1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5973 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On the amendment to vote 117: minister's office –– 5973

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment to vote 117

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5973

Ms. Brown

Mr. King

Mr. Levi

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

On vote 118: direct community services and administrative support ––

Mr. Levi

Mr. Hall

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. KEMPF: This morning I'd like to introduce to the

House two gentlemen I am very proud to have in the gallery. They are

Mayor Jim Togyi and Alderman Al Jarvis from Fort St. James. I'd like

the House to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: In the

precincts today, and hopefully in the House a little later on this

morning, will be Bryson Stone, the publisher of the Prince George Citizen newspaper. I'd ask all hon. members to give him a nice Victoria welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 117: minister's office, $233,936.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I think if there are no more speakers for the government,

we are prepared to let the vote go now, as the absence of the minister

in the beginning illustrates how valuable that vote is.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 17

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 117.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, yesterday in responding to some questions raised

by me the Minister of Human Resources referred to one of the letters which I

read into the records as.... She used a phrase which, though it may be parliamentary,

is not the kind of language I use, so I'm not going to repeat her statement.

But I would like to read that letter into the record now. The letter was dated

April 21, and it has to do with the contracting out of foster-care treatment

for children with special needs. It says:

"Dear Mrs. Brown:

"We

wish to bring to your attention volume 2, family and children's

services,

section 14(2), specialized resources — special-care homes.

This change made by the present government states that its objective is

to arrange for specialized care in a family setting on an individual

basis for severely handicapped or disturbed children who are in the

care of the superintendent of child welfare.

"We

have been foster parents of a girl who is now 14 years old. She has

been in our home for five years. She is retarded as well as multiply

handicapped. This affects the use of her limbs, speech, etc. Our status

is now being changed from foster parents to 'independent contractors.'

"We

are negotiating a special-care home individual agreement, which is a

legal contract with the government of B.C. through MHR. It is not being

pointed out to foster parents that all income is now taxable and that

they should seek a tax consultant. Once this contract is signed, the

foster parents' home would be subject to capital gains tax if the

property is sold. At this time I am sure that neither the government

nor the foster parents have knowledge of all the tax implications

involved in this procedure. It will be the foster parents who will

suffer, however, from any repercussions from these tax implications.

"The

end result will be that the special-care children will be the victims

of this new legislation. It now puts foster parents as employers of

each person needed to be involved in caring for the child. This means

homemakers, child-care workers, special services, etc. We must now pay

each individual's income tax, UIC, Canada Pension and keep all receipts

for food, household expenses, car mileage, etc.

"In

contracting for our particular child, after completing the

fee-for-service payment, payment for skill is $750 per month. Our child

does not walk, uses only one hand, is completely dependent on us for

all physical needs, transportation, therapy and communication with

others. The Canada Employment Act states that a live-in housekeeper,

which is considerably less work than we are doing, is to receive a

minimum wage of approximately $955.67 per month with benefits. When

becoming a foster parent, no one stated that we would be required to

handle bookkeeping, understand tax laws, be able to hire staff, pay all

of their benefits, etc. Then, if there may be any time left over,

hopefully that should be spent taking care of the child. I would much

appreciate your looking into this matter."

When I raised

this issue yesterday, the minister referred to it again in a phrase

which I do not use and which I will not repeat, even though it may be

parliamentary. The second issue which the minister raised which I would

like to read into the record has to do with the GAIN, which I said has

not been increased since 1976:

[ Page 5974 ]

"Dear Mrs. Brown:

" My wife and I are old-age pensioners. I was born in 1905 and my wife in 1914. In the Colonist

some time ago was an

article headed 'Elderly Needy Incomes Rising.'

Quoting from the article: 'The boost in guaranteed available income for

need (GAIN) was announced by Human Resources minister Grace McCarthy,

but NDP welfare critic Rosemary Brown condemned the increase as being

"too little, too late."

"We received the

following pension in 1979. For myself, old-age pension of $273.22,

Canada Pension of $122.63, and GAIN of $21.83. My wife's old-age

pension, $273.22, Canada Pension of $45.22, giving us a total of

$757.95. At the end of December, my Canada Pension was increased by

$11.04 and my wife's Canada Pension by $4.07. The total increases

including old-age pension came to $26.55. Therefore, in April, the

old-age pension was again reduced to both of us, and the GAIN was

reduced to $13.83 for both of us, leaving us in April 1980 with pension

totals of $15.76 less than we had in March of 1980.

"This

month, in view of the aforementioned newspaper

article — 'Pensioners

getting both supplement and basic old-age pension will receive $714.23'

— we expected to receive an increase of $10.75. However, our March

old-age pension was $322.61 for me and $324.36 for her, giving us an

actual increase of $1.75. When we received our GAIN cheque on April 23,

we found that it had been reduced now to $4.83. Therefore this month we

received $18 less in our total pension than previous months before the

announcement of incomes rising. Instead of increasing to offset the

rising cost of living, thanks to the present provincial government our

pension is decreasing.

"When we purchased our home in 1974 the taxes were $190.

In 1975 they went up to $314.60; in 1976 to $346.87; in 1978 to $381.39; in

1979 to $704.21."

During that same period of time his GAIN pension was reduced from $21.83 to

$4.83. He goes on, Mr. Chairman:

"I hate to think what the taxes will be this month." He talks about having to pay a $362.47 mortgage, etc.

am merely reading these letters to set the record straight because in

responding to the issue when I raised it yesterday the minister denied

both statements: the one that GAIN had not been increased since 1976

and in fact was decreasing to some people as their old-age pension

increased; and the other one from the foster parent who now is an

independent contractor whose services have been contracted by the

government.

The final thing she said was the statement about

living in the motel. I just want to set the record straight. I was not

criticizing the Cariboo Motel. I do not think that a motel — any motel,

even the most luxurious — is anywhere to be raising children. It would

not be necessary for the ministry to be paying $1,200 a month or more

to keep families in a motel if there were an increase in the shelter

portion of the income assistance. That was the point I was trying to

make: the shelter portion of the income assistance is inadequate. I

bears no relationship to real rents. That should be increased rather

than money being spent to keep families in motels.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to respond to those two or three points that have

been raised by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. The member talked about

the old-age security and a letter that she received from senior

citizens. Let me just try to clarify it for the member.

Everyone gets the OAS regardless of income. It's very confusing, not just

for the old-age pensioners but for those who aren't on old-age pension,

to understand the kind of confusion between these three possible sources of

income for the senior citizen. It really doesn't add anything to the clarity

of the matter to have such a statement made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Everyone in that age group gets OAS regardless of income.

The GIS is based on an income test. It's reassessed once a year by the

federal government, reported to the provincial government, and every quarter

it is indexed. That the member would know. The provincial payment is based

on the GIS computer tape given to us by the federal administration. The provincial

government pays on an annual basis according to the information given by the

federal government. It is at that point that the provincial guarantee is made

up. In other words, it's a provincial guarantee to bring it to a certain

level.

that amount is reduced, it's reduced because the recipient of the

GIS-OAS has had other income which reduces the provincial guarantee. It

is not a pension by the provincial government; it is a provincial

guarantee that brings them up to a level. The fact that the province

brings them up to that guaranteed level is what the member is trying to

confuse in the minds of the senior citizens.

