1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3817 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Mr. Williams –– 3817

Inquiry into milk quotas. ML Rose –– 3819

TCMTB levels at Harmac mill –– 3819

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

Mr. Richmond)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 3820

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Edwards

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Lovick

Tabling Documents –– 3842

International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 3842

International Financial Business Act (Bill 23). Hon. ML Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 3842

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

With us today in the House are members of the dairy industry of British

Columbia: John Malenstyn from Delta, Joe Groenendyk from Vancouver

Island, Ben Brandsema and Jack DeWit from the Fraser Valley, and August

Bremer from the Okanagan. I'm pleased to have them here today, as we're

considering a number of issues in the House. It's indeed a pleasure to

ask this assembly to please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE :

I would like, on behalf of the official opposition, to share with the

minister that welcome to representatives of the dairy industry. I'm

sure they're over here because everything is wonderful and there are no

problems, that they've come over to have lunch and congratulate the

minister on all his good work on behalf of the dairymen.

HON. L. HANSON :

In the House today we have five friends of mine: from West Vancouver,

Jack and Iris MacLean and Mrs. Mary Mackie; from Tsawwassen, Ted and

Jean Newcombe. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions that I'd like to make. First of

all, in your gallery today is Kim Manning, a student in the Western

Community. She'll be attending the Youth Parliament as MLA for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and will represent Victoria at the national

youth meeting of the Royal Commonwealth Society in Ottawa. She's here

to watch us in question period today, and I'm sure the members opposite

will behave suitably.

AN HON. MEMBER : Including you?

MR. SIHOTA : And myself as well.

The

other introduction that I'd like to make.... Oh, I notice now that one

of the members for Okanagan South is here, but I would like to

introduce Gordon and Dorothy Jackson, who hail from Kelowna. Yes, we do

have friends in the Kelowna area. Would all members please join me in

welcoming the Jacksons.

HON. MR. REID : I'd like the

House to give a special welcome to the former mayor of Nanaimo, Mr.

Graeme Roberts, who is in the members' gallery today.

MR. PELTON :

I have two announcements to make today. First of all, Mr. Speaker, on

your behalf I would like to ask the House to give a very warm welcome

to Mayor Shirley Henry from Pemberton.

Secondly, on behalf

of the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) and myself, I would

like to bring to the attention of the House that within the precincts

today we have some 100 grade 11 students from Maple Ridge Secondary

School. We have a third of this group, 30-plus of them, in the House at

this very moment, along with some of their teachers, and I would like

the House to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH : In the gallery today, from Ladysmith, we have His Worship

Mayor Alex Stuart, and I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

In the gallery today are Doug Osborn and his wife, Irene, from Sas —

Saskatchewan, who are visiting here. [Laughter.] I don't know why that

should amuse members of the House, because aren't three-quarters of the

people in this province from Saskatchewan? I know more Saskatchewan

people here.... The rest are from Manitoba. Doug's father is a justice

of the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan, and Doug is a very

well-known lawyer. Make him welcome.

MR. MOWAT : It

is my pleasure to introduce to the House today two members of the

executive of the Coast Foundation: Mr. Darrell J. Burnha,. the

executive director, and Mr. Bill Stewart, who is the administrator and

property manager. They have a unique organization in British Columbia

that is dealing with people with mental disabilities. They have an

exciting program called Clubhouse, and they've been over today making a

presentation to the government that we hope will be expanded in this

program. I might say that they have also been working with the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) on other projects in downtown

Vancouver, and that Mr. Stewart is also an alderman in the city of Port

Coquitlam. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE :

This is a double-barrelled welcome. Mr. Stewart is an alderman in Port

Coquitlam, in the dead centre of my riding. We welcome Mr. Burnham as

well. I understand that they had some meetings this morning with the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) — well, they intended to; would

you not see them, sir? I hope that you'll see them after lunch and that

they wring a lavish grant out of you to go to Port Coquitlam.

case there is anyone in the House who has not yet been introduced —

there might be at least two — I'd like to introduce those two people.

Oral Questions

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Premier. Mr. Premier, are you aware that there was a deposit of $250,000 paid down for the Expo lands by the bidders?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, I'm not aware of any deposit.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Could you advise the House how much of a deposit was put down by Mr.

Toigo in his proposal for all the Enterprise Corporation assets?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I am not aware of any deposits. I think perhaps the B.C. Enterprise Corporation may have this information; I don't have it.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS :

Any citizen knows that in buying even a house, you put a deposit down

as a sign of good faith. Would it not be reasonable to expect such a

deposit from Mr. Toigo in view of the fact that he wanted to acquire a

billion dollars' worth of assets?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As I say, I don't know. This information may be available at the B.C. Enterprise Corporation; I don't have that information.

[ Page 3818 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

It's now clear that the Toigo offer was $445 million for the entire

corporation, including the stadium, with a leaseback arrangement. Mr.

Premier, you have made it clear too that there were tax advantages in

the stadium deal for Mr. Toigo. Could you advise the House how you came

to know that, in view of the fact that there is no mention of it in the

letter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I have to assume that

anyone wanting to buy the stadium or anything like that would need to

be looking at some tax advantage. Otherwise why consider it? The hon.

member may not know, but it's probably not good business to buy that

sort of thing or to make any offer in that regard, be it a SkyTrain or

a stadium, unless there is that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Sorry, have you got a question too? It's about time. There's only one

person in the NDP that ever has any questions. If there's another

member who has a question, the whole of B.C. would welcome that change.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Would the Premier confirm that he clearly discussed with Mr. Toigo the

tax advantage arrangements of acquiring our public stadium in Vancouver?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't know what the details of that are or if in fact it's at all as

the member proposes it to be. I don't have that knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS : Could the Premier advise the House how he became aware of tax advantages in acquiring the stadium?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I am prepared to say that I am not a tax consultant or a tax lawyer or

an accountant, so I don't have that information. I can speculate from

what I see happening elsewhere or what I know has happened previously,

or at least was attempted previously even here; but I'm not up on tax

breaks or tax implications as they apply to a particular situation of

that nature. I think the member should really get better detailing with

respect to that and then put the question possibly to an accountant or

someone more knowledgeable in the tax field.

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Premier, are you denying that you discussed this matter with Mr. Toigo?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I can't recall discussing it.

MR. WILLIAMS : Since you know nothing about tax questions, as you say before the House now, where would this possibly have come from?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Well, to the person who's doing all the questioning, I don't know where

that might have come from, but I would suggest that obviously, as I

mentioned to the hon. member and I'll mention it again, if you're

looking at the purchase of something of that nature, it would seem

logical that there needs to be a tax benefit. Otherwise it's not what

I'd call the most profitable sort of venture to become involved with. I

don't know of any stadium anywhere on the continent that makes money.

Maybe there are some, but I don't know of them.

MR. WILLIAMS :

There was a leaseback proposal that would have assured that Mr. Toigo

made money. Mr. Premier, you've been bending every rule in the book for

your friends.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Economic Development: Madam Minister, you met with

Li Ka-shing in Hong Kong. Could you advise the House what officials

were with you — or family — at that meeting?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to answer that question. In all of my

business meetings in Asia — on a very successful trade mission to Hong

Kong, Japan and Korea — I was accompanied by my deputy minister at that

time, Mr. Stan Dubas, and my executive assistant, Miss Shirley Boates.

My representative at the particular Hong Kong meeting to which the

member refers was Mr. Dickson Hall, who runs our Hong Kong trade office

very efficiently and very well, getting new business for British

Columbia. Of course my husband accompanied me throughout the whole trip

— at his own expense, in case that's the next question from the member

— and I believe that was the full British Columbia contingent.

MR. WILLIAMS :

We appreciate the complete answer. To the Minister of Economic

Development: have you met with any of the bidders for the Expo land

since they made their bids?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : No, I have not.

MR. WILLIAMS :

So you've met with none of the groups, none of the representatives of

the groups that made the bids? You've met with none of them

individually or none of them as a group? Or their representatives?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, since the bids were presented to the B.C. Enterprise

Corporation, and a decision was called on to be made by that

corporation, and since that corporation recommended a proposal to the

British Columbia cabinet, I have not met with representatives of any of

the groups who were proposing to purchase B.C. Place lands.

MR. WILLIAMS : Since the bids were closed, did you meet with any of the bidders, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Oh yes, and I've just confirmed that I met with people throughout these

last few months, and will meet with business people in the course of my

duties, and I've never denied that.

MR. WILLIAMS : Have you met with Li Ka-shing in your own home, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : The answer is no.

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Who requested the attendance of your officials at the

[ Page

3819 ]

December meeting with Toigo and the Enterprise Corporation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Had I known I would have been the subject of a question this afternoon, I would have worn my trench coat.

The request to have an observer attend that meeting which had been arranged came from the Premier's office.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Minister of Finance, you said: "I found it entirely appropriate

there should be someone there representing the financial interests of

the province." Are you saying that you could not be sure that if there

was only a representative of the Premier's office, the public interest

would not be served?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Let me

expand, because I think that the issue deserves a full and complete

answer, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not sure I'll have the opportunity unless

I get more questions, and he may decide not to ask more questions.

is very common for my Treasury Board analysts to attend meetings

arranged by other ministers dealing with third parties. That is a

normal part of the process and it is part of their duty as responsible

public servants. That particular meeting was attended in the interest

of protecting the province and its interests. Furthermore, I can tell

the House that my Treasury Board analyst who attended that meeting did

not participate in the meeting and was there as an observer only.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Attorney, there's a pattern here of the Premier and his ministers

bending the rules. You refused to issue a press release giving Mr.

Toigo a clean bill of health. Will you carry out an investigation of

the whole process regarding the Expo lands?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I think the process has been very well aired in this place and in other

places, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think the kind of investigation or

interrogation that the member is speaking of would bring out more facts

than have been brought out in this forum. I am amazed how slowly and

retardedly they bring them out, though.

INQUIRY INTO MILK QUOTAS

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.

I've given him some notice on this.

Yesterday, or the day before, the minister announced the appointment of former

Agriculture minister Cyril Shelford as "an independent one-man inquiry,

to investigate whether the dissident dairy producers were treated fairly by

the Milk Board of B.C." I'd like to ask: did the Premier's office,

popularly known as "the Poole room," or his secretary David Poole

request such an inquiry?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Speaker, I think I'm being snookered over here. [Laughter.] How be it if we play a little eight-ball?

Quite

frankly, Mr. Speaker, it's definitely not true, if you're assuming that

the Premier's office or Mr. Poole had anything to do with this. This is

an inquiry asked for by me.

MR. ROSE : I think the minister miscued as usual.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, Mr.

