretation of

words,

I find the following judicial opinion of the word "discretion."

In plain honest language the word "discretion" as used

in a will giving certain powers to the trustees "when and as the

trustees in their discretion may deem it advisable," means do as you

like.

Do as you like. That's what, whether you say "absolute

discretion" or "discretion."

In the wording and the context of this bill it's obvious

[ Page 904 ]

that what the Minister's going to do is not consult

with the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council. Not ask for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to sit — specific rules to fit all

classes of

persons. He's going to be able to do as he pleases, like any feudal

lord. Any feudal lord.

This is the problem arising from what can only be described as a

fit of pique by the Minister when, in a decision before the board which

had the right to review cases of hardship, to examine whether a

particular case was appropriate for a change in the amount of a

subsistence allowance, the Minister lost those cases. Because he lost

those cases, like the king of old in a feudal state he said: "Do away

with the court. Do away with the court" — and he wouldn't be bothered

with this problem.

Of course, the 60 or 70 per cent of the people who had appealed to

that board for review, they'll still be there. Those people year after

year will still be seeking justice and redress of wrongs in the amount

that they're getting in terms of survival. But the Minister will have

done away with that court. No one will be able to question his decision.

So I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister is seeking this

change in this legislation without regard for the effects it may have

on the federal share paid for social assistance in the Province of

British Columbia. Without regard for the constitutional implications of

what he's doing and without providing for any means of justice where he

does an injustice knowingly or unknowingly to individuals that he may

harm in the exercise of that discretion.

Now, the legislation which the Minister of Municipal Affairs read

out to us is not the same order. That's empowering legislation.

Empowering legislation. What we're dealing with here is absolute power.

Not empowering legislation.

I therefore cannot help but draw that distinction which is evident

to anyone who examines those two Acts side by side. The bill here,

rather, and the Act which the Minister read.

Aside from that, there's another question, Mr. Speaker. Should there

be 120,000 people more or less on the welfare rolls dependent on the

bounty of one man and one man alone without any grounds for review,

means of appeal or any manner by which they can by law change the

situation of any of his rulings? Should there be such a situation for

120,000 people in this province?

I say no. Not when a man has a greater power over an individual's

life in this particular field and any other field in British Columbia.

Somebody else does you a wrong in your business or in your travels

about the province in an automobile or any other way, you have resort

to justice. You have a right to take your case and obtain redress.

But there's 120,000 people that, if this bill is passed, will have

redress anywhere for one of the greatest wrongs that they can suffer.

That is suffering their right to live at all.

I think that is too much power for any man regardless of who that

man may be, and of course, the man in whose hands this great power is

given has more than once demonstrated that he does not have that lofty,

judicial attitude to the rights and wrongs of society.

He's a man who can brush all these little trivialities of the

niceties of justice aside and say they're deadbeats, talking about the

people whose lives and fortunes he administers like a feudal lord.

It's bad enough now. What will it be when this feudal lord is given

the powers in this bill if we proceed to pass it in this House? I say

hold it. Take another look. Postpone any decision on this matter.

Confer with Ottawa. Give some thought to the question of a means of

appeal from this absolute power.

Mind you, this may be our last chance. Because in the bill it goes

further than the Manitoba Act by far. In the bill it says also: "For

purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act according to their

intent, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may make such regulations

and orders as are ancillary thereto and not inconsistent therewith, and

as are considered necessary or advisable; and every regulation and

order made under this

section shall be deemed part of the Act and has

the force of law."

Then it goes on to list all the means by which it takes from this

House the power to ever change the law again. From here on it will be

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council who will legislate in the field of

social welfare. Not this House, if the government has its way.

When you read the various changes that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council could make in this very legislation

there's no need to come back to this House. It's another example of a

tottering kingdom in its last days trying to take even greater and

greater power unto itself. The new monarch in this department is the

Minister.

I say that this has gone too far, much too far in terms of the fate

of the future of many thousands of British Columbia citizens. These are

citizens who are not permanently on welfare. Out of the 120,000 there's

only a hard-core group out of those many thousands, a small percentage

who are what you might call permanent recipients of welfare.

In their case most of that can be justified by the state of their

health, by their inability or incapacity to make their way in a jungle

society where even the skilled find difficulty in getting work. For

this Minister to have such power over these helpless individuals

without any recourse being provided in this bill makes a mockery of

democracy. It's too much to ask this House to give these great powers,

and if this proceeds it may cause lasting harm to the people of British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the

>Members of the Opposition this afternoon have raised a great hue

and

cry about this bill. They've also indicated some legal implications

concerning the bill, which I would like to deal with this afternoon.

They decry the discretionary powers that are given under this

particular bill to the Minister, saying that this legislation because

of that is bad, saying that it's dictatorial, unheard of. The Member

who has just taken his seat attempted to distinguish the statute that

was raised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, distinguishing it on

the ground that that particular Act referred to discretionary powers of

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council rather than to the discretionary

powers of the Minister. At least that was my impression of the basis of

the distinction.

Well, whether the distinction itself is valid or not, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member and indeed to

the Members of this House many statutes passed by the N.D.P. government

where discretion is given to the Minister and indeed in the very same

words "absolute discretion," even though the word "absolute" is being

withdrawn from this bill. And they decry it here in this province,

content quite for their party to pass it in other provinces. They can

check the statutes themselves.

[ Page 905 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Look at the statutes themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hypocrites. Hypocrites.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Certainly this is hypocrisy that we're

hearing this afternoon.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Here is a bill, a very recent one. This is

a very recent one.