The average percentage growth in each calendar year, using April

1976 as a base — only 1976 and 1981 are part years, so I think this is

a fairly good comparison — exceeds the economic indicators which we all

compare across the country. In the year 1976 the comparison of growth

between the singles — I'm going on singles here, not couples — was 1.18

percent compared with the CPI of 2.14 percent. I can go down all of the

years, but just to save the time of the House.... The comparison in

1977, if you want, was 6.41 percent to 8.4 percent; 1978, 14.68 percent

compared to 16.42 percent; 1979, 31.32 percent compared to 25.40 per

cent; 1980, 49.5 compared to 37.14 percent; and 1981, 67.11 compared to

50.08 percent.

Could I just also say that I think the

actual revenue received from the Department of Indian Affairs, which

wasn't answered in my closing remarks yesterday.... I should have

answered the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

She said: "What was the amount of revenue received from the

Department of Indian Affairs in 1979-80 for children?" This was the

last complete year, and it was $7,846,600.20. I think the member will

understand that we act on behalf of the federal government, They

purchase services from the provincial government when it comes to the

protection of children, and that was the amount.

On this business of special-care homes, please

let me reiterate what I said yesterday in respect to the taxation. The

member has said that embodied in the letter was a concern that the

person who owned that home where they have a handicapped child.... It

is called a special-care home, of which we have some 240 in the

province as compared to foster-care homes of over 8,000. But of the 240

special-care homes which are under contract to the ministry, there is

an accountability for special services. We've had a lot of debate on

the floor of the House about the retarded children or retarded adults

being moved out of institutions and put in special-care homes. This is

a special-care home that would qualify. Now on the one hand you want us

to depopulate institutions; on the other hand, you're critical of a

contracting

[ Page 5975 ]

agreement,

if you like, that we have. We have a lot of accountability with our

staff in institutions. We have a lot of accountability in terms of

Woodlands, Glendale and Tranquille. When we move a child into a

separate setting, as in this case that you have just brought to the

floor of the House by reading that letter, it would seem to me that we

would want the same accountability. You can't have it both ways. You

can't say depopulate institutions and then not have the same kind of

accountability in the special-care homes that we expect from our very

dedicated staff. We want that kind of accountability.

have some 8,000 foster children in 4,500 foster homes, but we have 240

special-care homes. The special-care home or group-home parents would

be subject to the same capital gains tax as any other citizens. If they

have any doubt on that, all they need to do is contact their local tax

office. Let me read into the record the letter which I referred to

yesterday, because I thought the member for Burnaby Edmonds would

understand when I gave that assurance to her for any mail that she

might get. The assurance was given by B.K. Currie, the chief of

inquiries and office examination

section in the taxation division of

Revenue Canada. This is from the Vancouver office. It is addressed to

our comptroller, Mr. Martin Cook, who is on the floor of the House

assisting us today. It says:

"Re: foster care and other similar programs.

"This

is further to our recent telephone conversation concerning the

taxability of payments shared by your ministry and our Department of

National Health and Welfare. We have received a policy directive from

our head office and subsequent head office rulings to clarify some

areas of concern on this matter.

"Payments

made out of provincial plans, subsidized by the Canada Assistance Plan,

to foster parents for children in their care are not to be included in

the recipients' income by virtue of subparagraph 81(l)(2) of the Income

Tax Act. These payments include fees for services, retainer fees,

clothing grants, extraordinary transportation money and basic

maintenance payments. In this connection, the term foster parent

includes a group home, which can be a fairly large operation receiving

sizeable amounts for fostering children."

Could

I repeat that? They "are not to be included in the recipients' income"

to be taxable. I can read the rest of the letter if you like.

"In

addition, there are other types of social assistance payments

subsidized by Health and Welfare through CAP which meet the requirement

of subparagraph 81(l)(2), such as those to individuals who are caring

for the mentally disturbed in private homes. provided the patient has

been discharged from the hospital and no longer requires

institutionalized care. The portion of the fees paid to such

individuals by a province or agency would also be exempt.

"According to information I have available to me, the following

programs are sharable under CAP, thus making them ineligible for taxation:

(1) Foster-care and child-in-care special-care homes — the exception to this would

be private boarding schools..."

You haven't mentioned private boarding

schools, and I don't think you're making a case for that.

"...

(2) Group homes and therapeutic homes;

(3) Residential care — retarded and adult. The

onus will be on the taxpayers to confirm that their payments are exempt from

taxation."

I think that's a fair statement.

"Please

advise me if there are any other programs that would qualify for this

special treatment. I realize normal welfare — GAIN — also applies. If

you have any questions or concerns of the above policy, please feel

free to call me."

Incidentally, I'm sending

a copy to our Vancouver and Penticton district offices. This is from

Victoria. I understand that this document was sent to the foster

parents association, and the information was given to all of those who

fall under that particular area of concern expressed by the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Since the minister has

indicated that the comptroller is here, first of all I would ask if she

would let me have a copy of that letter, because I got lost in all

those brackets. The specific questions raised by this particular foster

parent is about being responsible for the unemployment insurance

payments, income tax, Canada Pension and those other kinds of payments

accrued by the homemaker or the child-care worker working for her. Is

that also exempt? Also, I didn't get a clear answer about the capital

gains tax, so since the letter asked if we had any further questions, I

would appreciate receiving that.

There is no point in

belabouring the GAIN question, so I'm going to put it as simply as I

understand it. In 1976 the amount of money which a senior could receive

under GAIN was $38.88. That figure has not changed since that date;

1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 — it's still $38.88. That figure is still

the same. In fact what happens is that nobody receives the full amount

because, as the minister herself admitted, as the income goes up, the

contribution that the provincial government makes goes down. That's

precisely what this senior citizen is saying in his letter. In 1979 he

received $21.83 from the provincial government. In 1980 that was

reduced to $13.83, and this year it's down to $4.83. There is no point

explaining to him about computer printouts. He knows what shows up on

the cheque, and that is that he's now getting $4.83 from the provincial

government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's important we get

this on the record because, you see, the member, as has happened in

past months and in past years, tries to confuse the poor elderly

citizen in this regard. I want to make it clear. First of all, when the

supplementary was introduced by the province of British Columbia under

a former Social Credit administration, it was introduced because it was

felt by this province.... I believe this province was the first in

Canada to introduce a supplementary to the federal OAS.

Let

me say that when that was introduced, the reason behind it was that the

federal program of old-age security was felt to be inadequate at that

time. Therefore the province of British Columbia said they would

guarantee it up to a certain level, and it would be X number of

dollars. Since that time the federal government has not only increased

their contribution on an annual basis indexed every four months but

they have also increased the base. If you will compare notes across

this country where all other provincial governments did come in on that

same supplementary program following British Columbia all over these

years, it is consistent across this coun-

[ Page 5976 ]

try.

The provincial governments still rely on the federal government,

because it's the federal government program of OAS. Ours is only a

supplementary to bring it to a certain level.

Now that case

you mentioned, where there is a reduction to either $14 or $4 or even

$1, is only reduced for that couple or that senior citizen if that

senior citizen from one year to the next has a gained income from some

other sources. You know that and I know that. Don't try to leave the

impression in this House that it's the provincial government that is

reducing the amount, because it is just not so — absolutely not so.

MS. BROWN: Since 1976....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You continue to say it, and sure it's the same from 1976.

MS. BROWN: Well, that's fine. I just wanted you to admit it, that's all.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

But it hasn't been reduced. You continue to say it's been reduced and

you're leaving an incorrect impression on the floor of the House.