Shelford was supposed to determine whether these dissident milk

producers were treated fairly by the B.C. Milk Board. I must remind the

House that the courts have already decided twice over a period of two

or three years that the milk producers have been treated fairly and

that they must buy quota if they want to get back in the business. I'd

like to ask the minister: how much more public money is the government

prepared to spend — including a levy write-off of something like $3

million — to favourably treat these five maverick milk producers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I now have to get chalked up, obviously, for a game here.

Mr.

Speaker, obviously the inquiry is asked for at arm's length. Whether

the question from the opposition is that the courts have made the

decision.... There's no question about the court decision; that is not

the question at all. The reason the inquiry was asked for is that the

minister has been termed to have a bias one way or the other. I feel

it's far better for the minister to call for an inquiry at arm's length

from those biases that are being called.

MR. ROSE :

But it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the arm's-length inquiry

includes a former Minister of Agriculture; what we're asking is for a

former Minister of Agriculture to investigate the ministry. That's

absolutely absurd and ludicrous.

Finally, I'd like to say

that the milk producers were advised by the minister on March 25 that

the dissident producers who didn't abide by the rules would be shut

down by the end of the month. Since Mr. Shelford is now taking a look

at this whole problem on behalf of the ministry, I want to know whether

or not the minister would confirm that his March 25 statement about a

shutdown is no longer valid and that it ceased to be operative at the

point when ex-minister Shelford was appointed to study this problem.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : To the best of my knowledge that milk is still being dumped. It's not being shipped.

TCMTB LEVELS AT HARMAC MILL

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer a question taken on notice some time ago.

I know the Legislative Assembly has been waiting in breathless

anticipation for this answer, because I had a phone call this morning

from the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). It has to do with

2-(thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole, commonly called TCMTB, which is

an anti-sapstain material.

[2:30]

The

second member for Nanaimo asked me some time ago whether or not my

ministry has conducted studies and will be making recommendations to

the WCB regarding permissible levels of this sapstain material. The

answer is that my ministry has been working for some time in

cooperation with both Environment Canada and the forest industry to

identify and control the environmental and health impacts of

anti-sapstain chemicals. The code of recommended practices for wood

protection, which is aimed at both worker and environmental protection,

was a good start.

We took further specific action last

September with the introduction of a control program to reduce the

release of these chemicals from lumber operations through stormwater.

[ Page 3820 ]

joint industry-government task force is currently investigating this

issue, and the code of good practice will be revised to accommodate

this particular concern as well as any new information on these

products as it becomes available.

Currently, waste

management branch staff are reviewing the available data on the

toxicity of all sapstain products currently registered for use,

including TCMTB. Although the ministry doesn't have a mandate for

setting occupational standards for chemicals, this information is of

course available to the WCB. As well, regulations are being drafted

under the Waste Management Act to deal with these chemicals. They will

address a number of concerns, including wastes discharged to the air,

contaminated wood waste, spray-booth sludges disposed of by

incineration, and storm water discharges. These regulations will be

completed in the very near future.

Here endeth the answer.

For the benefit of the Legislative Assembly, the document that I've

read from has been sent over by House mail to the member, and I will

now send this copy off to Hansard so that they can get the spelling right of that chemical.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 61: minister's office, $224,319.

MR. CASHORE :

Toward the end of the day yesterday — a day that I think saw some very

reasonable exchanges within the House, on both sides, as we canvassed

some of the issues before us — there was no question that there was

extremely strong disagreement on matters of philosophy with regard to

how to address the issue of poverty, an issue that we all share. I

would like to say that I think we had a very worthwhile debate in the

House yesterday.

Towards the end of the day, we were

getting into the issue of income assistance and the difficulty that a

great many people have in trying to provide their families with

adequate food, clothing and shelter and be able to care for their

families in a way in which self-esteem is not lost — because we know

that when self-esteem is lost, then social problems are on the way. It

seems to me that part of the argument we had at the time, coming from

our side of the House, was that it's not the government programs that

are expensive, it's poverty that's expensive, and if we do not address

the generic causes of poverty in our society, we will not succeed.

heard the minister saying, with regard to the example of the hungry

schoolchildren program, that most of the people in B.C. who are on

welfare are able to get by on what they have, and therefore there must

be some kind of problem with those people who aren't getting by on what

they have in those schools that have been identified by the Vancouver

School Board, and more recently by a majority of the Vancouver city

council with regard to a motion which was made by the council yesterday

and required a three-quarters majority to pass, and was narrowly

defeated by a 7-3 vote. There simply isn't enough money to enable those

parents to provide adequate nutrition for their families, and therefore

they go to school hungry. It's not because they need counselling; it's

not because we need to be notifying people who may impose counselling

or may cause children to be apprehended. It's because there isn't

enough money to put the adequate nutrition there on the table.

realize, Mr. Chairman, that the debate is going to rage on for quite

some time, and that we're probably not going to convince the minister

in debate at this time, because we know of the constraints that the

Premier has placed upon him. But we do despair at the fact that the

GAIN budget is reduced by $42 million — dollars that are desperately

needed by low-income people, by people on welfare in this province.

Just to give a somewhat different perspective than the perspective the

minister was giving, Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Chairman, I

wonder if I might ask you to call for some order in the House at this

point, as I'm having a difficult time hearing myself speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The hon. member does make a good point. Perhaps we could have a little quiet so the member can make his point to the minister.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, there is another perspective than that of the minister,

and it's contained in a letter to the editor that has been published in

several newspapers, written by a Mrs. Beth Loring, an advocate who

works here in Victoria as a volunteer with people on low income. She

says:

"Following revelations that some B.C.

children are going to school hungry...the Minister of Social Services

and Housing has declared that school lunches shouldn't be funded by the

province, as a single mother with two children receives $1,193 in

monthly benefits.

"Canadian Council of Social

Development figures for 1987 show that $20,500 a year for three people

constitutes poverty. The single mother receives an actual yearly income

of $11,052, nearly 44 percent below the poverty level. Drug, medical,

dental and hospital benefits, while essential, do not put money into

her pocket. The school startup allowance is given once a year: $31 or

$47, depending on the child's age. It is not monthly income. The

federal child tax credit is a one-time payment and is usually swallowed

up by debts.

"In actual cash, our single

mother receives $921 a month. After her shelter allowance...she has

$435 for support. This breaks down to $145 a month per person, or $4.64

a day, for food, clothing, bus, laundry and all other necessities

including recreation."

I'm sure that the minister would

agree that self-esteem requires that recreation be available to all

people in our society. She concludes: "The minister weaves a fantasy

out of words and figures. The mother and her children live the reality."

Yesterday

I was making the point that as well as the figures that are often put

forward with regard to this argument, the minister is often heard to

say that when people are truly in need they can apply for emergency

assistance. I won't repeat it, but towards the end of the day I made

the point that on many occasions people who apply for assistance are

turned down, whether by budgetary constraints or by an official feeling

that the people do not qualify for that emergency assistance. I also

pointed out that on several occasions,

[ Page 3821 ]

my own intervention, a phone call to a ministry office has resulted in

the client's receiving emergency assistance — meaning that until I

intervened there were not the procedures in the ministry office to

ascertain that indeed the individual did qualify to receive emergency

funds.

Several points are being made here, but among them

is the point that when we say that emergency assistance is available

and the public gets the idea that it will be given, the fact is that in

many instances it is turned down. The opportunities that people have

within the system are much more limited than the ministry would have us

believe.

I know that when the minister comments, he will

want to respond to some of the other points made towards the end of

yesterday afternoon, but I do have a few other specific questions that

I didn't get to yesterday. One is that in the media backgrounder to the

changes in the GAIN delivery, it was mentioned that in the

reorganization of service delivery over 200 new positions will be

dedicated to income assistance. We understand that and the positions

being made available, therefore people who are leaving, Woodlands staff

and that sort of thing.... But it goes on to say that there are new

IA-EIP supervisor positions to improve service and program monitoring.

Then it goes on to say that the number of inspectors has been increased

and that an income assistance provincial coordinator will be added.

Are

these inspectors people who are involved in the process of dealing with

"welfare fraud"? Is the number being increased to deal with such a

problem? If that is the case, could we have facts and figures with

regard to why such an increase in staffing would be required? We would

like data on how that problem, if it is a problem, has increased beyond

the level at which the ministry has been addressing it already, it

being a known fact that already the deputy minister has very competent

people doing that monitoring and inspection. The announcement says that

it has been increased, but it doesn't say by how many. So I'm also

asking by how many it is being increased. That gives rise to the other

question: what is the number that it's being increased from? In other

words, how many of those inspectors are there now? What will the new

number of inspectors be?

Another question. Once you hire inspectors at that extra cost, given the total

cost of having those inspectors hired, would you give me the figures with regard

to how much money they recover; and does the money that they recover because

of their inspections pay for the cost of their being there in the first place?

So the question is: are we in fact spending more money to inspect and to watchdog

this whole process than the amount of money that we are saving by so doing?

Another question, Mr. Chairman: in the announcement that came out

yesterday — the changes to the GAIN income assistance program —

reference is made to an action committee. We have looked all over the

place and tried to track down the report of this GAIN action committee

that's referred to. It's not in the legislative library. We haven't

seen the report. Will this report be made available and will the

minister table it in the House?

Now

another question which has to do with the employable-unemployable

issue. I've done some checking on this and some people who have quite a

bit of experience in working with social services issues have stated

that they are of the opinion that when a person loses the employable

designation....

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The unemployable.

MR. CASHORE :

I'm sorry, yes. When they are declared employable, when they lose the

unemployable designation, they no longer qualify for training programs.

Could I have clarification of that? Does the action that took place

yesterday render some people no longer able to qualify for training

programs?

I think I will give the minister an opportunity to speak now, Mr. Chairman.

[2:45]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, I see we have a group of young people up in the gallery

who are obviously not in school, and I sincerely hope you're learning

something from witnessing the exchange today. It's got to be more

exciting than being in school, hasn't it? We'll try to make it that way

for you. Welcome. Since I don't know what school you're from, I'll just

say welcome.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Maple Ridge Secondary School. Nice to see you here, Maple Ridge.

First

of all, just let me cover one thing that was the subject of

conversation yesterday for the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, and

that was the individual case that he referred to extensively, the

family from Golden, the Graham family.

Mr. Member, I said

yesterday that the information on the case was coming to me in dribs

and drabs and that I would give it to you in one sort of release today,

but — and I wanted to put this on the record — I'm not going to do

that, simply because there is far too much information here that is of

a confidential nature. Rather than table it in the House, I would

request that you and I have a private meeting sometime and spend a few

minutes going over it. If that is satisfactory to the member, I will

leave it at that; but I didn't want to have it on the record that I

would table it in the House and then not do it. Is that satisfactory?

The member indicates that it is. So if....

MR. CASHORE :

A point of clarification, Mr. Minister. Mr. Chairman, my nodding of my

head indicated that I understood what the minister was saying. It did

not say that I was agreeing with all aspects, although I certainly do

agree to meet with the minister in his office, and I'll say more about

that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It's just that the case....