MR. DOWDING: It is not hypocrisy — I sincerely hold those

views.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree. Order, please!

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not intending to reflect on the

sincerity….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister please withdraw the word

"hypocrisy"?

HON. MR. PETERSON: I certainly will, under those

circumstances.

Let me refer to very recent legislation in the Province of Manitoba.

Bill No. 58, the Department of Health and Social Development Act .

And

don't tell me this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion

because here is

section 10 of that bill, and this repeals, I might say,

the Department of Welfare Act in the Province of Manitoba,

which is

contained in the revised statutes, 1970. This is the 1971 Bill No. 58,

section 10-1, and I quote:

For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of

other Acts of the Legislature and to provide for the existing and

continuing agreement the Minister may…

Now we all know that "may" is

discretionary, not mandatory.

the Minister may provide a system, may

provide welfare services and develop programmes of welfare services.

(

C) In writing authorize a person or agency to accept

applications for types of assistance specifically approved by the

Minister in respect of that person or agency, to determine eligibility

for types of assistance specifically approved by the Minister in

respect of that person. To provide or pay types of assistance

specifically approved by the Minister in respect of that person. Or to

provide welfare services specifically approved by the Minister. To

carry out projects of work activities, et cetera, specifically approved

by the Minister.

And then how does it end:

Or do any or all those things as agents for the

government and the Minister may in writing revoke the authority at any

time without notice.

Without notice, revoke it at any time. First of

all, it's

discretionary, and secondly, even after exercising his discretion in

one

instance he can immediately revoke it without any notice, and yet they

have the temerity to say in this House that these powers contained in

this bill are dictatorial in nature.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: And the Liberals needn't complain too. I

can point out the same kind of discretion that the Liberals have given

themselves in federal legislation, if you want to look at the Pension

Act , the Canada Pension Plan, for example, and other federal

statutes

similar in this respect.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Dowding)

attempted to define discretion and ended up saying that it means just

that you can do as you please. "Do as you please" was his definition

after reading a legal authority. I would like to refer him to a case in

the Supreme Court of Canada quoting from the judgment of Mr. Justice

Rand in the case of Ron Carelli vs. Duplessis. I quote:

In public regulation of this sort there is no such

thing as absolute and untrammelled discretion, that is that action can

be taken on any grounds for any reason that can be suggested to the

mind of the administrator.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well now, there are many. The Hon. Members

certainly don't want to hear the judgment of the Supreme Court of

Canada on a specific matter raised by the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds

which demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of discretion quoted by

the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds does not apply. Since I've been

interrupted by so many Members, I'm going to start over, and I quote

again:

In public regulation of this sort there is no such

thing as absolute and untrammelled discretion, that is that action can

be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the

mind of the administrator.

No legislative Act can without expressed language be

taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any

purpose, however capricious or irrelevant, regardless of the nature or

purpose of the statute.

Discretion necessarily implies good faith in

discharging public duty. There is always a perspective within which a

statute is intended to operate, and any clear departure from its lines

or objects is just as objectionable as fraud or corruption.

So, Mr. Speaker, the word "discretion" is not defined in the same

fashion as the Hon. Member for Burnaby would have had this Legislature

believe.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Then, Mr. Speaker, there have been

references made to the constitutionality of this bill by several

Honourable Members. Not only today but in previous debates as well. I'd

like to deal with that point. That is whether this bill is beyond the

jurisdiction of the Legislature because as they say it contravenes the

provisions of the Canada Assistance Act .

In June of last year, Mr. Speaker, a decision was given by the

Saskatchewan Court of Appeals regarding the Saskatchewan Assistance

Act . This, Mr. Speaker, is another statute that gives discretion to

the

Minister. The case arose as a result of a refusal to pay social

assistance to an applicant on strike. It involved an order-in-council

making such a person ineligible for assistance. This was an

order-in-council of the

[ Page 906 ]

Saskatchewan government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, the date of the decision — I'm not

sure that I have the date of the order-in-council — the decision is a

recent decision. It's reported in 1971, 22 Dominion Law Reports ,

Mr.

Speaker, so it's a recent decision. Whether the order-in-council was

passed by a previous government and continued by the New Democratic

government in that province or passed by the N.D.P. is not entirely

relevant to the point that I am attempting to make, as to whether the

legislation is within the powers of a provincial legislature to enact

or not. I'm quoting now from Chief Justice Culliton. In giving the

judgment of the court he said, and I quote:

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the

order-in-council was invalid as the terms thereof contravened the

statutory provisions of the federal statutes intituled Canada

Assistance Plan and the provisions of the Saskatchewan Assistance

Act,

1966 . In presenting this argument, in my respectful opinion,

learned

counsel has misconstrued both the purpose and effects of the federal

legislation.

Part I of the Canada Assistance Plan creates no right to

assistance by any person in this province. It does no more than provide

cost-sharing agreement with a provincial government with respect to

social assistance granted by the province, and specifies in some detail

the areas in which such costs may be shared.

To ensure that the agreement complies with the

authority granted by the Act, provision is made for the incorporation

certain specific terms in the agreement. It in no way restricts the

legislative competence of a provincial legislature in the field of

social assistance.

If after entering into an agreement a province adopts

legislation and regulations contrary to the terms of the agreement,

that

would be a matter entirely between the governments, affecting only the

respective obligations and rights under the agreement.

The fact that the provincial legislation and

regulations contravene the term of the agreement would not render such

legislation and regulations invalid if it is otherwise within the

legislative competence of the province.