MR. KING: It's diminishing.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

If it's diminishing, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, it's not

because we have reduced our supplement, but that the guarantee we give

has been exceeded by that person's own income from stocks, bonds or

whatever revenue they have. It is true that if they have a revenue it

is reduced by that amount, not by us but by a printout that comes from

the federal government and gives us that information.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Referring to the special care foster homes, I did forget to mention,

and I think it should be put on the record, that the member should, if

she will, refer to Mrs. Joan Wenstov of the Federation of Foster

Parents Associations, who very clearly supports the ministry's point of

view on special care homes and has gone on record as supporting it. I

am very cognizant of the many volunteer groups in the province who give

us that kind of information. None of the information that we get, and

the policy that's enacted from that, is done in isolation from those

kinds of groups. I'm pleased that we've had the foster parents' input

on that.

I hope that we can get on with the debate on our

estimates in a very positive way, because there are lots of positive

things that can be said about the Ministry of Human Resources. Let's

try to keep some of it clear. I think the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) can clarify for his colleagues the

OAS-GIS and the guaranteed supplement.

MR. KING: I'm

certainly not trying to mislead anyone. I'm trying to understand the

minister's response to my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds. The

minister's comment that we should get on with a positive discussion of

the ministry and all the great things about it is not the way in which

the people of British Columbia can be helped. They can be helped by

positive debate trying to identify areas of weakness and areas that

could and should be improved.

On this side of the House we

are expressing a concern that seniors in an overheated economy, where

interest rates and inflation are extreme, are simply not being able to

keep pace with that inflation rate. Whether the minister wants to

categorize it as no reduction or just diminishing returns, it certainly

is my understanding that as the federal cost allowances come in — the

quarterly increases for inflation — then the provincial supplement is

reduced commensurately. It's not indexed. The indexing they get through

the federal government is accordingly negated by the reduction that

takes place at the provincial level.

I think that's the

point the senior citizens and the opposition are trying to make. We're

not trying to play games with figures; we're talking about the real

income of real people.

For the minister to suggest that

their income is eroded because they hold stocks and bonds is unbecoming

of the minister. Certainly anyone who was into the stocks and bonds

market, and who had the kind of income the minister seems to be

implying, would not be qualifying for the supplement in the first

place. You can't have any other source of income, or at least your

supplement is phased commensurate with any other income you earn. The

minister knows that. That's not an adequate answer from the minister.

wanted to make those couple of points, but that's not the main thing I

got up to talk about this morning. Before you become alarmed, Mr.

Chairman, I just have two brief points. I'm seeking from the minister

clarification of answers she gave to me yesterday afternoon. One was

regarding the Spallumcheen native Indian band at Enderby and the

agreement the minister entered into with the chief of that band to

transfer to the band custody of children that the ministry had custody

over. The minister said: "There is no delay; the agreement is all in

place." Her words were: "The band is negotiating an agreement with the

federal government." Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the minister

that it is my understanding that an agreement was, in fact, consummated

with the federal Department of Indian Affairs and signed on April 29,

1981, so that agreement is in place.

Basically what I'm

looking for from the minister — and, I believe, what Chief Christian is

looking for — is a meeting with the minister again to get down to brass

tacks and bring into detail the agreement of intent that was signed

between the minister and the chief last October. Part of that agreement

reads: "...and both parties agree to work out an appropriate plan in

the best interest of each child presently in care." What I'm saying to

the minister is, okay, the agreement is in place with the federal

Department of Indian Affairs, and the native Indian band would like to

get together now with the minister and finalize those precise

provisions for the transfer of custody. I ask the minister if she is

agreeable simply to meeting with the band in the very near future to

finalize that deal.

With respect to the other point I raised

on the trusteeship of mentally handicapped persons' bequests, the

minister indicated that she had some correspondence with the public

trustee in this regard. I would appreciate very much receiving a copy

of the correspondence the minister referred to. If she'd be so kind as

to provide me with a copy of the correspondence regarding the public

trustee and the estates of the mentally handicapped, I would appreciate

it very much.

[ Page 5977 ]

MR. LEVI:

The debate on the OAS, GIS, Mincome, GAIN or whatever you want to call

it was really very interesting, because I noticed that on the

minister's side, and particularly around her, after she had finished

speaking there was as much confusion over there as there is here. Part

of the reason, I think, is that the minister really doesn't see it in

the proper context. She starts off by saying — this might be of

interest to those members who weren't around some years ago.... It's no

good the minister saying to this House that the former Social Credit

government was the first government to introduce a supplementary

allowance. That's got nothing to do with the program that was

introduced in 1972, the difference being that prior to October 1972

there was a supplementary social allowance arrangement. At that time we

had 205,000 seniors in this province; 108,000 of those seniors were on

the GIS, 16,000 of the 205,000 people were getting supplementary

income, and only 1,200 were getting what was then considered to be the

full amount of $191. Those are the facts.

When the

government brought in the Mincome program in 1972, they talked about

guaranteeing an income. The supplementary assistance did not guarantee

an income; it only gave 1,200 people $191. So there is a great deal of

difference in the way the previous Social Credit government saw the

concept of giving the people over the age of 65 an increase. One was a

supplementary allowance on the basis of a needs test, and the other one

was a guarantee — that's the difference. Now what you've done, in fact,

is to stay very much in the mould of the previous Social Credit

government, and I'll tell you why. What this argument here is about in

terms of where you are with your GAIN is that if you would have left it

as Mincome, people would have understood it better. But no, you had to

destroy it, and you wanted to bring in GAIN. The key thing is that in

the six years since you've been government — with all of the bragging

you've done about your surpluses — you have never once increased the

level of the guaranteed income for seniors. You haven't done it.

Now

let's understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the

quarterly index; I'm talking about what, for instance, we did in 1972.

We guaranteed the income to $200 a month; we did that. We said in April

1973, when the federal government first indexed OAS and GIS, that we

would not pass it on to the seniors because we had just guaranteed them

up to $200, and that we would look at other plans to expend the money.

We did so, because by October we had announced Pharmacare and we

announced Mincome for ages 60 to 64; that's how we brought in the

program.

In October 1975 we added an additional $30 to the

Mincome program, effective January 1, 1976. That was an additional

provincial contribution of $30; it had nothing to do with the federal

government. Since that time, your government has never given an

additional amount of money. That's the point we're making. Now don't

tell me that that's wrong. You've got to understand it. That previous

minister never understood it. He can sit there and sit there. He never

understood what he was doing. He used to open his mouth and out would

come some of the most unmitigated drivel in the world. Not at any time

has that government ever increased....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we've allowed some....

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, "drivel" is not one of those restricted words, surely.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the point the Chair was about to make is that we have

allowed some latitude in the debate to cover more than the year that we

are supposedly reviewing in vote 117.

MR. LEVI: Oh, Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to go back into history.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I say the Chair has allowed some latitude, but that

latitude certainly will not extend to other members. I would ask the

member at least to not stray that far from the vote.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

I want to talk about your $100 million underexpenditure, which is

disgusting! The blackest spot on the history of this province is when

you tried to demonstrate how you could rob the poor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Back to the contemporary history.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Ah, waste. We'll talk about waste in the next vote.

Back

to the minister's vote, Mr. Chairman. In relation to the history — as

stated by the minister, not by me; she raised this — that's the only

question the minister has to answer. Never mind the quarterly index.

Just tell us if your government has ever, in the six years you've been

in, added an amount of money to the Mincome or GAIN program for seniors

over the age of 65 beyond the $38 my colleague talks about. That's all

you've got to answer. It did happen in October 1975 — a $30 increase.

That's the basic question you have to answer — nothing else.

want to tell you about the minister and her ability to deal with facts.