All of these cases, as the member knows, are very sensitive — the

issues of apprehension and children at risk — and I would rather

discuss that with him in private than in public.

I want to

cover a few points that the member mentioned. First of all, the

self-esteem of people who are on income assistance: I take the view — I

think the member knows this but I just put it on the record — that

people's self-esteem goes up dramatically when they are employed as

opposed to when they are not employed, and all of our research and all

the discussions I've had with people who are on welfare would seem to

indicate that.

So to reiterate what I said yesterday, the

programs and the changes that we announced are to assist people to get

off the welfare rolls and back into meaningful employment.

While

I'm on that subject, when a person loses the designation of

unemployable and becomes employable, he or she will not be deprived of

training programs. The training

[ Page 3822 ]

programs

will of course be available to that person whether they are designated

unemployable or employable; it would be counterproductive to do

otherwise.

The member touched again on the issue of

schoolchildren in the inner city of Vancouver. That was covered

extensively yesterday. In fact, I think we must have spent an hour on

that topic, so I will not go into it again. I think my comments are

pretty well documented in yesterday's Blues, so if anyone wishes to

avail themselves of the Blues, they will understand my and the

government's position on that issue.

The member refers

several times to the fact that the GAIN budget has decreased by $42

million. Well, that is true, Mr. Member, but you must also remember

that the GAIN budget — which in layman's terms is welfare — is a

demand-driven budget. As the demand for welfare goes up, the GAIN

budget necessarily goes up. We have had years in the past when we have

under budgeted for the GAIN amount. The number of people on

unemployment rolls has risen; therefore the GAIN budget has risen. This

year, the welfare rolls are decreasing, and our projections are that we

will get by with $42 million less than we did last year. Just to

clarify, that is the reason for the $42 million decrease in the GAIN

budget.

Again, the member dwelt on the fact that our

welfare rates are too low. We have had that dialogue back and forth

many times, starting about a year ago, and I don't think that's going

to change. But I will point out that when we compare our rates with the

other provinces in Canada, we seem to be just about in the middle in

most categories. There are some where we're a little higher and some

where we're a little lower, but when we average it out, we seem to be

just about dead centre, which I think is a good place for us to be.

The

member addressed the 200 new positions, as was issued yesterday. I

should add that these are not all additional positions in the ministry,

but some have been moved into positions dedicated to income assistance

programs. So there are some new positions and some just shifted.

went on to ask about the number of inspectors being increased. That is

true. We have added five inspectors provincewide, and these were to

cover areas where we didn't have any inspection services before. The

total number of inspectors now is 35, with five new positions scattered

throughout the province to cover areas where there was no inspection

before. He asked whether the recovery will be more than the cost of

these inspectors. I can't give him numbers, but I can assure him

without any question that the amount recovered will be far in excess of

the cost.

The GAIN Action Committee was mentioned again.

I'm sorry my memory isn't good enough to tell the member exactly when

and where it was announced, but it was last fall. I will endeavour to

find out exactly when and where for the member, but I don't have that

information at my fingertips right now.

One other point you

mentioned, Mr. Member, about obtaining a crisis grant for one of your

constituents.... I applaud you for that, but I also say that that's the

duty of an MLA: to go to bat for his or her constituents. We can all

cite many instances in every ministry where the system seems to have

failed someone, and as a last resort they come to their MLA. We all get

them, not just this ministry but others. That will probably continue as

long as you and I are members in this House. So, Mr. Member, I guess

I'm saying that it's not unusual for a constituent to have been failed

— in their mind — by the system and to have gone to their MLA.

Sometimes you will be successful in achieving what they wish and other

times you won't be; but that is just normal procedure.

MR. CASHORE :

I appreciate the statement made by the minister with regard to the

family from Golden, and I appreciate the opportunity to meet privately

with the minister and find out more about the circumstances of this

case. I do affirm the minister's position with regard to

confidentiality, as I have done as long as I have been involved in my

role as debate leader for Social Services. But I still state, as I said

yesterday, that this case is an example of an increasing number of the

kinds of situations that are requiring special investigation. Therefore

it is appropriate with such a case to call for an independent inquiry

and completely clear the air. Such an inquiry would protect

confidentiality; there's no question about that.

As I said

yesterday, I have called for a complete inquiry with regard to the

delivery of family and children's services in the province that would

involve not only the Ministry of Social Services and Housing but the

other three ministries that have a tremendous involvement in the

delivery of services to children — the point being that a multiplicity

of ministries provide services, and it's very difficult to coordinate

them. Therefore gaps are created and, tragically, people fall between

the gaps.

With regard to some of the points that the

minister just made, I won't comment on all of them because I think that

we've canvassed some of that before. With regard to the crisis grant,

yes, I realize it is the duty of an MLA to advocate on behalf of her or

his constituents, but I was explaining this with regard to my role as

debate leader for Social Services; I had had phone calls from all over

the province. The point is that when the message is put out by the

minister or by officials within the ministry that this kind of support

grant is readily available, it's very difficult in many instances even

for a deserving person to receive that grant.

We're talking

here about people who are people of desperation. As the minister says,

a person has reached the end of the line. In some instances they go to

the MLA, but they should not have to do that. The checks and balances

should be present within the system.

I'm going to go to one

more question, and then I think some other of my colleagues will have

some points they wish to make, following the minister's comments. One

point that I want to raise is with regard to Bill 72, passed during the

last session of the House, pertaining particularly to the GAIN

amendment act, which was in connection with the Attorney-General's

child maintenance enforcement act. It seems to me that there's a

potential problem within the administration of this, and that is that

the act is not necessarily implemented in all parts of the province at

the same time.

Let's imagine for a moment the confusion

that could exist if a debtor lives in a part of the province where the

act has not been proclaimed into force, and the creditor does not.

Would that not result in some incredible confusion? Also, would the

regions of the province be based on regional districts, or would they

be based on these other kinds of regions we've been hearing about once

in a while in the news recently, or just how would that be dealt with?

Would it be in various regions as they pertain to the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing? Or would it be in districts throughout the

province where Attorney-General's offices existed? I really think we

need some clarification on that.

Basically, the point is

that if sections of that portion of the GAIN act are implemented

piecemeal, as the act makes possible, what about the confusion that

would result from that? Also, with regard to Bill 72, there's a real

problem in

[ Page 3823 ]

that

the $100 exemption is not retroactive. So for the woman who because of

circumstances comes to apply for income assistance, we could imagine a

very frequent situation where that woman, on the basis of court-ordered

moneys, would have anticipated a payment coming through, and would have

gone into debt in order to make necessary purchases. And then that

money that is rightfully hers comes through; but because she is now on

GAIN, she is only entitled to keep $100. This is grossly unfair.

[3:00]

Again, when these measures were being put forward, it was put

forward in a way that indicated that this was going to be a real boon

for these women. I fail to see how it is going to be a benefit for her.

I do realize it will be a benefit for the taxpayer, because it will be

money coming into the coffers. But in such an instance, surely that

money should not be coming into the coffers of the province but should

be going to the woman, so she could pay for the expenses that she

incurred during the time that she was a working-poor member of our

population and had incurred debts, knowing that a court-ordered payment

was forthcoming.

With that, I will listen to what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On Bill 72, I understand the member's point about introducing it

provincewide. There's no question that that would be the most desirable

way to do it. But since the majority of Bill 72, and the control of it,

is under the Attorney-General, I have to go on his timetable. We are

told that while they will implement it provincewide as quickly as

possible, it's not possible to do that. I believe it will be introduced

in the lower mainland this summer, but within a very few months will be

provincewide. So the period of time that it's not provincewide will be

very short; I can't tell you exactly how short, but within a very few

months from its introduction it will be provincewide. So if there is

any discrepancy, it will be for a very short period of time.

have canvassed the issue of the $100 maintenance and whether it should

be retroactive. I can understand, again, the member's point, but it was

the decision of the government not to make it retroactive. From the

moment people come on income assistance, if they have a maintenance

order, they automatically receive the $100; if there is no maintenance

order, they don't.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Chairman, I'd

like to spend the next hour discussing, if I may, the

family-strengthening program of this government. I'm under the

impression that this program is to be addressed under the Premier's

estimates and not the estimates of the Social Services minister. Am I

correct in that assumption?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Well,

Mr. Chairman, a good deal of the program is being delivered through

this ministry, and some of it through the Ministry of Health. So I

suppose that whether it's debated here or in the estimates of the

Premier or the Minister of Health is a decision for the Chair to make.

Without wishing to push any decisions upon you, I would suggest that it

shouldn't be debated in everybody's ministry estimates. I'll defer to

the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I appreciate that, and I think the minister is absolutely

right. It would seem to me, since funds are going to appear within different

portfolios, that the Chair should allow that it be debated in each one. We'll

have to avoid repetition if we can. But certainly go ahead, hon. member.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Chairman, it's our impression that this program, although it's $20

million, is a very controversial one. It's controversial because it

takes away from the ongoing program of the Ministry of Social Services.

It's controversial because it presents to us policies and ideas and

programs, and is presented in a way which can be countervailing to the

work of the ministry to date. I am suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman,

that this program, as it is presented, is not necessarily just a

consolidation of ongoing programs and a redirection of some of them; it

is in fact a statement of philosophy and principle put forward by the

Premier that takes away from excellent programs that we may have right

now for families, in this government and in this province, and in fact

turns them around into something that we hadn't intended at all.

want to, if I may then, because we are proceeding with an investigation

of this $20 million budget — a slush fund, basically, to appease the

Premier, if I may say; this "Leave it to Beaver" family picture that is

being painted for us; this "Father Knows Best" family picture that we

are expected to swallow whole.... I would like to address it in terms

of the categories the Premier himself set down in a press conference,

delineating four subheadings for this program: a child care package, a

supported living package, an adoption package and a family support

program package. I'm wondering whether the minister would be good

enough to cost out each one of those categories.

Yesterday

he spoke for a few moments about a $3 million item attached to the day

care program, and I have duly noted that in my book. Would he put a

cost beside the supported living program, the adoption program and the

family support program, and delineate for me which of those dollars

might be cost-shared, so we can expect to see a retrieval, and which

will be coming out of his ministry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm pleased to answer the member's questions, and I will go into them

at length. I didn't really want to get into politics when we're

discussing such an important program, but I don't really have any

choice. When the member stands up and says, "This is a $20 million

slush fund to satisfy the Premier," that's about as political as you

can get, and it's about as wrong as you can get.

I have no

alternative but to say that I find it absolutely incredible that

someone would say that a program to strengthen the family is

controversial. All of a sudden now you're against families, Madam

Member. I don't find it controversial at all to come out in support of

strengthening families.