And the same reasoning, Mr. Speaker, applies to the Act that we are

now considering. I don't have the precise date — it is June 1, that is

the date of the case in the Province of Saskatchewan.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, I don't recall at the moment when

the election was, but I don't think that's relevant as far as the court

of appeal of the Province of Saskatchewan is concerned, and this is a

judgment of that particular court which touches on the

constitutionality of this bill which has been brought into question by

several of the Honourable Members who have taken their

part in this

particular debate.

Now, dealing specifically with the amendments, Mr. Speaker, which

the Honourable Members claim give excessive power….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not defending anyone in this House,

because I'm sure any Member on the treasury bench is capable of

defending himself. I'm speaking to some of the implications that have

been raised by the Honourable Members on this specific legislation, and

the changes that have taken place, whether there is an appeal to the

appeal boards that have been referred to, for instance, by the Members

across the way, these are set up not in the statute. Tell me where you

find them in the statute that we now have?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Not necessarily. They have still the same

powers to make regulations. But look at

section 3 of the present Act,

and that now provides social assistance may be granted out of funds

appropriated by the Legislature, and it gives no direction in this

respect as to who is responsible. Until you go down to another section,

section 13, which gives power to the directors to establish regulations

and formulate policies for the administration of social assistance

throughout the province. This director, of course, Mr. Speaker, is a

civil servant employed in the department. And so, the fact is that at

the present time the power to decide policy with regard to the granting

of social assistance rests with a civil servant, a permanent official

of the House. And the legislation….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, that can be the policy of the

N.D.P.,

but it's not, I suggest, a sound policy because this legislation, this

bill that we're now discussing, places the responsibility of making

policy decisions where it rightfully belongs — and that is with the

Minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council, because it certainly

does say "Lieutenant-Governor-in-council," and the Member should read

the bill. It certainly says it. It starts out, Mr. Speaker: "3. Subject

to this Act and the regulations the Minister may grant out of moneys

appropriated for that purpose."

So it's right in the very empowering provision of the bill, and far

from enabling the Minister to act capriciously or frivolously, as the

Members of the Opposition would have us believe, in fixing the rates of

social assistance or determining eligibility or the many other matters

that have to be done under this Act, this Act makes the exercise of the

Minister's powers expressly subject to regulations passed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council pursuant to the provisions in the bill.

In turn the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council must make those

regulations in a manner that's consistent with the intention set forth

by the Legislature in the Social Assistance Act and not

otherwise. That

expressed intention is to assist in whole or in

part individuals,

whether adult or minor or families unable to provide for themselves.

That, I suggest, is a clear statement of policy contained again in

proposed

section 3 of the Act. It's simple, it's straightforward, it

clearly expresses the intention that is to be carried forward by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council in making the regulations and in turn

the administration of the Act by the Minister and the staff, including

the director.

Because the Honourable Members should well know by now, Mr. Speaker,

that when power is given to the Lieutenant-Governor or to a Minister,

under our system of government, the detailed administration of the Act

[ Page 907 ]

keeping and consistent with that policy rests with

the permanent

officials of the department. I'm sure that this situation will not be

any different in that respect.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that those who have expressed their

opposition to this bill — and I'm including not only the Members in

this House, but the other statements that we've read in the Press, and

communications that some of us have received — those who are opposed to

this bill are misinformed as to its intent and as to its content. Or

they stand opposed to responsible, orderly and normal administration of

social assistance programmes in this province and indeed in the other

provinces in Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I had intended only in this debate to rise and register my

opposition to the bill. But a little earlier this afternoon just prior

to the contribution of the Attorney General we heard the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) attempt to justify this bill by

referring to a statute of another province. Feeling that he was ringing

some familiar bells, Mr. Speaker, I went to the library as well to get

that statute which I had previously read.

As a result of re-reading the statute, Mr. Speaker, I wish to

comment on what the Minister has said. The rules of this House and your

interpretation of them, Mr. Speaker, prohibit me from calling the

Minister exactly what I feel he is this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get personal. You guys….

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, and I will be absolutely specific in

the point I'm making, I accuse the Minister of distortion, I accuse the

Minister of misrepresentation, and Mr. Speaker, the only thing that

prevents me from accusing the Minister of knowing misrepresentation is

acknowledging the fact that he must have blind spots in his eyes.

Because, Mr. Speaker, he quoted from the revised statutes of

Manitoba, and he attempted to justify the power that we will give by

this Act to the Minister beside him by quoting the regulations of

Manitoba. He went to great lengths to point out the power that the

Minister and the director in Manitoba have. But, Mr. Speaker, he was

selective in his quotations from that Act, and because he was

selective, Mr. Speaker, I do accuse him again of distortion, and the

worst kind of misrepresentation I think I've ever heard in this

assembly.

Because in the same Act, Mr. Speaker, one page away from the

quotations he read we come to a

section entitled "Right of appeal."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. CLARK: And, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs did not read that

section to us this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not tell us. And I remind the House

that the Minister passed the Act to the Attorney General, and the

Attorney General looked at it, and then he spoke and did not correct

the

Minister.

An applicant or a recipient, or a person who has

applied for, or is or was receiving municipal assistance from a

municipality which has by bylaw made this

section apply in respect of

assistance granted by it to needy or indigent persons, may appeal to

the appeal board.

There are many sections under which the person may appeal, Mr.

Speaker, one of which is — and I quote this specifically, because this

was the matter the Minister raised — "the reduction or increase of the

amount thereof."

Then, Mr. Speaker, we get to notice of appeal, the holding of

meeting, the notice of meeting, hearing of appeal, and here's the

section the Minister also didn't quote. The disposal of appeal. Again

this is why I accuse that Minister of distortion.