For the last two days she keeps standing up and insisting that there

are 8,500 foster children in this province. She's absolutely wrong. But

if I tell her she's wrong — and I read from the book of words — she's

going to do what she did when I asked her another question she hasn't

answered yet about the underexpenditure. It's in your own book. You

should read it before you come into this House and not have to rely on

your staff whispering in your ear every ten minutes. On page 33 of the

annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources it says: "As of

December 31, 1980, 63 percent or 5,427 of the 8,584 children in care

are maintained in foster homes."

The important thing that

you have to remember about those figures is that it gets tougher and

tougher to maintain and increase the number of foster homes that you

have. There are a variety of reasons for that. You have only 5,400

children — not 600 — in some 4,500 foster homes. It's a good program.

It's worthwhile. The association will constantly have its struggles

with you on the levels. That's your problem. You're the government; you

have to deal with that particular problem of what the incomes are. But

get the facts right. That's important.

[ Page 5978 ]

your attempt to explain the Mincome situation, if you had mentioned

even once, because that's what you have to constantly tell the

seniors.... When you look at the first of April every year when the new

tax year starts in the sense that you then look back to the calendar

year's taxes, there is a lot of confusion there. But the minister can't

continue to hide behind her inability to explain one basic fact. If her

predecessor wants to explain it, let him get up and explain it. When

was the time, or is it the intention of the government ever, to

increase by an amount of money — by $20 or $30 a month — the GAIN for

seniors over the age of 65 to meet the arguments that have been made on

this side? We're not talking about the federal government. We're not

talking about the increase to GIS or to OAS. We're talking about when

you're going to increase yours. That's the question. It's very simple.

You don't feel obliged to do that, because you've moved away from the

guarantee concept, really.

When your predecessor came into

this House with great braggadocio he was going to index everything. He

even put it into the new act. The GAIN act has a section.... Do you

remember it? No, he's conveniently forgotten. You were going to index

everything. "We believe that people should get an income commensurate

with the cost of living, so we're going to put it in the act." It's

never been proclaimed; you have never done it. It's a lot of

braggadocio. It doesn't mean a thing. It sounded good, but it doesn't

mean anything. That's the problem. You can't say, on the one hand, that

you guarantee it and then, on the other hand, not do it. The children's

allowance is indexed. That's okay; it's a good idea. I don't believe in

universal programs — not when they leak to people who don't need it. So

you do it through the tax system.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Say it again, Norm.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: I do not believe in universal programs that leak money to the rich.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: People who don't need it? Well, does somebody who is making $30,000 a year really need the children's allowance?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You disagree with the minister? Listen to what I'm saying. I don't want to have a debate with you.

There

are important things. The issue of looking at universal programs is a

major factor. The only way you could really deal with it is through the

tax system. If you deal with it through the tax system you tax back

from those people with incomes way beyond the accepted level of need.

All right, politically, to take it away is a tough one.

That

is basically all the argument is about — the lack of levels for senior

citizens. If you were to say that you are now going to increase that

guaranteed level by $30, then all the other arguments about GIS, OAS

and indexing would fall by the wayside. That's basically the argument

that the minister has to understand. Never mind all those other

explanations. You have never once increased the rate — that's the key

thing about it. I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), who is an auditor or an accountant, is finally beginning to

understand what we've been talking about over here. They have never

increased the provincial level. That's what we're talking about. Never

mind the federal level.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You won't understand this, because you don't even understand farm income assurance. I mean, if you can't understand that....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI:

You know, Mr. Chairman, we're having a lot of problems. We've got the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) accusing the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) of losing money. My God, that is

absolutely incredible. He should get up and apologize. I'll sit down,

Bill, and you get up and apologize.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps we could return to vote 117. I ask the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture and all hon. members to remain

silent while the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is in debate.

MR. LEVI:

Now I might get the minister's attention. She's being briefed by a

deputy minister. It's really tough to get briefed by a deputy minister

with only one ear. You know, you've got to listen to the speaker.

That's why I think you should get your deputy minister to give you a

crib book. I used to have one, and they're great.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, I don't know. It's either that or she's going to have to have a hearing-aid.

The

only point we've been making — and this is what the minister should

policy. Fine. The whole debate rests on only one fundamental commitment

by the government. Never mind GIS, OAS or quarterly indexing. Is the

government prepared to increase its share of the guaranteed income

procedure? Is it prepared to go beyond $38 — let's say to $58 or $60,

which is a nice round figure? Are you prepared to do that? That's the

fundamental question. In six years of government you haven't done it.

You've got great surpluses; you're always bragging about surpluses.

When are you going to ensure that you don't get the kind of problem

that exists here? Since you changed Mincome to GAIN, most of the

seniors don't know where they're at; they don't understand it. First of

all, there is no guaranteed concept in it at all. That's the important

issue. If anybody gets up and starts a debate on quarterly indexing,

we're not going to get anywhere. The fundamental question is: are they

prepared to put more money into the pot beyond the $38? If we can get

the minister to answer that, this debate that has gone on for six years

might come to an end. We've never had that answer. I think that she's

prepared to go the other way — to constantly argue, befuddle and

obfuscate the whole issue by talking about quarterly indexing. That's

not what we're talking about; we're talking about a provincial

government increase.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to

make just a few comments. I know that in his comments the previous

speaker said, in effect, what the Minister of Human Resources has

[ Page 5979 ]

been

saying — what the policy of this government is all about. Basically, he

said he wasn't in favour of universal programs. It would leak funds to

the people who didn't need them. That member knows that when you relate

income to old-age pensioners, it is covered by OAS, the GIS and the

GAIN program. That has increased over the years due to indexing and

covering the increases in the cost of living.

Those people

who have other types of income, which have also increased over the

years, find that they see a reduction in their GAIN cheque as the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds said. It's not that they are losing ground

in the fight against inflation; it's the fact that earnings from their

other sources of income — in the case of seniors, it's usually bank

interest or bond interest that they have — give them interest income,

which they report. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds knows full well, as

do other members opposite, that it is the individual receiving GAIN and

the old-age income supplement who has to file a report to the federal

government on an annual basis. The individual involved submits that

information to the federal government. The federal government

calculates the GIS payment. If the GIS payment is reduced because of

earnings from other sources by the senior citizen, then that relates,

of course, to the GAIN program, and it is reduced.

MR. HANSON: Why?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

If you don't understand the fact that in the system — both federally

and provincially — there is a program that allows for income in British

Columbia to reach a guaranteed figure.... For example, as of January

1981, if he doesn't have any interest earnings over and above the limit

set, a single person gets $443.96 guaranteed under OAS, the GIS and

GAIN program. He would receive it from two sources: the federal

government and the provincial government. Those guaranteed income

levels are indexed and are adjusted on a quarterly basis. In British

Columbia we make sure that those people will at least achieve that

guarantee that we have put into place.

The members opposite

— especially the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who is very conversant

with this — would attack the provincial government for being

responsible with regard to paying out public funds. I say that if

you're earning income from other sources, then you really don't want or

need income under the GAIN program.

When I was managing a

credit union some years ago, unfortunately many senior citizens used to

come to me and say: "Because I have to fill in this report which shows

my income from savings accounts and term deposits, I'd like to put all

my money in a non-interest-bearing chequing account so I can receive my

just rewards, a cheque from the government." In many cases they did it.

They insisted. I used to attempt to convince a person with $25,000 or

$35,000 in savings or in a term deposit that it was foolishness. Why do

that? It's great for the banker; he gets free money. But it's a

terrible thing for them not to understand that they would make more

earnings from their own money than from relying on a government cheque

because it is a government program.