To make a comment that it takes

away from ongoing programs.... I would like to hear your explanation of

that. When I sit down you can have your shot at explaining how it takes

away from programs being done by this government. It is a $20 million

program, approximately $16 million of which will be delivered by this

ministry.

A new subsidy rate for infant day care is being

negotiated with the feds now, so I can't answer you explicitly as to

whether it will be cost-shared. But we are negotiating that, and I

think that it will be. The program is $6.1 million, and it's for infant

day care for children up to 18 months. It's to assist women to return

to work or school after the birth of their child. There will be more

enhancements to the pro-

[ Page 3824 ]

vince's

day care program once negotiations with the federal government have

been concluded. As I said yesterday, the overall negotiations should be

concluded sometime this summer.

I point out again that

these dollars are not coming from existing budgets in my ministry or

any other ministry, so they are not taking away from some other program.

You

asked for the costs on the supported living arrangements: $3 million is

allocated to provide residential and support services to women during

pregnancy and after delivery. The minister currently contracts with

facilities in Vancouver and Kamloops, and a range of other options will

be developed as needed. We say "as needed" because we don't know at

this time what the demand will be, Madam Member.

This could

include private homes supervised by nonprofit societies, home-sharing

and support arrangements, semi-independent apartment living in clusters

of three or four apartments, or small group living situations. These

options will be available up to four months before delivery and up to

three months after. A user fee will apply with financial assistance to

those in need.

Then you asked about the amount allocated to

family support services. The budgeted amount is $6.9 million, to

provide support services to pregnant women and women with babies at

home or in school, as needed; family support homemakers for child care

and household management skills for young mothers; special services to

children for supportive child care counselling and help with behaviour

management skills at home; rehabilitation resources in conjunction with

local school boards for counselling and support in basic skill

development to pregnant and parenting teens who are experiencing

difficulty at school; and a new teen support program in conjunction

with local school boards to enable teen mothers to finish school by

offering child care as well as parenting and life skills training.

For

adoptions we have allocated $350,000, and we have said that we will

review the entire Adoption Act because it is out of date and, with one

or two minor exceptions, hasn't been modified since 1920. I think it is

probably past time that we took a look at the entire Adoption Act and

brought it into the 1980s. I said yesterday we will endeavour to do

that and have the changes or the new act ready for introduction at the

next session of the House, which will be next spring — next February or

March; sometime like that.

Madam Member, I think I've

answered your questions. I find it difficult to respond to the

strengthening-the-family program as being controversial. Families are

truly the strength of our country, of our province certainly and our

nation as a whole, and to say that it's a $20 million slush fund I

think is purely a political statement. I would like to know how you

think it takes away from other programs.

MS. MARZARI :

I'd like to thank the minister for the invitation. I would very much

appreciate the opportunity to tell him how this is old money redirected

into new programs. It doesn't seem to me that this is new money by any

imagination.

Yesterday, when I was inquiring about day care

costs, I asked how much day care would be increased by, since you did

not break it down for me in the estimates as I asked last year. You

said there would be a $6 million increase in day care. I know that this

government puts that money into subsidies to parents who earn less than

$800 a month, from my calculations, to put their children in care. Now

you're telling me that the $6.1 million increase you're looking for

this year is being directed towards young mothers. Am I correct? Is

that what you just said: that you're setting aside a $6.1 million

increase in day care subsidies for teenage mothers, for children who

have been encouraged to produce children in our society? I can barely

believe it. Is this a total number you're giving me, or is this a

number that's being dedicated to the unborn child?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The figure of $6.1 million is a new subsidy rate for infant day care,

not just for teen mothers. I didn't say that; that's a different.... I

think you're confusing the support of living arrangements with infant

day care. This is infant day care for all mothers to care for infants

from zero to 18 months. And it is new money; it is not within our

federal cost-sharing programs at the moment. We are negotiating that.

MS. MARZARI :

Then I would ask the minister what new money is being injected into the

existing day care program, the one that stretches from 18 months to 12

years of age, the program that is desperately underfunded right now and

from which 250,000 children in this province could benefit if

additional subsidies and spaces were made available. Is there any new

money in your budget to upgrade or just meet the simple costs of

maintenance and cost of living for the existing day care program, or is

all the day care increase going to infants?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm happy to answer that. The increase this year in the day care budget

is $3 million, and that's the provincial contribution only. That still

hasn't been negotiated; that's part of the negotiation with the feds.

So our total day care budget this year is $38.2 million plus the $6.1

million that I just mentioned. I repeat, the $6.1 is brand-new money.

It's not, as you say, old, recycled money. That brings our total day

care budget to about $44.3 million plus what we obtain from the federal

government.

[3:15]

MS. MARZARI :

Thank you, Mr. Minister, because I asked you for the budget yesterday,

and today I feel as if I've gotten a number: $44.3 million. I'll have

to commend you for raising that from, I believe, about $26 million last

year. Do you remember what the actual costs of day care were last year,

since they weren't broken down for me?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I can get it for you. I don't have it.

MS. MARZARI :

You have increased the day care budget considerably from last year, but

I must add that by injecting only $3 million into the ongoing day care

programs in this province this year, you are cutting back the new

money. Last year you injected $6 million into ongoing day care

programs, into the subsidies. You increased the subsidies for children

three to five years old.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI :

Yes, I'm having difficulty figuring it out too. So I think the actuals

will be very helpful at a certain point. It would be useful in the

future to break these things down in the estimates so that we can all

understand from the

[ Page 3825 ]

beginning.

I'm suggesting that you're negotiating for $6 million for infant day

care, and yet the ongoing program that desperately needs upgrading and

pushing for, you're injecting only $3 million into. That program for

which there are 17, 000 spaces now — and we desperately could use

another 100,000 spaces.... You are taking away from that program in

your priorities, Mr. Minister, and supporting an infant program for

which there is a demand, but the spaces now only number 177 in the

province. So I would suggest to you that your family support program,

or the family strengthening program, has already influenced

decision-making and influenced priorities in ongoing programs of this

province.

Let me turn for a moment to another ongoing

program in this province that's run by the Education department, a

program, I should add, which seems to have received rave reviews; a

program which has been instituted — in 1985, I gather — by the B.C.

Ministry of Education, by your government; a program which has

different names in different school districts. In Victoria it seems to

be called the family management program for grade 12 students; in other

school districts in the province it's called family studies, in North

Vancouver, for example. It's generally taught between grade 7 and grade

12, and it talks to the following purposes:

"The

purposes of the course are to assist students to explore the reciprocal

influences of family, self and society and to develop positive

attitudes about themselves and their world.

"...the curriculum is designed to encourage students

to use processes of decision-making, communicating and problem-solving in a

wide variety of learning situations." It concentrates on the "necessary

skills, knowledge and abilities to meet the challenges of our dynamic and complex

society."

I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that your Education department

has a beginning understanding of the fact that we do live in a complex

and dynamic society, and that the students who go through this course

are exposed to real choices and real alternatives. The students who've

had the benefits of this course — in talking to one of the teachers who

teaches it — generally come out with a pretty intelligent attitude

towards how society ticks over, and, if I may add, a generally

pro-choice attitude towards abortion.

I suggest to you that

a little more investment in programs like the family management

program, as it is called here in Victoria, might produce for you a true

family strengthening by investing in young people at an early age — at

the high school level most notably, when the questions are first asked

and when the answers are demanded. By investing in kids at that age we

might be a lot better off than introducing $20 million projects farther

down the line, telling them where they can live when they get pregnant;

telling them what kind of money is available for them after they

produce their babies; and then cutting them off at 18 months after the

baby is born and expecting them to find their own way at the age of 15,

16 or 17. I'm talking about real choice here, Mr. Minister, and how you

are spending money in a post-crisis situation instead of doing a little

prevention at the front end by investing perhaps in some better

education programs in your schools.

The supported living

program. We've gone through some of the programs that are incorporated

into the supported living program, and I see that you'll be using for

the young girls, the people we used to call wayward girls.... We

thought we'd grown out of that in the fifties perhaps, as we watched

girls disappearing out of their communities to have babies at Aunt

Ida's in Idaho or something, coming back to the community perhaps a

year older and looking 20 years older, having produced babies and given

them up. Now we have a situation where this ministry and this

government are expecting girls to do exactly the same thing that I

thought we had put an end to 30 or 40 years ago. I had thought that our

community was a little more compassionate to our young people and was

ready to invest in real information programs, such as the ones I have

just described, in our schools and real attempts to help kids not make

mistakes in the first place.

However, since we are here

discussing the spending of public money for supported living, perhaps

you could tell me, Mr. Minister, how many babies this government is

actually banking on.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It's very

difficult to answer a question like the last one, which I find

absolutely ridiculous. I will come back to that in a moment.

First

of all, I do agree with the member that any education we can provide

for young people, in high school or wherever, is good. I mean, who

could argue with that? It's a program, if I'm not mistaken, run under

the Ministry of Education, and I commend them for it. It's an excellent

program, and I think we should continue that type of program.

have a group of young people with us today. I see they're leaving, but

I hope they're getting something from this. Nice to see you here.

Welcome to the House. I sincerely hope that you're getting something

out of this debate. I think that anything we can do to give young

people information about the world they're about to face is terrific.

We don't know all the answers at our age, and I am sure that they don't

and that they appreciate any information we can impart to them with

regard to their future and the planning of their lives.

I do agree with you there, that family planning and telling them about

all the pitfalls of raising families and rearing children should be

done. However, it's not a perfect world, as you probably know, and what

we're saying to those who find themselves in a predicament they didn't

necessarily want to be in is that we are there to offer help.

ask me a question about how many babies or whatever it was that we

expect to produce I find absolutely ludicrous. We have no idea what the

demand will be in the supported living arrangement. I said that in my

remarks. But we're there to help, whatever the demand is. We're not

going to leave them alone. When a teen-age girl finds herself pregnant,

not through desire or choice — maybe that's a better word — we're there

to help.

So to say that we don't show compassion for young

people is erroneous. I outlined what would be available. We put a

tentative budget on it of $3 million, but I say tentative, because we

can only make a best guess. We don't sit down and say that we expect

the system to produce this many babies. I find that question impossible

to answer. We know that there will be some, that we will end up with

young women who are pregnant and that many of those pregnancies will be

unwanted. We hope that before that happens we will have given them as

much education as possible, but after they find themselves in that

situation, we hope we can give them all the alternatives so that they

can make an intelligent decision.

MS. MARZARI : Is there a clear-cut intention then, in your ministry's portfolio, of grants to non-profit agencies to

[ Page 3826 ]

double or triple the amount of money to the family planning agency of British Columbia?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

To say it for the third time, Mr. Chairman, we will provide funds under

the supported living arrangement

section of the

strengthening-the-family program. We will provide funds as needed. I've

said that now three times. We don't know what the demand will be, so I

can't tell you whether it will be doubled or tripled or quadrupled, but

the funds will be provided as needed.