The order of the appeal board is final, and not

subject to further

appeal.

And, Mr. Speaker, I again quote:

If the appeal is allowed, the director or the

municipality (and I insert here, Mr. Speaker, that the definition of

the director is the director of the Department of Social Welfare in the

Province of Manitoba), as the case may be, shall thereafter, subject to

sub-section 7

which is a general operative clause that the

Minister referred to….

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Right — "subject to subsection 7"….

MR. CLARK: "Subject to subsection 7," which only outlines

matters pertaining to real property and the necessities of life.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Read sub-section 7.

MR. CLARK: I'll read the whole section….

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: You do that.

MR. CLARK: O.K. Mr. Minister, I'll read the whole section.

MR. BARRETT: Resign, resign! You should resign.

MR. CLARK: All right, Mr. Speaker, the Minister wants me to

read the section. "Section 7. In fixing an amount under sub-section 2"

— do you want me to read that one too? Sub-section 2 is the

definitions

of the Act. Mr. Speaker, I assume the Minister will accept the

definitions.

In fixing an amount under sub-section 2, the director

shall, in accordance with the regulations, take into consideration

assets

and income of the applicant and, subject to the regulations, may deem

be part of the income of the applicant, all regular periodical

receipts or revenue, including an amount deemed by the director to be

the income value of any of the assets of the applicant and his

dependents, if any, from any source, and he may, subject to the

regulations, include in that amount an amount that in his opinion is

the net value as income after payment of any charges applicable

thereto….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, we'll carry on.

Regarding the occupancy of any real property or other premises owned

by the applicant, or any of his dependents and occupied….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 908 ]

MR. CLARK: Do you want me to continue?

…in which he occupies as living quarters without

payment of rent

or be any food, clothing or other necessities of life, or other

essential services regularly supplied to him and his dependents, if

any, without charge therefor.

That's

section 7. After the appeal board had heard the appeal, Mr.

Speaker, they can dismiss the appeal. They can dismiss the appeal and

order the social allowance for a municipal assistance to be revoked or

discontinued. They can allow it and direct that a social allowance or

municipal assistance in an amount stated in the order be paid to the

applicant. Or, they may allow it and vary the order or the direction

made by the director or the municipality as the case may be. And the

order of the appeal board is final, and not subject to further appeal.

If the appeal is allowed, Mr. Speaker, if the appeal is allowed,

"the director or the municipality, as the case may, be shall

thereafter,

subject to sub-section 7, pay…"

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Subject to sub-section 7!

MR. CLARK: "…a social allowance or a municipal

allowance to the appellant from the date of the order of appeal board

as provided in that order." Absolutely clear, absolutely final. The

director's order is appealable; the Minister does not have the power he

suggested he does….

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CLARK: The director, Mr. Speaker, does not have power the

Minister suggested he does, and Mr. Speaker, that is why I say that

Minister distorted the statutes of Manitoba, clearly distorted them.

The worst debate I've ever heard in this assembly. When a Minister of

the Crown will get up and knowingly quote only certain sections of an

Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knew the other sections?

MR. CLARK: I assume he knew them. If you're worried about the

word "knowing," then, Mr. Speaker, I will state "unknowingly read only

certain sections of the Act," which is even more disgraceful,

considering

that that Minister at one time filled the same seat that we are now

discussing.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any more reason why we should oppose this

bill, it is surely the defence of the bill that that Minister tried to

place before us this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Minister rising to a point of order?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) has indicated that I did not read

sub-section 7 to the House. I specifically read sub-section 7 to the

House, and sub-section 7 happens to be the operative

section which

makes the appeal a limited appeal, and therefore I would suggest that

the Member's remarks about me having distorted the fact are completely

contrary to what was enunciated on the floor of this House this

afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I think we are

hearing the Opposition advocate absolute irresponsibility. Because when

they talk about constitutional responsibility you cannot have democracy

without the principle that you cannot have taxation without

representation. What they are advocating is that someone on some board

not elected with the responsibility to both the welfare recipient and

the taxpayer, that someone should be able to fill in a blank cheque,

the amount on a blank cheque, that the Minister has to affix his

signature to, drawing on the taxpayer of this province.

Mr. Speaker, we have case after case where the Opposition are

advocating exactly that, just because they can gain some popularity in

Press headlines. But they are negating the very principle of our system

of government, and our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be no part of any legislation that is going

to allow anyone but the responsible people who take the oath of office

to reach into that taxpayer's pocket and sign a cheque without the

right to put the amount on that cheque.

That's the principle we are debating here, and the lawyers opposite

know full well that it is because of

interpretation — the Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds can read

interpretations all he likes, but he of all

people knows that the judges don't always accept those

interpretations

and that they make decisions other than those

interpretations.

MR. DOWDING: They don't always agree with what I have to say,

MR. BRUCH: No, I can readily see why. Because if we did what

you're asking today, we would completely negate the principle of

democratic government here in British Columbia.

MR. DOWDING: You'd have a court of appeal and justice.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, the final board of appeal must not

only consider what the welfare recipient will receive, but it must also

consider what the taxpayers shall pay. You cannot separate the two. On

a basis of just trying to gain a few votes, those Honourable Members

are

prone to ignore that particular responsibility that this Legislature

has to the taxpayer who pays the bill. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, if

it is necessary to put the word "absolute" in, then let's put the word

"absolute" in.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BRUCH: We'll take our responsibility to the electors as

to how we administer that responsibility and authority that we take.