That's the whole

concept behind GAIN and why it is reduced when earnings from other

sources are increased. I'm sure the senior citizens.... The gentleman

who was referred to by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds reported, on

behalf of himself and his wife, his earnings from other sources —

primarily interest — and that's why his GAIN cheque has dropped. I'm

sure if the member took a moment to communicate that with him, he would

understand that, in effect, he is supporting himself. I'm sure every

British Columbian and every Canadian would like that approach rather

than looking for a handout from government, especially in cases where

they're earning substantially more than the limits set by government

programs.

Just briefly, because the minister brought it up

and I think it should be repeated, due to indexing and the benefits

since 1976, when you look at OAS, the GIS and the GAIN program, the

1981 figure has increased by 67 percent from the base year of 1976. The

CPI has increased by 50.8 percent. With those statistics, what we're

really saying is that between two levels of government — the federal

and the provincial — the seniors have improved their position in

relationship to the cost of living in this province. I think some of

the debating by the members opposite is done in such a way as to

indicate that we are not looking after our seniors. The minister on a

number of occasions during the last few days has attempted to put on

the record just what the government programs, both federal and

provincial, relate to. The fact is that we are attempting on both

levels of government to look after our senior citizens in this

province, and statistics indicate we are doing just that.

MR. LEVI:

The minister might be able to answer this. She's using statistics which

I understand are from 1976. Is she talking about January or April of

1976? Let me say why. If you're using even the April 1976 figures,

there was a $30 increase — I'm pretty sure it was $30, because it went

to $265 over the first of January. What happened was that from October

1975 to October 1976 there was a lump-sum increase made by the

provincial government — not the federal government. The provincial

government made a lump-sum increase that was announced in October 1975.

That came into effect on January 1, 1976. The point that the previous

speaker was trying to make was that the increases had been passed on.

What

we're saying is vastly different, and that's probably why we will never

meet on the same grounds. If that lump-sum payment had not been made as

of January 1, 1976, the Mincome level would be substantially lower than

it is today. The provincial share was increased by $30. The only answer

we want from the minister is when they are prepared to increase the

provincial share again. Don't keep telling us about what you pass on.

Simply tell us when the government is going to do what happened under

the previous government. They gave a lump-sum increase. That's the

difference.

There is nothing sacred about the level of GAIN

for 65 at the level it's at now — $442. It could be $462 or $472 simply

by having the government put more into the pot. That's the basic issue

we're talking about. However, if that lump-sum payment had not been

made, effective January 1, 1976, these levels would not be anywhere

near as high. First of all, the indexing is not really tied to the true

cost of living. There's a limit on the indexing in those kinds of

things in the federal government. That's basically the question.

The

previous speaker talks about people coming in and saying that if they

could get a non-interest-bearing account.... We became aware of that,

yes. So then we imputed assets. That goes on today. People's assets are

imputed. Nobody can sit there with a non-interest-bearing account and

expect to continue to pick up income. The interest that they would have

made is imputed and is deducted. But all of that is aside from the

basic question. Because the minister

[ Page 5980 ]

is so deep in discussion with her deputy, I don't know if we're going to get an answer.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I don't think we're going to resolve this difference,

because I think we're talking about two different kinds of senior

citizens. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the

government members are talking about senior citizens with stocks,

bonds, large sums of money, non-interest-bearing accounts and savings

certificates. The senior citizens like the one who wrote the letter I

read, and those on whose behalf I speak, do not fall into that

category. I'm speaking on behalf of senior citizens who do not have

these stocks and bonds. I don't believe that most senior citizens fall

into the category to which the government keeps addressing itself.

The

Minister of Agriculture said that the total amount the seniors ended up

with in terms of pension at the end of the month wouldn't be any

different. This is not what's revealed in this letter. This gentleman

made it absolutely clear that there was a diminishing total he had to

deal with. In December 1979 the total of the old-age pension, the

Canada Pension and the GAIN for his wife and himself came to $757.95.

As a result of various reductions, including GAIN being reduced to

$13.83, they ended up with a total that was $15.76 less. That was in

April 1980. In 1981, again as a result of various reductions, including

a reduction in their GAIN cheque down to $4.83, the total reduction was

$18 in that month.

I'm not quite sure that there is very

much to be gained from continuing this discussion because the minister

has made it absolutely clear that the base which was brought into

effect in October 1975 still exists. That's the situation.

would like to move on to something else, if you have no objections and

if the minister has no objections. A document has come into my

possession pertaining to a cabinet submission dealing with services for

the mentally retarded. This is not the document dealing with the

McAlpine report. It would be nice if that could come into our

possession too. This is a submission to cabinet, which presumably is

either about to happen or has happened already. It deals with

recommendations to do with community-based services for the mentally

retarded. It starts out saying: "The purpose of this submission is to

obtain endorsement for a new government approach to delivery of

services for the mentally retarded, emphasizing community-based

services. Any approaches must involve all ministries represented by the

Cabinet Committee on Social Services."

I wonder whether the

minister would like to address herself to this document. In fact what

it does is support everything that the B.C. Association for the

Mentally Retarded have been asking for, and which she in her statements

yesterday and the day before said was not possible and couldn't happen.

In terms of this submission, which is calling for cooperation from the

Attorney-General, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health,

the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Human Resources, is

the minister going to operate in terms of her advocacy responsibility

to ensure that this submission is received favourably by cabinet? Are

the recommendations which the B.C. Association for the Mentally

Retarded have been asking for these many months and years going to be

honoured and represented? If the minister has not yet received her copy

of the document, I would be very happy to let her have mine.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

First of all, I'd like to respond to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King). I'm sorry that he's not in the House at the present time,

but I guess he will read this and get his answer.

He wanted

to know about Spallumcheen Indian band. As I said yesterday — again, he

wasn't in the House yesterday for my answer — there's no delay on the

part of the provincial government in our negotiations with the

Spallumcheen Indian band. We have a unique new agreement with them, one

which I hope will become a pattern and I believe it will. Because it's

the first in Canada, it will be all the more important that all the

details are well figured out.

I made that agreement with the

band in the afternoon in Vancouver. That evening I met with the federal

Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the hon. Mr. Munroe. I

explained to him that the agreement we had with the band was that they

would take on responsibility for the role which we have traditionally

had responsibility for from the federal government. That is in terms of

the protection of children. I said that as long as the protection of

children is guaranteed, as it is apparently being guaranteed by this

Indian band, then I had absolutely no concern about transferring those

responsibilities that the federal government purchased from the

provincial government on behalf of the Spallumcheen band. You must

understand that that transfer of authority or responsibility truly

rests with the federal government. When the Spallumcheen band came to

us in the first instance it was because they wanted jurisdiction over

their children on their band property.

I think a lot has

come of that agreement, and I want to emphasize there is no delay on

our part. The delay now rests with the federal government, and the

Spallumcheen band is negotiating with them. I want to reiterate that

that is where the delay rests. It must be recognized that we, the

provincial government, have very clearly stated our place, and in fact

have initiated an agreement that has never before been initiated in

this country, as far as I know. I suggest that the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, who brought this to the House again today, read the

Blues from yesterday, and from today, since he isn't in the House to

hear the answer. Please be assured that this government has very

clearly offered that kind of agreement and help, and we will continue

to do so. Our staff is meeting with the band continually, and it is

very much on its way as far as this government is concerned. We must

get some responsibility and some answer from the federal government,

and the Spallumcheen band is in negotiation at the present time.

The

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) said that there were

fewer children in care than I had mentioned and that they're not all in

foster homes. Again, that member is out of the House; that's too bad.