MS. MARZARI :

Has the family planning agency approached the minister in the last few

months to request additional funding or to request being put back on

the funding roster so that family planning of B.C. can continue or

restart its process of advising and helping women make a choice about

whether they will carry on with the pregnancy?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I was kind of listening to two conversations there. When you refer to

family planning, I understood you were referring to family planning in

general; you mean the family planning association. My deputy tells me

that to date we have not received a request for funding. I am sure that

he is correct in that, and at such time as we receive a request from

the family planning association, then we will be able to deal with it.

But to date we have not had such a request.

MS. MARZARI : In other words, the minister has not gone to the family

planning association and said to them: "Look, we want to do a decent education

program. We want to get in there and bolster our Ministry of Education with

its family management program. We want to make real choices available and help

young women understand that choice is available, and we'd like you to submit

an application to us, so that we can start this discussion with the young people

in our communities." Is the minister saying that he has not taken the

initiative on this?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : No, I haven't approached the family planning association.

MS. MARZARI :

Would the minister be inclined to do so at this point? We know from his

own words in the last ten minutes that he is most concerned about

intelligent, rational decisions being made by young people about their

future, and he's concerned about what real choices might be available

for them if they happen to get pregnant.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I would certainly meet with the family planning association. I think at

this time, since they must be fully aware of what the government's

doing, I'd rather respond to an overture from them to sit down and talk

with me, but I would be most happy to do so.

MS. MARZARI :

Moving on from the supported-living aspect of this program.... We have

partly covered day care, supported living. Adoption you've covered, Mr.

Minister, by suggesting that you are adjusting your adoption

regulations to make them more flexible, whatever that could mean. I'd

like to talk about family support programs for a while. These are

programs which you are going to make available to young mothers after

their babies are born and when they are living in the community. I

think that's what we're talking about. You invited me at the beginning

of this exchange to talk about what new moneys are being directed

towards these programs at the expense of ongoing programs, and that's

really what I'd like to get involved with talking about here.

[3:30]

For

one thing, in a press conference on GAIN that you held April 12, you

talked about how single parents who become employed will find that they

are charged the day care surcharge for one year. Yesterday we talked

about this, and you said you weren't quite sure whether that was in

fact going to happen. But are you saying, basically, that anybody who

has a child will, for the first year of that child's life, be paid the

total costs of child care? Or are you saying that for any single parent

on welfare, after she gets a job, you'll be paying the total costs? In

other words, if child care costs $350 a month — which it does, for a

three-to-five-year-old — you will be paying more than the $262 you

presently pay in subsidy; you will be covering the difference, the

additional $90. So what are you saying here? Are you telling me about

new mothers, or are you telling me about existing moms on welfare?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, it's exactly as the member stated at the end — it's for

existing mothers on welfare who become employed. She had it exactly

right. We will pick up the surcharge for one year, if they qualify.

MS. MARZARI :

It comes back to this business of family support programs, Mr.

Minister. Are you aware that the mother, when she is seeking a job and

unable to find one, is simultaneously unable to have the full costs of

child care paid for her child?

The minister indicates yes.

Once she's off welfare and working, she's then entitled to receive the

full costs of child care for one year. But while she's unemployed and

seeking employment, she does not have that benefit, and she is forced

to pay an additional $90 a month out of her welfare payment, if she has

care in a licensed group setting.

I just want to make that

clear, because this is one of the inconsistencies we come across when

we talk about family support programs: we don't treat people as whole

people but as cogs in our own administrative machines. If you're

employable and out of a job, you don't get your child care covered

completely. If you're employable and in a job earning money, you do get

your child care covered completely. You can see that there's a real

disincentive there for the individual concerned.

Coming

back to the teen-age mother, or the woman who has come through your

Maywood Home setting or situation, she is going to receive the full

costs of infant day care, I think we decided yesterday. Or is the

minister ready to confirm an absolute number that she is entitled to

receive for the monthly care of her infant? Are we still talking $400

here? Has the minister made up his mind?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, it's not a question of the minister making up his mind. I

said we were discussing what that amount would be. We're discussing it

with the people involved and people who are experts in this. We would

be announcing the rate probably by the end of this month.

MS. MARZARI : Talking about the support homemakers, you're suggesting for these new moms, these teen-

[ Page 3827 ]

age

moms or these moms out of these "supported" settings, who've made up

their minds to keep their babies and who are the beneficiaries of this

special pool of the Premier's funds — which are basically your funds

out of your ministry and cost shared with the federal government....

The support homemaker program, by my calculations, in family support

services declined by 13 percent between 1982 and 1986. The family

support homemakers actually went from $4.5 million in '82 to $3.9

million in '86. Those are budget dollars; they're not inflated dollars.

They're not dollars adjusted for inflation; in other words, they're not

real dollars. But even in budgetary terms, the total spent went down by

13 percent. I'm sure if you added inflation, which was probably close

to 11 percent over those years, it would read more like 25 percent.

you're saying now, after 25 percent has been cut off family support

homemakers, that you are going to reinvest in homemakers for young

girls, or women who've chosen to keep their babies. What are you going

to do for homemaker services for the rest of the population? I'll even

exclude the seniors, because my colleague from New Westminster talks

about long-term care and about special homemaking support, and it might

come under another program altogether.

I'd like to know

what happens to the family support homemakers over the whole

population, those people who have spent the last ten years since the

program was instituted really supporting families. These are the people

who go in there and scrub the floors, obviously, who are there to talk

when there's a crisis, and who are there to make sure the house is held

together in some reasonable semblance. It's the kind of thing that many

social service agencies used to do in the olden days, and now we find

it being taken care of by support homemakers.

What real

increases are you going to make this year to those homemaker services

outside of special services to the women who decide to keep their

children?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I find it hard to

identify with the tone when the member talks about "these new moms of

yours," as if we invented them or something like that. I don't think we

invented something brand-new here. I think we're trying to deal with a

problem that exists, not something new. We don't treat them as cogs in

a machine. We are putting more people into the ministry so that we can

deal with these people on a more one-to-one basis and give them more

one-to-one counselling. We're putting in these services to get away

from the very thing that she says we're doing — treating them like cogs

in a machine.

As to the budget for family support

homemakers, the budget in '87-88 was $4.09 million. The budget in

'88-89 is up to $4.38 million, and this new initiative in the family

support services adds another $1.2 million, to bring the total to $5.87

million, which is up considerably: the increase is in the area of 36

percent.

I also have to add here that the family support

homemakers are not just for these "new moms" that the member talks

about; they are there for everyone, for any family that gets into

trouble and needs some support and some help — as you say, someone to

come in and give them a little respite or do the floors or just to talk

to somebody. I should also add that a lot of the homemaker services are

in the Ministry of Health. There are a lot in my ministry and there are

a lot in the Ministry of Health.

MS. MARZARI : I only

raised this, Mr. Minister, because at the beginning you said that there

would be no dipping into existing programs to fund these new programs

for the new moms, for the development of this family-strengthening

program which encourages women to make a choice to have their babies

adopted, or to have babies and keep them.

From the numbers

you are giving me here, you are bringing the homemaker services back

from its '82 level at 4.5 to 4.38, which is still a decrease from '82.

But you are saying that one in five of the people availing themselves

of this program will probably be new moms, and you want $1.2 million

out of this program. I call that politically clever, Mr. Minister, and

I have to hand it to you.

I'm sure that the bookkeeping

won't be that tight, and when demands are made on this program nobody's

going to say: "Are you the new mom fresh out of the Premier's family

strengthening program? " Or: "Are you a mom who's been on welfare?" —

or someone who needs special help or is in crisis. You won't

differentiate.

Now I'm assuming that will happen, or will

there be a different set of books kept for this special $20 million,

Mr. Minister? Perhaps you could enlighten me on that, because I find

the whole thing intriguing — that $1.2 million of $4.3 million would be

specially allocated to this new breed of moms that are coming along in

British Columbia.

Mum's the word.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Shall vote 61 pass?

MS. MARZARI : No, no, he's not answering.

Are

you anticipating that one in four of the people in this program asking

for homemaker services are going to be out of this program? Shall I put

it straight forward? No answer. You don't know exactly how many moms

are going to go through this program, but you are anticipating that out

of a total budget of $5.87 million for your homemaker services, $1.2

million will be required for special services to women with infants, or

women who need special services because they've come through a

family-strengthening program. Do you understand? Is that clear?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The reason I didn't answer the first time is that again I find the

innuendo that two sets of books are being kept not even worthy of an

answer. The auditor-general will make sure it doesn't happen, but we

would never even consider such a thing. The money is up front. I've

spelled out exactly where it's going to be: in round numbers, $16

million in my ministry, $4 million in the Ministry of Health. Nothing

is being hidden.

I've said several times now that we don't

know exactly what the demand will be, and I made it very clear that in

the family and support services this service is available to all

families. You're dragging numbers out that I don't know of: one in

four, one in five. I don't know where you get these. We don't have such

numbers. It's available to any family that may be in trouble, whether

they be a brand-new family or one that has been around for a while.

MS. MARZARI :

Those are the numbers that you just finished giving me, Mr. Minister:

that you were going to increase the family homemaker service to 4.3 or

something — now I've lost my piece of paper. Then a special allotment

would be thrown in that would bring this new program of new moms up to

5.8. And I was congratulating you, Mr. Minister. I was saying: "Well

done. Gung ho. Let's get those homemaker services up to $6 million a

year. Excellent." Are you

[ Page 3828 ]

going

to have to tally every homemaker service as to whether or not they come

through the Premier's program, or are you just going to take the money

and do what you were going to do anyway? That's all. I was

complimenting you on your political acumen.

[3:45]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Don't do that.

MS. MARZARI : It confuses you. I understand.

We've

been talking for a while about whether there's new money going into

this program or whether it's old money — in other words, taken away

from existing programs — and I think what we've come up with is that

it's a combination of both. In some areas you could have been spending

the money by increasing the day care budget for the overall population

by a greater degree, but you're going to the infant day care in a

massive way. You're really going to invest this year in infant day

care, and that's fine, because infants do need day care. I would

suggest that the priority is a little off base, since the real needs

and the real demands are being expressed in the three-to-five-year-old

and five-to-twelve-year-old age groups, not necessarily in the infant

age groups. But fine; you want to put $6 million in this year. I hope

you put $6 million in next year, so when we develop these infant spaces

they can stay open. And I'm hoping that we do develop infant spaces;

that it's not just grants to kind neighbours to take care of teenagers'

babies.