I want to say one thing more in regard to this bill, Mr. Speaker,

because among the taxpayers and the citizens of this province there is

very much concern today. Because the Members opposite can talk all they

like about Ottawa's authority. The authority of welfare and the payment

of welfare under the constitution is the responsibility and the

authority of the provincial government.

We've had enough messing by the federal government in what these

regulations should be. The Hon. Minister read something in that Act

from Manitoba. I think it's something that we should make an absolute

issue of, and that is the issue that every able-bodied, employable,

unemployed person should be required to contribute something useful to

the society that is required to pay him the welfare cheque.

Because today you have to give them the welfare, I say

[ Page 909 ]

that that individual, if he is able-bodied and

capable of work or

retraining, should be required to contribute something to the society

that has to pay that cheque.

Now, we've got lots of problems. We need ditches cleaned out, we

need highway beautification, we need parks improved, we need many of

the pollution problems resolved, and Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this

Act should go even further and say that in these cases, within logic

and

reason, those individuals should be asked to contribute something to

make this a better British Columbia in exchange for the taxpayer's

responsibility to pay him his welfare cheque.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'm tempted to

say if they do bring in

an Act that requires something useful from

everybody I would wonder what the last speaker might contribute.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: Thank you. That was the kind of attack that we're

getting sick of around here. That Member stood in this House and talked

about votes when we're talking about a serious matter, Mr. Member from

that side of the tracks.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll let that Member take the mike

after. Let him put his words on record with respect to this Act.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to me to listen to the last speaker

indicate that the civil service rule that we've been enjoying for the

past 20 years must now stop. He said it loud and vociferously. Where's

his voice been for the past 15 or 20 years? Where has he been?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: The fact of the matter is, and what we've been

talking about right from the outset is, where are the standards? What

are we discussing here? We don't know what we're discussing because of

the fact that the Minister has the right — according to this Act the

Minister sets the standards…

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you appeal?

MR. COCKE: …and how can one appeal it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No rights.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's odd. You know this bill came in,

in a very odd way. I ask who was the ghost-writer of Bill No. 40.

Because it hit the floor, then suddenly the same day we had another

bill, Bill No. 49, which is the one we're now discussing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: You know, it's been a disaster right from the

outset. Nobody knows what's going on. But mainly the debate should be

around the fact that nobody knows what we're debating because it's in

the Minister's head, Mr. Speaker.

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce): It's sure not in your head.

MR. COCKE: That Minister has every right to speak about heads.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): So do you — you've got

two of them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of fixing rates, fixing

general rates, and I feel in this province that there's somebody

getting

caught in the cross-fire.

Now, since that Minister has taken over that portfolio there's been

a tremendous upheaval with respect to welfare recipients. The poor

people in the province are afraid. I don't think the poor people in the

province need speeches like we've just heard with respect to putting

them to work in strawberry patches or in the ditches or whatever.

I think what the poor people need is what that department was really

named when that Minister took over. It was a good idea, the

rehabilitation aspect. But you know, what I find is the fact that

people are not entitled to the kind of a system that this department

should be giving them.

They're not entitled now to even a consideration unless the Minister

feels that they are in line, in his judgment. No standards!

Mr. Speaker, the kind of thing that's going on now is kids are being

deprived. I'm talking about kids between the ages of 16 and 19. They're

probably the worst hit by this welfare department, by this

rehabilitation department, in the whole province. With the exception of

the old age pensioners who are hit all the time.

But the kids that are on their own who leave home and possibly have

worked for a little while and because of our lack of economic

development in the province find themselves out of work, then they go

and apply for welfare. The first thing that they're told by the

administrator — go home.

You know, many of them can't go home. Many of them are totally

alienated from the home. But for one reason or another they can't go

home. Yet they're out in the world absolutely left alone.

As a matter of fact, there are some that I'm dealing with at this

very moment that are caught in this kind of a cross-fire. It's because

of these kinds of ministerial decisions that have been made with

respect

of forcing people back into an alien situation that I feel that none of

us in this House should vote for a bill that provides the kind of

discretionary powers that this one does without having everything

nailed down with respect to standards.

Now, the Attorney General got up a little while ago and he started

using the Canada Pension Plan as an example of legislation, and he was

talking about the Liberals' legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Pension Plan has standards right from the

bottom up. You know precisely what you qualify for in every way, shape

and form. There's no way a person can be dealt out. I can say right

now, Mr. Speaker, that there's many ways for a person to be dealt out

with respect to this legislation.

I feel that there should be an appeal process in the regulations. It

should be spelled out as it is in the Manitoba Act so that people have

access to appeal. There is no justice

[ Page 910 ]

served as long as things are left in the hands of

an arbitrary

administrator and/or Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot in any way, shape or form endorse

this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, the questions and the discussions

of the debate today have roamed back and forth across the floor of this

House as we are trying to determine the so-called rights of appeal

within the framework of this bill. In my view, Mr. Speaker, we have

lost sight of the fundamental principles which are at stake every time

we move into the field of welfare.

My basic concern, Mr. Speaker, is not in the field of appeal. The

concern that we should have as Members of this House, the prime purpose

of discussion of welfare, is the actual position that the welfare

person finds himself in today. The concern we should be having is not

whether he should be able to appeal a rate which is too low or

conditions which he might find unfair, but the question whether we as

legislators have made it possible for those rates to be as high as we

can possibly afford in the Province of British Columbia.

That is the point and the very point of any discussion that we

should be having in this House. I listened to the good Member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), and he threw his various insults back and

forth

across the floor.