In response to his question: he completely ignores group homes,

children in the care of relatives and treatment centres and children in

foster homes. The total stands as I gave it earlier: there are 8,500

children in foster, special-care, group, relatives' and treatment homes.

want to refer to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and her

comments that I stated it is not possible to address the needs or

concerns of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. This is not

true. I said that it was not possible in some cases. There is a

difference. There are some cases of very severe profound retardation,

and there are some clients, patients or residents in institutions at

this time who will still require round-the-clock service; they cannot

speak for themselves and they will need multiple assistance, if you

[ Page 5981 ]

like.

They cannot be in individual homes, one patient to one home. They will

require paid assistance for the rest of their lives. I think I

mentioned that approximately ten may be in a home or what is as close

to a residence as possible. I name that figure just as a figure so that

the member could understand that it would be better to have multiple

staff assistance for that person who cannot speak for himself than to

put that person into a sole home with no kind of accountability, if you

like, between staff members, which goes on at the present time. I want

to emphasize that that accountability is very definitely there at the

present time, and they are being very well looked after in our

institutions, which have been mentioned. I just say that so that the

member will not go from this House out to the public and give that kind

of statement again, because that statement is not true.

The

Association for the Mentally Retarded brought a brief to the

government. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the brief has been

before the ministries of social services in our social services

meeting. We had a good hearing. We had the association before us. They

presented their brief. I wish I had the dates in front of me. It was

approximately six weeks ago. They had their concerns. Our ministry had

already been working on a document which we were ready to discuss with

them. We are getting more information from the different parents

throughout the province. With their input and the input from our

ministry staff, who have a tremendous history of input and dedication

in terms of serving the retarded in this province, we are coming to a

program where we can say for the decade of the eighties and for the

years beyond that this is where we are going in mental retardation

services in the province.

This discussion paper is to be put

back into all of the ministries of social services — Education, Health,

my ministry — and all of the other areas that have references to social

services. That discussion paper has been put together, leaning very

heavily on what the B.C. association has given to us and the kinds of

consultation we have had — our own study that we have done with parents

of the mentally retarded. This initiates review by all social service

ministries after the discussion paper will be circulated, and they will

bring a coordinated set of alternatives before the cabinet. I did

stress yesterday that that was before us, and in response to all of

your queries regarding this I said that we were actively pursuing it

and that within the next month or five or six weeks we plan to have

something not only before the association but for all of the parents

and families of those retarded whom we serve.

I stated in

the House that the future will probably not be in large institutions —

I think we all believe in that — but in some form of small institutions

for severe cases. Again, I reiterate my statements about groups of ten.

I'm only taking that as a figure; I'm not taking that as the binding

figure of what the committee will come up with. I just want you to know

that all of this needs careful planning.

If we got a comment

six weeks ago from the association, and then have something that has

not been acted on in six weeks.... I don't apologize for six weeks; I

think that's pretty good results.

The discussion paper on

the cabinet submission, which has been made public, I think, only goes

to prove that this ministry — and this government — not only has been

acting to phase out institutions but is serious about doing it. If the

member across the way thinks that the members of the opposition can

take credit for that, let me say that in all of these weeks and weeks

and months and months of our ministry working on phasing out

institutions, it's interesting that not once has any one of those

members come to me and discussed phasing out institutions. The first

we've heard about it was yesterday and the day before during the

estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, and I think that it was

interesting.

The first thing I must point out is that the

discussion paper is for discussion purposes only. It outlines the

problems that government must address in coordinating interministry

planning for services. It examines the responsibilities of each

ministry involved and proposes a tentative time-frame for phasing out

the institutions and replacing them with community-based services for

the retarded.

We have not made any decisions on the future

of the three institutions. If I were to confirm that we had, I would

like to say that you would put fear in the hearts of some of the

parents who now have security in knowing that their children are

extremely well looked after in those same institutions.

I'd

like to emphasize that, because the people working in those

institutions really have a difficult job. Their job is not made any

easier by flippant and irresponsible statements to the effect that

perhaps by a week from Monday all of those patients will be out of the

institutions. It's just not going to be done by a week from Monday, and

it puts fear into those parents. I want to assure those parents that we

will be doing what is best for the retarded clients, patients and

residents of those three institutions. That will be our first and

foremost responsibility.

The deputy ministers of social

services will be bringing proposals to cabinet, and it will be cabinet

which will plan and decide on the development of a network of

community-based resources and support services. I think it's important

to note that a committee of cabinet and the cabinet itself feel so

strongly about this subject that the whole route of this plan is going

that way. We have been working toward more community placements for the

handicapped throughout the seventies and this process will continue

into the eighties.

So may I conclude my comments on the

report that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has brought to the House

today. In terms of her comments on the discussion paper, all I can say

is that this ministry and this government has a discussion paper

because of our concern and because of the initiation of our staff and

our people in government who feel very strongly about this subject.

Vote 117 approved.

On vote 118: direct community services and administrative support, $85,100,643,

MR. LEVI:

If we can get the minister's attention, we'll talk about something

entirely different. We won't be overly critical. We're just trying to

understand a little bit about what's been going on with respect to

comprehensive auditing. Maybe the minister hasn't had a chance to read

the auditor-general's report regarding this. We did have an opportunity

to have your deputy minister and associate deputy minister at another

forum.

There were a number of observations made in the

report. One of them, on which I have to state one basic criticism, is

that as the department grows — and it's certainly grown — the annual

report becomes less informative. As a matter of fact, one of the things

the group that looked at comprehensive

[ Page 5982 ]

auditing

recommended was that if you're going to have an annual report with

respect to a department the size of the ministry the minister's

responsible for, you're simply going to have to put far more

information into it.

There are great problems with trying to

understand the workings of the ministry from the report. Frankly, I

don't find that that annual report has in any way grown since I was

responsible for the department. It's very unfortunate. You've got to be

able to broaden the amount of information that comes into a report.

Maybe the minister doesn't pay too much attention to the annual report.

But Mr. Boisclair and his group made an observation that that's

crucial. When we talked about comprehensive auditing in the public

accounts committee — and we're talking about it here now — we were

talking about the concept of value for the dollar. It's based on

information. The department's standard information vehicle is the

annual report. It's not an adequate report in terms of us understanding

exactly what goes on in the various divisions of the government.

Mr. Boisclair stated specifically in relation to the look they took at the

Ministry of Human Resources — because it in fact volunteered to participate in

this plan — that:

"...the audit took into account the work of other audit

groups, including the MHR internal audit team and the officers of the comptroller-general

internal audit group and certain work done by the British Columbia Systems Corporation

operational auditors. As a result we were able to adjust our audit work in the

electronic data processing area. Where we could not rely on the work of other

auditors, we recommended courses of action so that in future, if they're

implemented, we might be able to place reliance and thus adjust the scope of

our work. We also briefed the office of the comptroller-general and the Treasury

Board staff about our audit design."

They

had some hard comments to make. They could probably make them about

every ministry in the government, but they were dealing here with the

Ministry of Human Resources. The comments that they were making, as I

understood them, were basically that here is a ministry that spends

over $700 million and there is a very serious question of

accountability. In fact, the mechanisms for accountability have not

kept pace with the increasing size and increasing budget of the

ministry.

One of the interesting things that came out in the

discussion with Mr. Boisclair was how accountability is forthcoming. I

used the example that if you took the whole ministry in the shape of a

large triangle and turned it upside down and just put the apex on one

particular category of person in the Human Resources ministry who was

the first line of entry of accountability, you wound up on the

financial assistance worker — the FAW. Whatever is going to happen in

terms of money — that's what they deal with — their accuracy and

ability to deal with the system was crucial to the whole ministry,

because they were the ones that made decisions, albeit in connection

with various instructions.