A final point which I think has to be raised here

under family support is of course the whole business of GAIN mothers

being told that 15 weeks after their babies are born they will be

considered employable, and that they will be financially penalized for

the fact that they are considered employable. I would ask you to

inquire and ask yourself about the inconsistencies of that policy. With

this new family strengthening program, which is basically a way of

encouraging women not to think about the full range of choices, a way

of encouraging them to have their babies, what you're doing is selling

them a bill of goods. On the one hand you're saying that if you're not

on welfare we'll take care of your kid for 18 months and make sure

you're supported; you might even get a homemaker into your home. If you

are on welfare — and I don't know whether a ward of the government

would be considered a welfare recipient — at the end of 15 weeks you're

penalized $50 on your welfare cheque if you don't have a job.

Can

the minister even begin to reconcile those two messages that he's

shipping out there to the community? The young middle-class girl who

has decided to keep her child, perhaps supported by her mother and

father in her home, goes away to a home for wayward girls, comes back,

has a homemaker perhaps and special incentives and child care. But for

the mother on welfare who has chosen to keep her baby, when that baby

is four months old she's told she is persona non grata on the welfare

rolls. As far as the government is concerned, she is now employable:

"Get the hell out there into the community and start performing in the

market." Where's the incentive for her? Where's the family for her?

Where's the choice for that woman? Does the minister have anything to

say about that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'm pleased to

talk about this, because it is an important part of the whole plan. As

we've said before, we want to remove the stigma from people that they

are unemployable. We have people who are tagged as unemployable, and it

seems to stay there forever. It's a much greater incentive to people

when they realize they're not unemployable. Many people don't want to

be classed as unemployable; they want either to get into the workforce

for the first time or to get back into it.

The 15-week

limit does bring us into line with the policy of unemployment insurance

— whatever that means; whether that's good or bad. But we are bringing

it into line with that. More importantly, I think we're offering

services at the other end to these people who want to get back into the

workforce. Through the infant day care program and extended support, we

are vigorously exploring the possibility of subsidizing the extended

family to look after the child in cases like this.

But

there are many people who don't want to remain categorized as

unemployable. I guess you could argue or debate for a long time over

what the right age of a child is when the mother becomes re-employable.

So we've taken the decision that after 15 weeks the person should be

categorized as employable.

To follow that up, it doesn't

mean that just holus-bolus you're out in the cold, or whatever your

words were: "We're cutting you loose if you don't have a job." We're

going to deal with every case individually and do our very best to get

these people back into the workforce. But if they're on some roll that

says they are unemployable, then they're not even in front of the

person trying to place them in the workforce. They're on some roll

that's hidden away somewhere, so the financial assistance worker

doesn't have them on a list that says they're employable.

don't see anything contradictory about this policy, with its

initiatives to strengthen families. In fact, I think families are

stronger and there is more self-esteem and tighter cohesion when they

are employable; much more so when they find themselves back in the

workforce in some kind of meaningful employment. I don't have any

trouble at all, Madam Member, in defending this policy.

MS. MARZARI :

I'd just like to remind the minister that this side — and certainly I —

could not be more in support of the rhetoric of strengthening family.

In fact, if I were to design a family support system, I would start

with the family and help them individually almost, and try to look at

rules and regulations as best I could and make them bend and work with

the family I was dealing with. I think there are many dedicated

professionals in the field who feel exactly the same way. But you have

to admit that it's not bolstering self-esteem, nor is it bolstering or

strengthening a family, to tell a woman that she's going to be cut off

$50 a month if she doesn't have a job when her child is four months

old. This does not bolster self-esteem; it increases, I would suggest,

the jigsaw puzzle, the piecemeal way that we have of dealing with

social policy and with income support programs.

In closing,

I have mixed messages and feelings. The $20 million slush fund.... I

will continue to call it that because we are dealing with a very

political program which grew out of one of the most bitter and divisive

debates this province has seen in many years: the abortion debates that

we had in the middle of February for a month. This program grew out of

that. We are faced with very high public relations bills and printing

bills from your side of the House for a program which is very dubious

in its inception. Although its rhetoric of strengthening the family

looks good on the surface, we feel that there's a real state of

disinformation and diseducation

[ Page 3829 ]

going

on, and we would much rather see the money that you're spending — this

$20 million — going into ongoing programs, into education and health

programs that inform young girls before the fact of pregnancy rather

than punish them after the fact of pregnancy.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Nonetheless,

the other side of that coin — and I will try to leave this debate on a

positive note — is that you, like us, are politicians. You are a

politician and you have to, if you're going to get your $20 million and

bolster your existing programs.... I have to commend you that you do

have some dollars there that will be going to serve the general public,

and you'll be labeling it whatever you have to label it in order to get

that money into the system. To the extent that you're doing that, I

commend you. But I suggest, Mr. Minister, that by allowing the labels

to be placed as they have been placed on this program you are doing

yourself, and other programs that have been years in the formation and

years in the planning, a disservice. Because in the last analysis, this

$20 million slush fund downgrades the esteem of all of us.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Just a couple of comments on the family support services.

Let

me correct one error made earlier. I said the total budget for this

year would be $5.87 million, and it's actually $5.58 million.

want to add that it's available to all families, whether they happen to

be brand-new moms, as the member keeps talking about, or just a family

experiencing some difficulty. So when she says some of the dollars will

be used for the general public.... Those were your words in closing.

All of the dollars will be used for the general public, Madam Member.

If you know of some dollars that are not going to serve the general

public, then I'd like to hear about it, because that just will not

happen. All of the dollars in these programs outlined will be going to

serve the general public.

I wanted to add one more item

that I overlooked when we were talking about employable versus

unemployable. Clients who are involved in a job search while on

assistance are eligible for full subsidy of the day care. I want to

make that point very clear: while they are on a job search, they are

eligible for subsidy. This is part of the Individual Opportunity Plan.

I just wanted to clear that up before we leave this topic.

want to read one more thing into the record for the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), because he was asking about the

GAIN Action Committee and when it was announced, etc. We managed to dig

out the news release from Friday, October 23, 1987 — a rather lengthy

news release, I might add. It's on page 4: "The Premier said government

has also appointed action teams to begin an immediate review of the

GAIN program of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and all the

programs and operations of the Ministries of Health and Education." So

it is on the record. It was announced.

MR. CASHORE : And when do we get the report?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

As I have said, the cabinet has received the report and the

recommendations, and we have acted on the recommendations. We have

accepted some and rejected others.

MS. EDWARDS : I

would like to probe for a minute with the minister part of his release

which came out yesterday on changes to the GAIN income assistance

program. What's curious about number 5, which talks about the changes

in assessing eligibility for small business applicants.... I did read

the Blues, Mr. Minister, and what it says is this:

"...we do have a program in the ministry, which is probably

one of the most difficult to administer and make decisions on. It is a program

to assist the person on income assistance into his or her own business, to make

them an entrepreneur."

That, of course, goes with everything. Everybody in the province would be an

entrepreneur if we had the happiness of the government, I think.

"It's

a difficult decision to make whether you assist someone to go into

business and leave him on income assistance for two, three or four

months until they get established."

My question, Mr.

Minister — and I think you can answer it in conjunction with another

one — is this. What is this program that already exists and what

changes are there that would be made? If it's simply a change to

introduce a private sector approach to the assessment of business by

ability, we can proceed from there.

I am curious to know:

who are the people already in this program? I am assuming, so that you

may not have to go as far as you might otherwise, that these are people

who are already on assistance programs, that they have said they want

to go into business on their own. In other words, they haven't gone

onto assistance because they wanted to go into business. I am assuming

that these are recipients who have decided that they would go into

business.

Could you describe that program to me somewhat so

that I know what happens now with people who are on GAIN and want to go

into business on their own?

[4:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

We do have a program in the ministry now, as I said yesterday. It is

usually difficult for these people who are on assistance and who, for

one reason or another, are having difficulty finding employment —

usually can't find employment — or who have just decided they'd

rather be in business for themselves than remain on income assistance

or go and find a job. I say it's difficult because, as you can imagine,

someone on income assistance does not have much in the way of assets

for starting up a business. So it usually involves some sort of repair

business where the investment is minimal. The object of the program was

to assess all of these opportunities and counsel the people, have them

set up a sound business plan and perhaps keep them on income assistance

for a few months until the business started earning enough money so

that they could sustain themselves.

I'll be the first to

admit, I did kind of fumble through it yesterday, because it's a tough

one to explain, or as I said, to get our minds around. That's what we

are endeavouring to do, to see if we can make this program more

workable, because under its present conditions, it doesn't seem to be

very workable. We're having very little, if any, success with it. We

think the basis of a good idea is there, so we want to try to make it

work.

So when we say we've a private sector approach to the

assessment of business viability, it's buzzwords to say that we want to

do a couple of things: we want to make sure that the

[ Page 3830 ]

business

has as much chance as possible to succeed; and secondly, we must be

careful that we're not competing with the guy down the road who's in

the same business, and using his tax dollars to help put him out of

business — him or her. It's one that we've had trouble wrestling with,

and we intend to address it in the near future to see if we can't

reshape it and make the thing work. Again, I know that sounds

convoluted, but the program has been in existence for some time and up

to now has had limited success.

MS. EDWARDS : I'm

intrigued. I'm assuming, in other words, that anyone who puts forward a

good case to his or her caseworker might be accepted to continue on

assistance while they proceed into a business. I might say that this

does fill a void that might otherwise be there for people who cannot do

that. If they are on unemployment insurance benefits, for example, they

cannot go into business and have that kind of help. So I am assuming

that that is one of the holes between the slats that may be filled.

But

I'm curious. You're talking about having a good business plan; you're

having someone assess. You're talking in as general terms as possible,

I would gather, about a private sector approach to the assessment of

business viability, and I'm not sure how you are proposing to do this.

For example, who is going to do the assessment of the business that is

there? What kind of resources are available for the person who wants to

go into business?

I ask that because there are a number of

public institutions that provide that kind of skill; I don't know very

many private businesses that in fact will help — without a fairly hefty

charge — to put together business plans and so on. I know a number of

non-profit organizations and public institutions that do that kind of

thing.

So I'm asking: who is going to assess this kind of

thing? What kinds of criteria are you going to use to decide whether

there's going to be a two-month option or a three-year span of time

during which you may assist this person? You may know that when

measurements are made on small business, how long a business survives

is often measured by whether it's still there three years later. I'm

asking about the criteria for that as well, and I think I'll stop there

for a bit, Mr. Minister; I have more questions that I'll follow with.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'll endeavour to go into it in more detail and shed as much light on

it as I can for the member. First of all, there is a budget for small

business counselling and training, to provide counselling and training

support to, first, income assistance recipients to explore viable small

business opportunities — which we have gone into — and second, small

business owner-operators who are not able to generate enough business

income to meet basic needs, but who operate a potentially viable

business.

What we are doing currently is developing a

policy paper to assist income assistance recipients who want to start a

business and, as I said, small proprietors not able to make enough to

support themselves and their dependents. If the small business policy

paper is approved, funds will be required to pay for small business

counsellors to assess businesses for viability.

So we will

assist a person to put a business plan together. Management training to

small business owner-operators who require it to turn their business

into a viable, profitable operation.... So the budget that we set aside

for this will be to help them set up a business plan and then, through

small business owner-operators, to try to assess their plan as to

whether it's viable.

The program is designed to assist

income assistance recipients to seek self-employment or entrepreneurial

initiatives if that is their desire and, as I said, to prevent the

small business operator, who has a business going but can't quite make

it.... Maybe with a little bit of help it can become viable.

want to add one other thing here that I wasn't clear on myself

yesterday. Owners or initiators of viable businesses would receive

income assistance support for a period not to exceed 12 months, after

which they are either successful or must divest themselves of the

business to be eligible for basic income assistance. Okay? That's the

program we're talking about. We are going to attempt to make it more

successful than it has been in the past.

MS. EDWARDS :

I have taken this, as I mentioned before, Mr. Minister, from a release

that you put out. I'm not sure what the budget is for this. Besides not

knowing how much the budget is, I'm curious to know whether you

perceive this as a duplication of activities of other entities in the

community, or whether this is going to be different in some way than

chamber of commerce advice centres and college small business advice

centres and the FBDB — and on and on it goes. Even cities have economic

development centres where they help people make business plans and so

on.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : As we look into this program,

we may very well contract with outside agencies — maybe chambers of

commerce — to administer this program for us. We may very well do that;

we haven't made that decision yet. The recommended budget for this year

for the program is $150,000.

The other thing I want to point out is that the way it's set up now, the

applicant would first, though, come to the Ministry of Social Services. This

is a program strictly for those on income assistance. We're not overlapping

with programs other agencies or levels of government have. This is strictly

for income assistance recipients. We are going to make that decision

as to exactly how we will deliver the program, and you could be absolutely right:

we might use chambers of commerce to deliver this program. That decision hasn't

been made yet.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, I find it interesting that when one asks whether you are

duplicating services done by someone else.... To say it's contracted

out doesn't make it disappear. It's still in your ministry; you are

doing the paying. I'm not sure why you would do that, but I will leave

that for a moment, because I've only a minute of your time left that

I'm going to take. I don't know whether this can be brief, but I did

want to move on to No. 10, which says: "Funding to community agencies

to assist in finding employment for income assistance recipients." I

don't what you mean by that. What kind of community agencies? Maybe you

can tell how this fits into the package — and please include how it

does this in rural communities.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, on the former one, for the entrepreneurial program, we

have no intention of making it disappear; I didn't want to leave that

impression. But we may just deliver the program through an agency other

than ourselves.

[ Page 3831 ]

point 10, let me come back to that. Let me take that as notice and dig

up the background on it, and I'll answer just as quickly as possible.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that I wish to address has to do with

the deinstitutionalization of facilities in the province. We have seen

some information come from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing

indicating some new initiatives with regard to monitoring of mentally

handicapped people who are being placed in the community.

During

the estimates last year, I raised this issue and expressed a great deal

of concern about what happens to these people after they've been in the

community for some time and about the need that there be adequate

monitoring to make sure that those residential care facilities are up

to an appropriate standard, and that they do not lose out because of

economies of scale on such things as bus trips to a swimming pool, a

visit to the aquarium, or those other things that add to quality of

life, which is so important in the lives of those people. In the

information circular that came out a few weeks ago I was pleased to see

that those initiatives were being taken, and I will be following very

closely to see how it turns out.

I would also like,

however, to look at this issue from another perspective, and that is

the perspective of ex-mental patients going out into the community as a

result of the highly publicized process that we've been hearing so much

about — people going from Riverview Hospital. I know the minister might

ask: "Well, why would the member be asking about that, because that is

a Health issue?" I understand that point.

The point I want

to make is this. As I'm sure the minister and his deputy are aware,

people placed in the community unmonitored and where standards are not

maintained are in danger of falling between the gaps and disappearing

from service, often with quite tragic results. Some of these people

disappear off the face of the earth. While I recognize the monitoring

program is being put in place with regard to mentally handicapped

people, I see no such initiative with regard to ex-mental patients.

is at this point that the Ministry of Social Services and Housing

becomes involved. We have, in fact, in the deinstitutionalization of

the mentally ill, a process of a transfer of cost from Health to Social

Services and Housing. This has been the case for quite some time. Take

a person who is on income assistance, is a resident of Riverview

Hospital, and his condition becomes stabilized. The treatment is such

that they get on the right medication, and then they go back into the

community, sometimes as persons on HPIA, but often as persons who are

not eligible for that but who nevertheless depend on the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing for their support.

[4:15]

The

question is: what can we do together to address the needs of these

people, too many of whom are falling between the gaps and ending up as

part of the flotsam and jetsam of our society, and quite unnecessarily

so? I noticed that persons from the Coast Foundation were introduced in

the House today. The Coast Foundation is one of a number of agencies —

not for-profit but citizen agencies — which are very capable of helping

to deliver the kind of service that will ensure that these people are

less likely to fall between the gaps, and indeed less likely to be

brought back to hospital and be a cost on the Health budget. So I'm

saying that there is an initiative that can be taken through the

Ministry of Social Services that will save money in Health; but it will

be big dollars in Health saved by little dollars in Social Services and

Housing. You are going to be hearing a lot more from me with regard to

the win-win that we can have in society when we look at the tremendous

resources of organizations such as the Coast Foundation, the Mental

Patients' Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the

Friends of Schizophrenics Society and others who are very well equipped

to address this.

One of the beautiful things about it is

that often it is an ex-mental patient who comes into that drop-in

centre and sits down beside another ex-mental patient and says: "You

know, I think it's time that you and I went and visited your therapist

at the community care team because maybe you need to get your

medication adjusted." It is often just by that kind of knowledgeable

support that comes at the right time that we're able to save a lot of

dollars and also do a more socially responsible thing. We have about

20,000 ex-mental patients living in the community, and — I may have to

check my figures on this — perhaps somewhere around 1,000 of them are

living in specialized facilities. So the vast majority of ex-mental

patients in the community are living at home. What they need is a

living room in the community where they can drop in, and find people

who understand and who will be gentle and helpful with them. It's often

a cold world out there for people in these circumstances, and if there

is that inviting place when they go out the door after they get up in

the morning.... If their situation is starting to break down, they're

more likely to wander in there than into, say, the back alleys of the

downtown east side. So I would hope we see a new initiative to support

such a cost-effective approach.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The member makes some good points — no argument about that. There is

always the danger of these people falling between the stools and not

being under the supervision of anyone. He also noted that Riverview

falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, which is

absolutely true. But that doesn't mean to say that we can abrogate our

responsibilities and ignore them. To that end, my ministry will develop

a small unit for about 20 clients with behavioural problems — some of

these fit into that category — and people who are not yet ready for

community placement.

The member mentioned quality control,

and we are very cognizant of the need for quality control in the group

homes that we fund. Professional support services will now be available

to parents and day program operators, as well as residential

caregivers, to provide assistance in service planning and effective

care of the mentally handicapped. A provincial review team, community

advisory committees and an accreditation system which is now being

developed will ensure that ministry standards for quality care for the

mentally handicapped are monitored and maintained in both non-profit

and proprietary resources. So we are very keenly aware of the need for

monitoring and quality control, and will ensure that, whether it's for

a non-profit or a proprietary centre, quality control is maintained.

should take another opportunity just to say, though, that the progress

being made by the vast majority of these people who move out of

institutions is absolutely incredible. We are truly leading the way in

this field — certainly in North America, probably in the western world

— of deinstitutionalizing people and getting them out of these so-called

[ Page 3832 ]

warehouses

and into the community. I know I've said it in this House before, but

it bears repeating that the progress made by these people is absolutely

incredible. So I would recommend to every member in the House: if you

have not done so, take the time sometime to visit a group home in your

community or area, make yourself acquainted and just see what has

happened to some of these people.

MS. A. HAGEN : I

want to change the focus from people living in the community and

needing special community support to people living in the community,

very often with considerable independence, but for whom this ministry

has a particular responsibility in relation to their housing. I want to

talk for just a few minutes about seniors' housing and about two

programs that exist within the ministry in respect to seniors' housing,

and one program that I want to ask the minister's consideration of.

This

government, I think, has always taken a very strong position that

housing is a marketplace item, that developers and housing people

should in fact create the shelter that people need. But during its

1975-79 term of office it recognized the need for some relief from high

rents. In that period it introduced a program called SAFER — Shelter

Aid for Elderly Renters. That program has now got a ten-year history,

but the last five years of its history have been, I can only think,

calculated to phase out the program. Unlike all other programs of

financial aid to older people, the SAFER program has not had any

indexing of its ceiling rents. The last time the rents for SAFER were

increased was in 1982, and they have remained fixed at $330 a month as

the maximum amount for which some subsidy is paid — $330 for a single

person and $365 a month for a couple. In fact, the formula introduced

was that up to those ceilings the government would pay 75 percent of

rents that exceeded 30 percent of income. It's a pretty basic kind of

formula that the ministry uses in its own social housing.

in 1982 we had the last increase in rents, and they are fixed at $330

for a single person and $365 for a couple. What we find when we look at

the budgets for SAFER is that there is a steady decrease in the dollars

available for this program and in the number of clients. One might

think that it was a nice happy arrangement and that seniors' incomes

were in good shape and that they didn't need this kind of protection;

that the program was something that was being phased out for reasons

not related to their income. But if we look at the facts, we find that

a very different scenario emerges.

If we take the five

years since SAFER was indexed — since there was any adjustment in the

ceiling — at a most conservative level, let's say 3 percent a year, the

ceiling for a single rental unit today should be $395, not $330. That's

a very conservative projection. Most rents go up 4 or 5 percent a year.

In fact, if we look at the average rent in greater Vancouver, on which

the ministry bases its eligibility criteria for social housing, the

average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $475 a month. So I'm taking

a very conservative figure as a basis for my projections.

As a result of there being no indexing, just in this last five years we've

seen a decrease of over 20 percent in the number of residents who are eligible

for any SAFER at all. We know that almost all of the nearly 9,000 recipients

for '86-87, which is the last year for which I have figures, will see their

SAFER supplement going down each year. If we look at the very first year in

which SAFER was available, 1977, the average amount that people got was $813.

If we look at 1987-87, the average amount was $789. I don't have to tell

the minister.... In that period of time I've lost track of how much

the cost of living and how much rents have gone up, but I would estimate that

we're looking at something pretty close to 100 percent.

The

result, Mr. Chairman, is that many seniors are paying half their

disposable income in rent. I've done a number of calculations which

would suggest to me that the range is anywhere from about 60 or 65

percent of their income, in what I hope is an uncommon situation, to a

very common 40 to 45 percent. I'm talking about people with modest

incomes, some 160,000 of our population — we know that from the number

who are on guaranteed income supplement — and about what I know are

realistic rents, rents under $400 a month. Not only are they hard to

find in the big cities and the lower Island, but from talking to

friends who live in Prince George, Prince Rupert, Kamloops or

Cranbrook, they are hard to find there as well.

Mr. Minister, I want to ask two questions of you. First of all, is it the intent

of the ministry to phase out SAFER by attrition, by not increasing the ceilings

of rent covered under the SAFER program? And this is the other side of the coin:

is the ministry giving any consideration to looking at this program and beginning

a process of indexing the rents to the reasonable level that people are required

to pay?

ask that last question knowing that it's not included, quite obviously,

in this year's budget — or it doesn't appear to be included in this

year's budget. But given the scenarios proposed by the Ministry of

Health, where there are going to be additional user fees for long-term

care facilities and for home support, which are going to add to the

financial burdens seniors in the community have, certainly this

ministry needs to be all the more cognizant of how its policies will

add to the burden of seniors by virtue of not keeping pace with the

rising rents that have occurred and the phasing down of the dollars

available to those people still on SAFER and the phasing out of

anywhere from 400 to 700 or 800 people a year from the program, a

gradual attrition as a result of this failure to alter the ceilings.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I thank the member for her questions — well thought out and well

presented. We have no intention at this time of phasing out the SAFER

program. I want to make that clear up front. That is not our intent. I

too have become aware of the gradual erosion of the budget: in 1987-88

it was $7.4 million, and in 1988-89 it's $6.7 million. So a few weeks

ago I asked for a review of the SAFER program. We want to take a look

at all aspects of it. I might add, I asked that the review include

those elderly renters in mobile homes, which is something that's not

included now — and I've had some correspondence on it. With that in

mind, I have asked for a complete look at the program so we can see

where it has been, where it is and where we're going with it. That's

really about all I can tell you. It won't take us very long to do this,

so within the next short while we should have some answers for you as

to where we're going with the SAFER program.

MS. A. HAGEN : Thank you for that encouraging answer, Mr. Minister.

Could

I ask you, then, to advise us at the time that the report from your

review is tabled and it does bear out what I have suggested — and what

you also seem to indicate is a

[ Page 3833 ]

perspective

that you've come to recognize — whether there would or could be some

adjustments in the SAFER program for this year. The applications are

usually requested of those eligible about now or in early May, and the

program runs from July 1 to June 30. Is there a possibility that there

might be an adjustment for those hard-done-by older people who are

paying such a significant portion of their rent in this current fiscal

year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In answer to the member's

question, I will be as succinct as I can be. The report will come back

to me, and I will have to take a look at it. It would be virtually

impossible — not impossible, but virtually impossible — to increase

this year, because it's not budgeted for and we don't have it in the

budget. But that is always subject to what is found in the report as

well. If there are shortfalls that are dramatic, let's say, that really

need to be addressed, then perhaps I would have to take another look at

that statement that I made that there's no money in this year's budget

— and there isn't. But I would leave it at that. I don't know what the

report is going to tell me yet, so I won't try to prejudge what it's

going to say. There's always a possibility that programs can be

adjusted mid-year, but it's not likely, so I don't want to hold out any

false hopes.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN :

I would encourage the minister to do whatever he can in respect to

this. I think it's going to be a very difficult year for seniors

because of other fees. If there is any possibility, I would urge him to

give a high priority to this particular item. It's one that I'm

frequently made aware of. And I really worry when I find older people

who are not eating because of rent — and I say that in all seriousness;

there are circumstances where that indeed is the case. As we all know,

it's not easy for older persons to decide to try to find cheaper rent

and move from the community in which they live and move all their

belongings. Very often that rent has escalated over a period of time in

their place of residence. And ageing in place is a part of good health,

very often, and it's something I think we need to encourage.

Secondly,

I want to look very briefly at the matter of nonprofit social housing.

The number of units being built this year is significantly down: 605

units for independent living and 151 beds for intermediate care. I want

to ask the minister, in terms of his reporting on housing units, to

make a practice in future of separating out those that are for

independent living and those that are for intermediate care. I think

it's a service to the community just to have an awareness of each of

those kinds of housing, because they are quite different in their

nature. In fact, when I said to somebody that the totals of housing

units that you hear actually include the independent care beds, they

expressed great surprise. I think it's because they think of the

intermediate-care beds as lying more in the health sector than in the

community living sector. So I would encourage the minister to consider

that, given the increase in the number of elderly people — particularly

the number of elderly women — who are a part of the demographics of our

older population. I wonder if the minister can give us some reasons why

the number of housing units being built for seniors has declined, and

give us some future projections for that kind of housing.

Older

women in our society still have very much less in the way of income

than older men, and women who are single through their lives or who are

widowed certainly find that the rents they have to deal with are a

major problem. I recognize that the minister supports a mix of market

and social housing, but we still only have 5,000 units of social

housing for older people in this province, with 360,000 to 375,000

seniors in the province. It is a very small number, when one considers

the size of that population. When I look at my community, for example,

even in the 65-to-75 age range, there are twice as many women as men.

Was a staggering imbalance, particularly for women who are in the

70-to-85 age range. The majority of those women are on very basic

incomes — usually the maximum GIS and GAIN. Can the minister give us

some rationale for the very slow progress we're making in providing a

larger complement of subsidized or non-profit housing for seniors that

will guarantee their rents at 30 percent?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I just want to clear up one number that that member mentioned. This

year we are building 1,886 units of social housing. The number of

people accommodated breaks down to 756 seniors, 2,595 people in family

units and 110 disabled people, but the total of units is 1,886.

There

has been a dramatic decrease in the amount for seniors. I don't know if

I can explain it or not, but what we do under this program is respond

to the needs of the communities when we go out to tender, and we have

to respond to what comes forward from the communities and what the

needs are. Most of the units in this last year were committed to the

lower mainland and greater Victoria, because that's where the needs are.

are not building social housing in any area where there is a vacancy

rate beyond about 3 percent. In some of the areas in the province we

have vacancy rates as high as 40 percent, and in greater Victoria, for

example, we have a vacancy rate that's practically zero. So the social

housing is being concentrated in the lower mainland and in greater

Victoria. But I understand what the member is saying, and we are very

cognizant of it and of the need for housing for seniors and especially

for women.

We were in a three-year agreement with the

federal government. We have now gone into year four on it - we have

renewed the agreement for a fourth year. It is one-third sharing:

two-thirds by the federal and one-third by us. The program is ongoing.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Minister, again it sounds as if there's an awareness of need. I'm

not quite sure from what you said of how that need is determined

whether it's determined by some projections that are done at a ministry

level or whether it's determined by the projects that are proposed,

which it seems to me might be a rather random way to establish the

need. I think I heard the minister say that there is a need for more

social housing for older people, and some of that housing needs to be

particularly targeted for the single older person and for women. If you

are able to comment on how you intend to respond to that in this fourth

year — whether there will be some increase in that housing — I'd

appreciate that.

I'm going to raise one other issue,

because time is going on. I'll simply look for some brief response in

terms of intent. There's a whole range of alternative housing — new

housing models — that is developing for older people. We use the terms

sheltered housing, congregate housing, Abbeyfield

[ Page 3834 ]

housing,

things of that nature. It seems to me that there's a need for

leadership and for your ministry and the Ministry of Health to look at

ways in which they can contribute to the development of such housing. I

believe that there's a market for it and a good deal of it can develop

within the marketplace, but I also believe that there's a place for

supported housing or social housing, using some of these models. To

date, there has been no leadership on the part of your ministry that

I'm aware of, and I'd like you to comment about whether you have in

fact looked at this area, and whether you have some intent to work with

non-profit groups in the development of some of these alternatives

which do provide us with some of that range. The very fact that

intermediate housing belongs within your housing responsibilities says

that betwixt intermediate and independent-living housing there needs to

be some leadership there.

MR. BLENCOE : On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, this is really important stuff, and there seem to

be a number of caucus meetings happening across the other side. I'm

wondering if perhaps you could say something.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I do thank the second member for Victoria for trying to assist, but I

would like to point out that when we have visitors on this side of the

House — who are always welcome — they must show the due decorum. Oh, I

see he's gone now. It's always nice to see the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) come over and visit. You're welcome at

any time.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I was under the impression that it was the people to the left of me who were causing the problem.

I thank

the member for her questions. When you're talking about how we set the

priorities for what will be built, the British Columbia Housing

Management Commission generally sets the priorities and tries to

respond to the needs. This year it was quite obvious that the need was

more for family units than for seniors' units. But the point of the

need for seniors' housing is well made, and I appreciate it coming from

the member.

We have had numerous consultations with the

private sector regarding the type of project that you speak of where

retired people move. In fact, I opened one on the Saanich Peninsula a

few months ago — I forget the name of it; an excellent project — and

I'm going to open another one up-Island in the Duncan area in the next

few weeks. In the consultations we have had with them, it was

determined that, for that type of housing, we would rather have the

market respond to what is needed. So far the market seems to be

responding adequately, and if there is a greater demand for that type

of housing for seniors not on income assistance or not in subsidized

housing, I'm sure the marketplace will respond accordingly.

[4:45]

MR. BLENCOE :

I just have a couple of things I want to canvass with the minister. One

pertains to the SAFER program, which I believe has not been fully

canvassed, though a number of things have been said already.

MR. MOWAT : The member didn't do a good job.

MR. BLENCOE : Those are your words, Mr. Member, not mine.

also wish to canvass the housing statistics for the capital region in

terms of social housing and the allocations — so the staff can prepare,

I'll let them know exactly what is coming — that we have had in the

last few years. I believe the minister and I have already had some

words about this through the newspapers, but maybe we can have some....

AN HON. MEMBER : More words?

MR. BLENCOE :

No, hopefully we can have some light shed on the situation that could

see this region acquire some more units, because we are.... I don't

like to use the word "crisis"; it's overused. But we are in a tight

market in the Victoria area.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

The new governor for Vancouver Island wishes to take the floor. Perhaps

he would tell me how he's spending his money and I'd kindly sit down.

HON. S. HAGEN : In time.

MR. BLENCOE : You've had six months.

The

SAFER program is a good program. I note that the minister talks about

the market response, and wishes the market would respond more, I

presume. But in my estimation — and I've already said this — here's one

program that if you could really beef it up a little bit, unfreeze the

freeze.... The levels have been frozen since '82 — and I'll give you

some stats in terms of what has happened in the last few years. Here's

a chance for you to meet your objective in terms of the marketplace and

allow seniors to utilize private sector marketing by increasing the

SAFER program and the support that's gained through SAFER.

Unfortunately, you seem to want it both ways. You want the market to

respond, but seniors with limited incomes cannot respond to the private

sector because those rents are far too high. On the other end, I know

the minister is trying to do some things in senior housing, and I thank

him for my region; but it's obviously not enough. Here's a chan