I listened to other people debate whether a statute in Manitoba is a

better statute that we have in the Province of British Columbia. But I

suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is one responsibility that

cannot be shirked. We have a responsibility to determine in this House

whether those obligations of the Minister himself are being fulfilled.

Are the obligations of retraining people in welfare being carried

out by that Minister? That is his responsibility on his shoulders. Are

the obligations to provide a dignity of payments within welfare? — 85

per cent of the people, Mr. Speaker, in spite of what everyone says,

are not employable on welfare at this time.

Let us not assume that these people in many cases are there because

they want to be. They are there because they are not capable of moving

off the welfare rolls in the condition that they are at the moment.

It's like suggesting an athlete that has never trained can go back into

the field immediately and perform at his top performance. That's a

ridiculous assumption.

Here in the House today, instead of discussing and going back to the

principles, the Minister is responsible for the areas of dignity, the

areas of retraining, the areas of providing a total sense of welfare

for those people who need it. We've seen the question, and we're

discussing the question of what should the welfare recipient be

entitled to? The question of an appeal centres around where does the

responsibility find itself? Where is it placed? I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that if there is a decision made to an appeal board that I as

a legislator in this House cannot stand up and challenge that appeal. I

do not want the structure of welfare moved outside of the

responsibilities that I can debate in this House.

I want to be in a position to make the Minister stand up and be

counted. I want to be able to say to him, "I'm not happy with what

you're doing. I'm not satisfied with what you're doing." Or — "I'm

pleased with what you're doing."

I want to be able to stand in this House and directly place the

responsibility on the individual that has been given that oath of

office. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that long before we consider all

the ramifications and all the areas of responsibility that find

themselves placed in appeal that our greatest responsibility today with

the people that are on welfare is to assist the Minister is assuming

those jobs, making sure that he is responsible for those various areas

that come under his jurisdiction.

In this House, I can say that I have at times endeavoured — the

question of the businessmen's alliance came out of suggestions that

came out of a speech in this House. The same discussions have come

forth in the proposals of retraining. Those are your responsibilities,

Mr. Minister. They are not to be taken lightly.

For this reason, I believe that this bill is moving the

responsibilities in a direct line on to your shoulders. The very

questions of people's dignity, the very question of payment. Certainly

from the discussion today the assumption would be made that our

payments are lower than anywhere else in Canada, that we have not done

the job in providing the material things that can be provided under a

welfare programme.

I know the good Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the good

Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) wouldn't suggest that it is

feasible for us to have much larger welfare payments than they would

have in any other province.

Is he suggesting that it would be possible for the Province of

British Columbia to have an extra $100 a month over any other province

in Canada? Doesn't he appreciate the ramifications of that type of

discussion? Doesn't he understand that there are areas in which we can

function and work?

What we really are talking about in this House on this bill is

whether legislators shall have a direct line of responsibility. Whether

the Minister himself shall have a direct line of responsibility and

shall be the man responsible for welfare in the Province of British

Columbia.

Whether the words say "absolute" or whether they have any other

indication, Mr. Speaker, as to what his concern is I want him to be the

man, when it comes to the moment of truth, that I can put the finger

on. I want him to be the man that I can direct my questions to on a

correct, complete responsibility, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I

definitely intend to support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, I can certainly

see one thing, Mr. Speaker, having listened to the remarks of the last

speaker and also the remarks from the Hon. the Member for Esquimalt

(Mr. Bruch) that the leadership race is on in the Province of British

Columbia.

We had a very definite position taken by the Member for Esquimalt,

his statement of sublime belief in the Minister and his desire to

equip this Minister with absolute power, and then we find the next

speaker saying that he's going to lay the finger on him, so I suppose

that these two members are totally apart in their attitudes as to which

of the two of them are likely to succeed.

But notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, the very slippery displays on the

part of the government to attempt to salvage this thing, we still have

before the Legislature for our consideration and vote this afternoon,

in my view, a very bad bill.

It is a patent abuse, in my understanding, of the powers of

[ Page 911 ]

the Legislature, and it delegates omnipotence to

this Minister. Also

for better or for worse, depending upon one's point of view, if you'll

take a look at this particular section, too, it gives him unlimited

powers, himself, to delegate his powers or any portion of them to

anyone he may chose.

There are no checks, there are no balances, and there are no

standards. There's not any definition of public policy. There's not any

definition of any philosophy to guide him.

You know, taking the word "absolute" out is just nothing more than a

little bit of political salve, as it was when it went in. Because with

or without the word, "discretion" means exactly the same kind of a

thing. I think the Minister favours the word "absolute" in there, as

did

his first lieutenant who spoke a little bit earlier today, but it's out

and it's just the same thing. So they may be fooling a few of their own

troops but none of the others, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, it's the totality of power, and it could deny for any

reason whatsoever the determination of eligibility of people to apply

for social assistance. It could deny for any reason whatsoever the

fixing of the rate or the amount of the rate, and I'm reading a portion

of the statute today. It could establish any kind of guidelines insofar

as the establishing of general qualifications are concerned. If that's

not a totality of power, I'd like to know exactly what is.

You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the Province of British

Columbia we are a jurisdiction which really and truly denudes the right

of the individual. We don't have a charter of human rights in this

province. There are no guidelines within the Province of British

Columbia to assist people through administrative tribunals, to indicate

what a fair hearing may or may not be, and certainly there's nothing in

this Act. There's no rules or procedures set forth, we don't have a

right of appeal from any kind of abuses — be they deliberate abuses, be

they errors or be they excesses in any form whatsoever.

Most important, there's no right to the court because in B.C. this

government hides behind the veil insofar as permitting the individual

to go to the court.