I was particularly interested in

the FAW because, as I pointed out in the committee, the FAW are very

important people who are really locked into a non-career position.

That's the point I want to make with the minister. There's got to be a

serious look at the whole question of career potential for these people

if that job is to remain — and it will remain — crucial to the input of

accountability systems. Those people — as I remember, there are 450 or

500 of them — are crucial to the system. These people have got to be

able to have some kind of career potential. They don't constantly need

further training, but ironically that's the basis of the system. Years

ago we split the system between social worker and finance. Because the

ministry is so large and your income maintenance budget runs to about

$450 million, which is a little more than half of the ministry

expenditures, it all rests on relatively low-paid, not-so-well-trained

people. I think that was the point Boisclair was making. He made that

point very clearly.

I want to make the point to the minister

that something has to be done in terms of these people and the issue of

career potential. I can recall years ago having a discussion with the

Public Service Commission. I couldn't get them to understand what an

FAW was if I jumped up and down for three weeks. They have a very

simple concept over there. You either have grade 12 or you have a BA

degree or an MA graduate degree, but there's nothing in between those

things. Nobody lives or exists or breathes who has anything in between.

FAW is so crucial to that ministry in terms of the effective running of

it that that ministry has to take a close look at them. The whole issue

of career potential is crucial in that kind of job. People get locked

in. Eventually, not because they want it to, a kind of slothfulness

takes place. You can't afford that at that level. If you have it,

you're in trouble. If you start getting sloppy input and information

going into the computes, it's going to be terrible.

That was

a basic observation made by the comprehensive auditing team that came

in. If you put that together with the observations they made about

information.... I might quote from the statement made by Mr. Boisclair.

He said: "There are other important forms of performance information

which can be used by management on which to base decisions about

control systems and resource allocation, and which can also be usefully

reported to demonstrate accountability in the estimates." Public Accounts

and annual reports are the two examples he gave. I've talked about the

annual report. The other day I gave the minister an example of Public Accounts .

I hope that on the next vote we might get to that particular question I

asked under the family and children's service. We as members can only

rely on the information we get from the annual report, what we can get

by talking to the staff, and certainly we can always ask the minister.

So basically the accuracy of the information contained in your report

is crucial, as it is in Public Accounts .

Mr. Boisclair goes on to say: "However, we noted that such data were not

sufficiently available and reliable. This was because indicators concerning

productivity of staffs have not been fully established, and operational

definitions,

both quantitative and qualitative, have not been established." We did have

an opportunity to talk to the deputy minister in the committee about that. There

are some changes in terms of workloads, caseloads and that kind of thing. That's

something that you people can deal with. I'm asking, first of all, for more

published information. It should be more specific. It helps us. It makes the

debate a lot better if we are not constantly having to wring out facts, but

rather they're there and we can just talk about them. Public Accounts are

important in terms of the veracity of the information.

The

other thing is the FAW. We've got to look very seriously at those

people. I'm opting for talking about those people, because they're

crucial to your comprehensive audit and crucial in the system. Social

workers and other people in the department have done well in where they

are in terms of

[ Page 5983 ]

advocacy.

They happen to be a group of people that are well defined and don't

upset the Public Service Commission when you're looking at

definitions;

but FAWs do. I recall that we were once asked if we would make it a

mandatory condition of employment that people complete the registered

social worker certificate. At the time I said: "No, I wouldn't, because

I don't believe in saying somebody is an RSW. If you don't tie any

money to it, there's no point in it." Again we went to the Public

Service Commission, and they were as much in the dark about the RSW as

they were the FAW Nevertheless, in terms of what the comprehensive

audit is talking about, your whole system will live or die by what

happens to financial assistance workers, because they are the first

recipients of information. If the input from that is accurate and well

drawn, you're going to do okay; if it isn't, you're going to be in a

lot of trouble.

I want to talk for a minute about the question of supervision. Later on in his report he said:

"In

the area of supervision the supervisory process was very clearly

provided for. There were supervisors everywhere, but there wasn't a

clear understanding among supervisors we interviewed as to exactly what

the job entailed. What we did find were very inconsistent approaches

from location to location. Some supervisors were closely involved in

looking at the work of their subordinates and others were not. They

were basically interpreting that themselves.

"Secondly,

in the area of supervision the manner in which supervisors were being

held accountable for the responsibility given to them had not been

clearly set out."

This is one of the horror stories

that always comes with a ministry that's growing. The ministry grows,

and obviously the bureaucracy grows. According to Mr. Boisclair and his

team, who are people who primarily — I think we should underscore that

— have an accounting background.... Maybe the minister might find out

from the deputy — I didn't ask him when he was before the committee —

if, in fact, that team had any social work input at all or whether in

fact any were social workers. I think that would have been useful. If

they didn't, it would have been very useful, because you can't have a

social worker or supervisor talking to an accountant and somehow have

him understand from that brief discussion exactly what the level of

supervision is. That whole comprehensive audit team had some

shortcomings of its own. Again, he was looking at the department. He

was looking at accountability and the supervision aspect.

He carried on and said:

"We

look at questions very importantly as to how the ministry satisfies

itself that the training it does give has been worthwhile and

effective. Once again, the ministry had recognized this problem and was

starting to do things, but at the time of the audit they did not have

the mechanisms in place to know whether or not they were getting value

for money from their training. That's one of the most critical control

functions in the ministry."

He's pointing out some very

significant factors in terms of: if the government has a philosophy to

comprehensive auditing.... It certainly has up to now. That is the

framework the auditor-general operates in. The government participates

in the federal auditor-general meetings. Everybody is trying to look at

value for dollar. It's a nice catch-phrase, but as Mr. Boisclair is

pointing out, it's full of traps if you don't have the mechanisms in

there.

There is the whole question which I asked the deputy

minister. You spend $25 million to administer a $450 million program of

income support. That's all of the income-support systems that you have.

You have an administrative cost which has gone up from the basic

administration cost, as I understand it, five times in a matter of five

years. It's gone from just over $3 million to $15 million.

Within

your income support systems, your caseloads are no higher — in fact

they are substantially lower in some respects — than they were back in

1975. At the moment you have approximately 115,000 to 117,000 people in

your welfare caseload. The number of people you have on what used to be

called Mincome is down significantly, yet your bureaucratic costs are

quite large. These are large costs, considering that you have a

declining number of caseloads. What you get to is whether you have a

very dramatically increased cost in the administration, because of the

bodies who were supposed to be there presumably looking at

accountability. If that's the case, we look at Mr. Boisclair's

criticism that the accountability is really not there at the moment. As

one of your colleagues on that side pointed out in the committee, if

we're going to go into accountability any more than we thought we had,

we'd be spending more money looking at how we spend the money than on

the money that we're actually spending. That was a very interesting

point for him to make. He wandered into a minefield that could have

gotten him into a lot of trouble; nevertheless, that's true. It's the

great horror stories of large-spending ministries. It's just where the

money is and how it's being spent. Because of the size of the ministry,

I think the cost of administering all of that is horrendous in terms of

what you're spending in a department. Let's talk about dollars. I don't

want to talk about percentages, because I don't think percentages

really register. They're spending a great deal of money in the

department. On one program alone you're spending $25 million to

administer $450 million, which is going to a smaller number of people

than it was going to five or six years ago. What have we gotten into?

What are the problems for which you are spending this incredible amount

of money?