So I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that for any rinky-dinky reason whatsoever

that the Minister may choose to use, or for any rinky-dinky reason, he

may delegate his power to, whatever that person may choose to use, he

or they can refuse to act or they can act with inconsistency or they

can act arbitrarily or they can not act at all. And in my view, Mr.

Speaker, this bill does absolutely nothing more than to install this

Minister As the godfather of welfare in B.C.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, this bill here and

the way it is written is one more step that this government has carried

out in many other bills — and that is to pass the authority, or use

this Legislature to give the cabinet or a Minister the power that

actually in many cases should stay with the Legislature.

To set up a poor people's tsar under this bill will segregate the

people, the unfortunate people that have got to apply for welfare. This

means many people who have children, mothers with children, people that

are physically unfit to look after themselves, and people who this

system has not been able to give the opportunity to make their

contribution.

I was surprised at the Honourable Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Bruch)

when he spoke about the unemployed employables. There should be no

unemployed employables if our system was operating right. The

unemployed employables should have the opportunity to work. In a rich

country like this, everyone should have the opportunity to make his

contribution.

These people have a lot to worry about. I would just like to quote

what Munro, the federal Minister of Health, stated:

"Poverty means never having sufficient food or the

right kind of food to ensure that children and parents can physically

cope with the basic demands of day-to-day activity. Poverty means

having an entire lifetime to provide a deep escape from one's immediate

environment. Poverty means humiliation throughout one's life, whether

humiliation in front of your children because you cannot provide them

even the minimum comforts of affluence, or humiliation in front of some

faceless, nameless source of small amounts of money to keep you going,

or humiliation in front of yourself because you believe you have failed

in life but you still have decades to live."

Now, we're going to go further than that with these people. We're

going to have them paying homage to an individual Minister. They're

going to have to bow and scrape to be able to get it. The Minister has

the power to say what applies generally to a certain person or classes

of person, or to individual persons. If a person has got too-long hair,

he could say he can't get any social welfare.

I'm sure that this would be a happy moment for the Honourable Member

for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. Campbell). He might get those people down in

his area, they got long hair, off the welfare rolls if they're on, I

don't know. It would be all those different groups of people you could

isolate out. Maybe if you don't go to the right church, you could get

isolated out too.

But nevertheless, to me it's poor legislation when you don't leave

room for them to appeal their case. You're creating a subservient class

of people, and you're making them bow in deference to the Minister to

be able to get any welfare.

The Act that was read by the Honourable Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) from Manitoba outlined certain basic

principles from which your regulations are built. But in this bill

there are no basic principles at all, and the whole thing is going to

be left — the regulations will be left with the cabinet, and the

Minister will have the power to do almost anything he likes in other

cases. And I cannot support that kind of legislation in a democratic

society.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to repeat the words that have been spoken already

and state that this is certainly a bad bill. It gives absolute power to

one man to determine the quality of life for a great number of our

people — the poor people and destitute people in our society. Their

quality of life will be determined by the Minister. By edict from on

high he will determine whether or not a person is entitled to welfare

or assistance, and likewise by edict from on high he will determine

whether someone should be refused.

The test is no longer the test of whether or not the person is in

need. The test will be based on the discretion of one man. And if that

man is in a Christian mood at the particular time, help may be granted.

If he's not, help may be refused. There is no standard test given any

more if this bill is passed.

There is another bill that we have been looking at which

[ Page 912 ]

ties in directly with this particular bill we are

discussing today.

In that bill it gives the power to a municipality to give welfare or

help to people in the event that the provincial government refuses. Now

what this means is that if someone is in need in an area, in a

municipality, and no assistance can be obtained from the provincial

government — no assistance can be obtained because the edict of the

Minister has said no — then that poor or destitute person must go to a

municipality for assistance. The municipality can give assistance, but

100 per cent of that cost is borne by the municipality and no refunds

from the provincial government.

Now it seems to me that it must be time that the provincial

government realizes that the responsibilities for our poor and

destitute is a provincial responsibility. It is not the responsibility

of municipalities. It's strictly the responsibility of the provincial

government, with assistance from the federal government. I suggest that

the Minister and the government should accept this responsibility and

leave the Act as it is and make improvements on it rather than take

things away from the present legislation. In closing I would just say

that I endorse statements made by the previous Members in opposition to

this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): The bill really seems to

me, Mr. Speaker, a kind of an ego trip for the Minister. He was in that

previous ministry where he could use his discretionary powers to the

full, where he could make or break fortunes at will — in the big

leagues, in the big leagues was really his kind of bag.

Now that he's the lord of the poor, as one Member said, he still

wants the same kind of action: to give and take at whim, and that's

really what it is, as we see it, Mr. Speaker.

I have the feeling that the Premier was seriously thinking about

hoisting this bill, seriously thinking about pulling it back. The

Premier just recently announced the increase in welfare rates, and that

may have generated some friction between the Minister and the Minister

of Finance. I suspect it probably did, and it's interesting that the

bill is up before us now.

The Member for Cowichan (Mr. Strachan) made it very clear what these

rates will mean — 1½ cents per child, for dependent children in the

province. And one wonders how any Minister of the Crown can rest easily

with this kind of miserly approach to the needy in this province.

One wonders too, why the previous Minister of Welfare in this

province who has sprung up to the defence to the Minister in this

debate, one wonders why he didn't need the same legislation when he was

Minister. I don't think we had any explanation from that Minister in

that regard. Because he was able to operate his Department of Welfare

without the kind of legislation that the Member from Kamloops (Hon. Mr.

Gaglardi) desires.

The approach of the Minister seems to be one that is common on that

side of the House, that it's a crime to be poor in this society. And

this legislation also clearly seems to be a recriminatory response to

the appeals that were forthcoming this year mainly in the City of

Vancouver.

It's the beginning of recrimination, with respect to the poor, to

the people on welfare.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) is extremely tolerant, kind and gentlemanly with a crew that

he was formerly with. He says no matter what man it was he couldn't

support this kind of legislation.

I agree the legislation is bad, but we can't ignore the kind of man

it is. We can't ignore the kind of man it is, that wants this kind of

discriminatory power. It's frightening at best with a Minister with the

best will in the world. But the Minister we've got isn't that kind of

man. He's the former Minister of Highways — the man that made and broke

fortunes along the routes of British Columbia. He's the man that knows

how to discriminate like no man in British Columbia. And he wants the

same power with the poor.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Go on, go on! The Honourable Minister, go

on!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I demand that that Member withdraw the

statement that I made and broke people and made them fortunes and lost

them fortunes. I demand he either name them, or withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Member very definitely imputed

improper motive. Would he please withdraw the statement?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: The evidence is in, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member please withdraw

the statement?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: If the Speaker wants a withdrawal and….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the Member to withdraw.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a straight kind of megalomania drive

that has been consistent with this Minister, Mr. Speaker. It's the kind

of attempt to be the man like the Premier. It's a megalomania drive. He

wants to bring more and more power to himself in this ministry which he

obviously isn't happy with — which shows every day in the way he

handles himself in the House and outside and in dealing with the

problems of the poor. Because the Minister never, you can never get an

appointment to see this man.

We're voting against this bill, Mr. Speaker, because we are

convinced that the Minister can and has been and will be capricious in

terms of how he deals with the problems of individuals.

We expect recrimination from this Minister. We expect those that are

activists among the poor, that want change and call out for change, and

use the media of this province, to suffer at the hands of this

Minister. Because that's the way he operates, that's the name of the

game with this Minister, in my books. And that kind of situation is one

that cannot be tolerated in a free society. For that reason we vote

against this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, this can be

wound up with the greatest of case. Two words — "vile" and

"incomprehensible."

[ Page 913 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the

debate.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, I've listened with a lot of

patience this afternoon to an awful lot of things that have been said.

I have listened to a lot of personal attacks, and when you can't attack

the legislation on the basis of the legislation then the only thing you

can do is make a personal attack against an individual.

I'd be happy to challenge anybody on the other side of the House any

day of the week, on any platform. I'd take them on. Because they know

that in the Province of British Columbia what these people have

enjoyed through my ministry has been acceptable. And that's a common

acceptance among the people of this province. I appreciate that, I'm

indebted to the people of this province, and I'll never take a back

seat since my Ministry as the Minister of Highways was recalled on the

floor of this House by the Member from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald),

who always takes a personal attack. I'd defy him or anybody else.

The N.D.P. charged me and challenged me. For seven weeks we sat at

the taxpayer's expense to the tune of thousands of dollars with these

accusations, and they came out with an absolute goose egg.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you came out a millionaire!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the Member from

Lillooet take that statement back. An imputation that I came out with

something, I demand that that statement be withdrawn.

He sure won't say it outside, because he hasn't the intestinal

fortitude to say it outside Or anywhere else. That's right.

It's a tragedy that individuals will sink to such low levels of

personal incrimination and discrimination on the floor of this House.

The Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) brought up about my

hotel bills. I pay my hotel bill out of my own pocket with my money,

Mr. Member. That's how it's paid for.

MR. STRACHAN: That's not what the public accounts show.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I don't care what the public accounts

show. Any day of the week you can go up into my office and pick up the

cheque stubs. I pay for it out of my own pocket.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Minister come back to

Bill No. 49?

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: I'll defy you or anybody else on the floor

of this House — III defy you or anybody else on the floor of this House

to show otherwise. I'm paying those bills out of my own pocket.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Furthermore….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I point out to the Honourable Minister

and the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) that we're not

debating public accounts. We are debating Bill No. 49. Will you please

stick to that bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, I was given the permission,

the Speaker of the House, that I could answer these charges that were

made against me. I was given that permission.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: You bring them — bring all the vouchers

in,

because I'd be happy to see them. I'd be proud to see them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, we've got them.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Certainly, you can name off anything you

like.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: This debate has taken on a personal

vendetta against me, because they couldn't find anything else. I want

to tell this House, and I want the Press to listen to it — can I help

if all over the United States of America and Canada they ask me to be a

speaker at conventions? Can I help that? Is anything wrong with me

going to those places?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the first Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) please take his seat.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Because in all of those areas I'm

representing the Province of British Columbia, and in an admirable

fashion.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey quit abusing the rules of this House, and take his

seat and stay seated? Will the Honourable Member stay seated? The

Minister proceed.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, I've been asked by people all

over the United States and all over Canada to speak at their

conventions and just a few days hence I go to Ontario to speak to the

national trucking organization, which I've been invited to be a speaker

to.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Honourable Members to come

back to Bill No. 49.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Might we have a little order in the House,

please?

[ Page 914 ]

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: The Liberals have half a dozen standards — one for everybody else and another for themselves.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Certainly! Sure, you'd like that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Honourable Member for Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) does not desist, I'll have to throw him out of the House. I'm

asking the Honourable Member to keep quiet.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the

purpose of the bill. The bill — a few weeks ago there was a court case

in the City of Vancouver, and in the court case the learned judge

brought