Then Mr. Boisclair comes in, and he wasn't in

there for one or two days; he was in and out of that whole ministry for

several months. This particular report that he has is going to take a

lot of analyzing not only by you people but by us on this side as well.

What I find is that the administrative costs of the department are up.

That's leaving aside percentages and talking about raw dollars. As Mr.

Boisclair, who is the comprehensive auditing man, says, the net gain

for all of that expenditure is not very good supervision or

accountability.

This may be a subject that the minister is

not too familiar with. She's spent quite a bit of time talking to her

deputy. Let me just recap what I'd like her to address herself to. The

question of the annual report I think is important from the point of

view of the MLAs. The question of the FAW, career potential, training

and where these people go is crucial. The audit team found that. They

are the inverted apex; everything rests on them in the first instance.

Not to give those people a better career potential is really crazy,

because the whole system and the results can be skewed because of that.

Then there's the whole question of costs. I hope the minister stays

away from percentages and talks about hard dollars, Nobody can

understand what 3.5 or 7 or 8 percent means in relation to all that.

We're talking about hard dollars. It's my contention that there is a

great deal of money being expended on the administrative side of this

which does not really produce the

[ Page 5984 ]

results,

according to Mr. Boisclair. That's Mr. Boisclair's main thrust. That's

what he went in there for: to look at the adaptability of comprehensive

auditing. In doing that, that's what he found out. These are the

observations he made. I'd like to hear from the minister on that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

First of all let me just address myself to the first question regarding

the annual report. We were very pleased to participate in this

experimental audit process. I believe our ministry was the first.

Members of the public accounts committee made the point very well

during that time. I had a report immediately after the public accounts

committee that questions of control and accountability must be viewed

within the environment of a decentralized income security service. They

were concerned that we would get too much on that accountancy side and

not enough on the humane side. There's a limit to the efficiency of

controls; the auditor-general recognized that point after it was raised

in committee by members of both sides of the House. Could I tell you

that plans are underway to change the annual report; I assure the

member of that. That was what he was concerned about. As a matter of

fact, we are hopeful that in the next annual report more information

will be provided. I believe you will be happy to see the changes. We're

working on that at the present time.

You mentioned the

financial assistance worker. They do a tremendous job in the province.

As a matter of fact, we have the same understanding of their

capabilities and responsibilities. I take the member's points in that

regard as well founded, and I will certainly address myself to that.

May I, though, just really take exception — and I'm sorry I have to in

this one — because I think you have misread our annual report. That

could quite easily happen. Will you turn to page 7, which you are

quoting from, on the expenditures of the ministry of $730.3 million.

You are accusing us of spending $25 million to administer $450 million

on the income support program. Please don't let that statement go

abroad. It is not true. If you look at page 7, at the expenditures of

the ministry, the administration for the total $730.3 million is $15.5

million. You don't want percentages, but I'm going to give them to you

anyway — it's 2.1 percent on the total $730.3 million expenditure. I

believe that the $25 million point you picked up is perhaps the $25.9

million, which is provided just above that — the GAIN for seniors

supplement. I believe that's where the confusion is. It's an easy

mistake to misread a figure. I just want to make it clear, though, that

the administration costs are $15.5 million on our total of $730.3

million expenditures, not $25 million on $450 million, as given to you

on the floor of the House.

MR. LEVI: We better stay

on this one, because I think we've got a great deal of confusion here.

I asked this question in the public accounts committee. You've got your

diagram here that says: "GAIN Seniors Supplement, 3.5 percent," which

is $25.9 million. That's not referring to the amount of money that you

give out, because you give out $450 million. That's what we were told

by the deputy. What, then, is the 3.5 percent, which is almost $26

million? What is it? You've got it there. I'm telling you, Madam

Minister, that it is the administrative cost — or whatever you want to

call it — to give out that money. It's there; that's what it is. You

add that to 15.5 percent, which is your administrative cost of

operating your minister's office and all of that kind of thing, put

them together and you've got $41.4 million. It's there, and you haven't

explained it all. All you're telling me is: "Disregard that." I'm not

going to disregard it; it's in the book. We had the deputy in front of

us in the committee, and that's what I asked. "It is $25 million to

administer $450 million?" Well, I don't want to get anybody into

trouble. My God, that's not what we're here for. Just understand your

own report, that's what I'm asking you to do. You know, this is the

second time during the minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman, that I've

had to point something out to her. She tells me that it's not so; it's

in black and white. The last time it was in Public Accounts ; now I'm

looking at her annual report. I want the minister to tell me what the

$25.9 million is for then. It has nothing to do with the money you give

out. What is it for?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, the GAIN for senior supplement is $25.9 million.

MR. LEVI: Do you mean that out of the $450 million — I'm

having trouble here — the GAIN for senior supplement is 3.5 percent?

What does that mean? We've got to have a much better explanation than

that. As I understand it, the figure that we got in the committee was

$450 million in income support programs; that's what we were told. Now

you're telling me that only $25.9 million out of that $450 million goes

to GAIN for senior supplement? That makes it even worse.

Mr.

Chairman, the object of questioning the minister in estimates is to get

answers to questions. I'm afraid the minister hasn't answered that.

What is she saying? Is the GAIN for seniors only $25 million a year?

That's the B.C. share. That's all you put in — $25 million. You are

beautiful people. You've got a budget of $6 billion, you put in $25

million, and then you stand up in the House and tell us what great

people you are. Is that what that refers to? Are you going to tell me

that you operate your whole ministry on a $15 million administration

cost? Come on, you've got to do better than that!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the member wants to change the subject since we got out of....

MR. LEVI: No, he doesn't.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I think you do.

MR. LEVI: I want to go right back to the subject. I'm going to quote the committee to you in a minute.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Anyway, let's take a look. The GAIN for seniors supplement is $25.9

million. You fail to give — and you just have to look on the graph

above it on page 7 — GAIN for seniors 60-64, and those over 65 not in

receipt of OAS, GAIN for handicapped and income assistance. That

amounts to $366.5 million. If you want, you can add $366.5 million and

$25.9 million together, and that takes a very large amount of our $730

million total expenditure. But you don't want to took at that. You want

to take it out of context to make the worst possible picture that you

can and leave an erroneous impression.

To go back to the

total administration budget, I am told by the comptroller that the

total of administration and field operations, which is different from

what we call administration alone, is $85 million. That includes direct

services. Therefore we separated them on the graph, giving the $15.5

million for administration alone. The member perhaps would

[ Page 5985 ]

like

to discontinue the debate, which showed him telling us earlier in this

vote that we are spending $25 million on $450 million. I was simply

correcting that erroneous impression. If you wish to take in field

operations, including direct services, rather than take it solely out

of administration, we're spending $85 million on $730 million.

MR. HALL:

The comprehensive audit of the Ministry of Human Resources was, as the

minister said, the first conducted, not only in this province, but in

Canada. It was the first examined by our public accounts committee.

It's also going to be examined, I'm sure, by a lot of legislative

committees across the country. I'm told it's going to be showcased — if

that's the new term — at the meeting of legislative auditors in New

Brunswick in July. I'm certain that a lot of those new centurions,

otherwise known as chartered accountants, will be talking about it for

a number of years in the sense that if we're going to talk about

accountability and value for money, no matter how far along that line

we go, at least this is one of the places where we started.

that end, I think we should congratulate not only the auditor-general

but the ministry. It was the ministry which volunteered. It wasn't

selected or dragooned. That may be the last thing I say about it that

will receive all the smiles; nevertheless, we should congratulate the

ministry.

I have a number of questions that I want to go

through, particularly related to this comprehensive audit. I'll

continue this afternoon.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada