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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5949 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gas poisoning at Can-Cel plant. Mr. Howard –– 5950

Ms. Sanford

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5951

Mr. Barrett

Political polling by Goldfarb and Douglas Heal. Mr. Hall –– 5951

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

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5957

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 117 –– 5953

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Brummet

Mr. King

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Mussallem

Ms. Sanford

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting us today in

the galleries are 65 students from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in

Delta. They are with their teachers, Alderman Karl Moser from Delta and

Mr. Jack Godwin. I ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. KING:

We have visiting in the gallery today Chief Wayne Christian of the

Spallumcheen band, and Mr. Emery Louis, a member of the board of the

Round Lake alcohol and drug facility. I ask the House to extend a warm

welcome to both gentlemen.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask the

House to welcome Mr. Graham Harrison from Wellington, New Zealand, who

is in the gallery today. Mr. Harrison is an international rugby referee

and is on his way to Calgary to referee a rugby match on Saturday, June

6, between Canada and the United States.

MR. LAUK:

Today a delegation from the University of British Columbia Alumni

Association has been visiting committees of MLAs from both sides of the

House and also visiting, I understand, the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I believe they are now in

the precinct. Would the House acknowledge Dr. Peter Jones, executive

director; Dr. William Tetlow, director; Dr. Peggy Ross; Mr. Robert

Smith, president; and Mr. Michael Partridge of the board of management

of the alumni association.

MR. BARNES: I'm proud to

have as visitors to the capital city the youngest of my three

daughters, Beverli Barnes, and her friend Dr. Robert Chacona, a dentist

for the state of New York. Besides holidaying, Robert is also here on a

research project on the west coast. I wish the House would recall a few

weeks ago when I attempted to introduce my second-oldest daughter,

Connie Barnes, a fashion model in Vancouver, and my efforts to persuade

my colleagues that she was really my daughter, not just a cosy friend,

and not really just a secret and delightful friend, but in fact every

bit a part of the heritage of the Barnes clan. I'd like to say that

Beverli, also a model, is attending the Parsons School of Design and

has just completed her second year. She is here after having been away

for two years. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming her and

Robert to the Legislature in the capital city.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, we have two representatives in the gallery of the fine

retail organization of Simpsons-Sears. I'd like to ask the House to

welcome Mr. Ron Iveson and Mr. Terry Brown.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, following years and years of tradition, we have a busload

of 50 people visiting from the Royal City of New Westminster.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

Did you hear that? He said someone from White Rock is with them. I'm

very proud and happy to present to the House this group, which takes

enough interest year after year to come over here and visit us. I would

ask the House to welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, after some hesitation, I wish to add my words of welcome to

the referee from New Zealand. We wish to publicly apologize for

Canada's defeat of New Zealand by accident in the seven-a-side match in

Hong Kong. I hope this apology works well in Calgary next week.

MR. SPEAKER:

People seldom come to visit the Speaker, but they are here today. I

want you to welcome Mr. Dan Sewell, Mr. Bill Yarborough and Mr. Gary

Levin. They're from Colorado.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hear a no. Hon. members, if leave is denied, we cannot proceed.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: No. This is pursuant to standing order 49.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member.

MR. BARNES: I ask leave to move that this House call upon the Minister of Labour to table the John McAlpine report forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, order, please. If leave is requested and denied, we cannot

proceed on the matter unless it is a thing which does not require leave

in the first instance. Leave was asked for and was denied.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. second member for Vancouver

Centre rose and asked leave to make a statement. The members opposite

said no. Then he rose under standing order 49. It is perfectly

permissible to ask leave of the House to move a particular motion. They

are two separate and distinct items. He asked leave, and I think it

should be put to the House to see whether leave could be granted to the

hon. member to move the motion that he desires to move, asking for the

tabling of the McAlpine report.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, it appears to the Chair that perhaps legitimate standing

orders are sometimes being used as a device to bring information to the

House. I would suggest the best way to do it would be to stand up, ask

for leave and then perhaps, in asking for leave, suggest to the House

what it is the statement would be about. Then the House could

intelligently say whether or not leave is granted. I recommend that

practice to the House.

[ Page 5950 ]

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, every time someone from this side of

the House asks for leave, the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) says no.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a request of you. Would you ascertain,

through the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), whether that is

always going to be the case so we don't have to waste our time?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Would you do that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I don't know under what standing order I would even have

the authority to ask that question. It is not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, I know of no instance, when a member stands on a

point of order, that that point of order is being used for other than

the purpose intended in standing orders. The member rose on standing

order 49 after not receiving unanimous approval for leave to make a

statement.

I quote from standing order 49: "A motion may be

made by unanimous consent of the House without previous notice having

been given under standing order 48." The member stood and asked, under

standing order 49, for permission of the House to move his motion. That

was not put to the House. Perhaps to clear this matter the member could

stand up again under standing order 49, put his request and have the

House judge it at that moment.

MR. SPEAKER: If the

House is satisfied that they were two separate and distinct matters,

the first one not having been identified and the second one having been

identified but not related to the first, I will put the question again.

Shall leave be granted under standing order 49?

Leave not granted.

Oral Questions

GAS POISONING AT CAN-CEL PLANT

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour

about the B.C. Timber–Canadian Cellulose plant in Prince Rupert. The

number 4 boiler there is being converted to hog fuel capability at the

recommendation of the provincial government. Members of the

boilermakers union performing the operation have repeatedly complained

of symptoms of gassing on the job site. Can the minister confirm to

this House that over 45 workers in the area of boiler number 4 have

been stricken by some degree of gassing?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I can neither confirm nor deny that those events have taken place.

However, in anticipation of this particular question or something like

it, I do have some comments which I'm prepared to give to the House now.

MR. SPEAKER: If they are in answer to the question, please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They are not in specific answer to whether or not there are 45....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I would suggest that the best order to follow would be

to stand immediately following question period and ask leave to give

that reply.

MR. HOWARD: Supplementary, then. On May

29 three men — namely, Martin McManus, Al Clarice and Ken Wilson — were

severely gassed on the job site. In point of fact, virtually every

worker on the shift was affected by gassing to some degree. Can the

minister confirm that the total number of meters that are established

to monitor the job site about gassing are only two, and that these are

not manned constantly? Can the minister also confirm that the Workers'

Compensation Board is satisfied with the situation as I have described

it and is taking no action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With

respect to a couple of the specific questions, I do not have specific

answers, but I will take your suggestion and read the material which I

have, which at this time is the fullest possible answer to the matter

being referred to.

MR. HOWARD: That's an incredible

answer. I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm —

that's if he's paid any attention to this serious matter — that several

of the workers stricken by the gas have found it necessary to fly to

Vancouver for medical treatment? Can he also assure this House that

their expenses will be paid by the employer and the WCB?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Again, I don't have particular answers for the specific questions, but

I will take each of them on notice and get back to the House.

MS. SANFORD:

I have questions for the Minister of Labour as well. The gas which is

most likely responsible for the seizures that the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard) referred to is methyl mercaptan. I wonder if the minister

can confirm that the problem of mercaptan use in the forest industry

was brought to the attention of the WCB over two years ago, and that at

that time the board arbitrarily raised the allowable levels of

mercaptan gas for job sites?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I cannot confirm it. What I will do is take the question on notice and return to the House.

MS. SANFORD:

In light of these incidents, any one of which could have resulted in a

tragedy, what steps has the minister taken to protect the workers in

British Columbia from mercaptan gas before the present regulations of

the WCB, which are obviously too lax, result in someone's death?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I shall plead ignorance. I don't know anything about methyl mercaptan gas. I will go to Hansard

to get the particulars of the question, hon. member. Again, I will make

the appropriate inquiry on behalf of the House and report back.

[ Page 5951 ]

MS. SANFORD: The minister doesn't seem to know much about this situation, even though he's going to be making a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's have the question, please.

MS. SANFORD:

I'm wondering if the minister can confirm that there is also an

asbestos poisoning danger on the same job site, which has been reported

to the WCB.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have not had any

report filed in the office with respect to the presence of asbestos.

Again, I will take the question on notice. I don't quite understand how

the members can really expect somebody to be fully informed about the

nature of the gas in asbestos at an industrial site.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES:

My question is to the Minister of Labour as well, Mr. Speaker. I am

reliably informed that the human rights officer currently assigned to

investigate the Ku Klux Klan requested a copy of the McAlpine report

from the minister's office. The report apparently was being delivered,

until the minister had a courier intercept and return it. Would the

minister clarify to the House the accuracy of this information?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a newspaper report? Inquiring into the accuracy of newspaper reports is not in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I heard something about this. It seems to me I may have

read it in the press. A request was made; that's the only knowledge I

have. In any event, I might say that the report will be filed in the

House. I don't think it's right that that report — if in fact it was

requested — be sent to members of the community at large without first

being tabled in the House and letting every member have a look at it.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, just an aside. I think that the minister should be aware....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is question period.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, this is in response to his suggestion that the officer is

a member of the community at large: he happens to be working for the

human rights branch.

Will the minister indicate in what way

the human rights branch is involved in this unusually long suppression

of the McAlpine report — a report commissioned as an urgent measure in

response to public pressure for government action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The report has been examined by senior people in my ministry. That is

the extent, to the best of my knowledge, of anyone in the Ministry of

Labour reviewing it. The report has also been examined by some of my

colleagues. Until the report is tabled, I have no intention whatsoever

of placing it in any branch of the ministry.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that his investigation

is strictly a political one and that the staff of the human rights branch have

no role to play whatsoever in the analysis of this matter? I would ask the

minister if he would indicate to the House whether or not the director, Nola

Landucci, is involved in the discussion of the McAlpine report.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, some of the staff in the human rights branch were

interviewed by Mr. McAlpine and put forth their suggestions to him.

MR. BARNES:

Would the minister indicate to the House whether or not one of their

suggestions was that the branch was quite confident that it could

prosecute the Klan under

section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code — that

they could use the present legislation to prosecute the Klan today,

without any amendment or without any commission being appointed to

study the problem?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I

will not make reference to the report, but I will tell you that I have

on file a letter from the branch which specifically states that with

respect to the request for an inquiry it was felt that the areas and

the language set out in the existing code were not adequate. Do you

think for one moment that if they were I would have initiated the

report and incurred this? Not on your life!

MR. BARNES:

I have one final question to the minister. He suggested yesterday or

the day before when we were questioning him on this matter that the

McAlpine report, notwithstanding, probably had no effect whatsoever on

whether the Klan would succeed or not. Is he suggesting that even if

the report were tabled we would still be in a position of no action on

the part of the government? In light of that, what action will you be

taking if, in your opinion, you don't feel the report will have any

validity in any event? That's what you suggested two or three days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, the report has a great deal of validity. If I heard the

member correctly, what I mentioned yesterday is that it has become

abundantly evident that the Code is not adequate to address this

problem. I do hope that after further discussions with my colleagues

and review of the recommendations we will in fact be able to do

something about the activities of the Klan.

MR. BARRETT:

In consideration of the seriousness of this very issue, does the

minister not believe that the public of British Columbia are mature

enough to judge for themselves the value of the contents of the

McAlpine report, which they paid for?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The short answer is yes, I do believe that the public will be

interested in the contents of the report and more than mature in

handling its contents.

POLITICAL POLLING BY

GOLDFARB AND DOUGLAS HEAL

MR. HALL: My question is to

the Provincial Secretary. Can the Provincial Secretary assure the House

that provincial taxpayers' money is not being used in any way for

political polling, either in the province of British Columbia or in the

rest of Canada?

[ Page 5952 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: The short answer to that questions is yes, I can assure the House. The question is related to political polling, is it not?

MR. HALL:

Can the minister confirm that $10,000 was paid to Goldfarb Consultants

of Willowdale, Ontario, to, among other things, determine political

issues of concern, including government and politics?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think it might be more beneficial for the House if the member would

provide more specific information related to that particular

expenditure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is not to bring information, but to ask questions.

MR. HALL: The minister can check correspondence and cheque vouchers in his own department to find that information.

What

instructions has the Provincial Secretary given to Mr. Douglas Heal

regarding the use of taxpayers' money for such partisan political

surveys?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of the

specifics of what the member is referring to. If he would supply me

with more information on it, I'd be happy to supply the information to

the House.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. The point of order I want to raise I do so because of an

extraordinary situation that has developed. The point of order relates

to standing order 48, which indicates that two days' notice shall be

given of a motion, etc. I very reluctantly file notice of the motion in

written form, but want to advise Your Honour orally that the motion

relates to Your Honour's lack of action with respect to the question of

privilege raised a number of days ago by the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell). I thought it appropriate to advise Your Honour directly

before tabling the particular notice of motion.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a

point of order, it appears that the minister wishes to ask leave to

make a statement. I just wish to inform the House that if leave were

requested, the opposition will gladly give it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure all hon. members are aware that leave in committee is not possible.

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

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the opposition is prepared to accept

the motion that the committee rise, report progress and then allow the

minister to ask leave to make a statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there must be a motion.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. I can't move it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm the first one on my feet, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As hon. members are aware, in the estimates the minister was almost recognized....

MR. NICOLSON: It's the first person on their feet, Mr. Chairman, if we go by standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. The Chair was about to recognize the

minister. The Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order. The

Chair now recognizes the minister on vote 117.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, as we adjourned yesterday, I was just about ready to give

some figures to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). I'm

pleased that the member is in the chamber today, because then she can

have the answers to the discussion surrounding the concerns that she

had regarding the increases in benefits to income assistance and a

comparison of those benefits as they are affected by the cost of

living. I just wanted to share with the House some figures provided by

my research staff who really have set out.... I'm going to make this

available also to the member for Cowichan-Malahat so she will see it in

the written form.

The comparisons of actual benefits paid

with the cost of living — the CPI — are fairly dramatic. If one were to

take the October 1976 benefits paid, an average amount per person in

1976 was $121.86. I'm averaging every single person receiving income

assistance, whether they are heads of families or single persons, in

total, and comparing that with the same group of people in April 1981.

In October 1976 the average was $121.86, compared with April 1981, when

it was $216.82. That comparison shows a difference of 77.9 percent. If

one were to use the same comparison you would have found, compared to

the CPI, that the difference would have been 46.2 percent, as compared

to 77.9 percent. If you would like to take comparisons of cases, which

would mean singles plus families together, that average of October 1976

is $264.69. In April 1981 the amount is $418.62, for a difference of

58.2 percent, compared to a 46.2 percent CPI. If one were to take

families and an average-per-family comparison, October 1976 is $358.06,

compared to $563.46 in April 1981, again showing an increase of 57.4

percent; that 57.4 percent compares to the CPI of 44.2 percent. If we

can make another rather dramatic comparison, the single-person category

in 1976 was $144.75. In April 1981 it's $276.47, showing an increase of

90.1 percent in that time-frame, compared to the CPI increase of 46.2

percent. I think those figures show that had we moved along in

increases according to the cost of living, as has been suggested over

the years, those same categories — and all, in fact — would have fallen

behind. We have indeed exceeded that in these years.

closing, I think I answered most of that which was raised in the House,

and I look forward to other questions from both sides of the House.

[ Page 5953 ]

MS. BROWN:

I'm sorry the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has left, because

now that I'm on my feet I could have moved that the committee rise so

that he would have had an opportunity to make his statement.

However,

when the estimates began a couple of days ago I dealt with the failure

of the minister to meet her advocacy role, and yesterday you heard a

number of my colleagues outlining ways in which the minister failed to

meet her responsibility to deliver services to people in need in the

province.

The

reason for that is that the minister works at

her Human Resources job as a part-time job. In fact she spends maybe

less than half her time discharging her responsibilities as the

Minister of Human Resources. For this reason I think it would be unfair

for this side of the House to vote the minister her full salary, and so

I would like to move that vote 177 be reduced by the amount of

$116,968. If that is in order, I would like to proceed to explain why

it is

that a part-time minister should only receive a part-time salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order, hon. member.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN:

Yesterday, in responding to some of the questions raised on this side

of the House, the minister made a number of statements, a couple of

which I would like to deal with very quickly.

The first

issue, raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, was about the fact

that women in receipt of maintenance payments whose husbands or

ex-husbands fall into arrears, and make the payment as a lump sum, are

not permitted by the ministry to retain the entire amount of money they

receive as a lump sum. In many instances the money is deducted and

they're only permitted to accept either $100 or, if it's a large amount

of money, they keep the money and they're turfed off welfare. The

minister suggested that this was an individual problem, that each

person should really bring that to her office and discuss it with her,

and it could be dealt with that way. I raised this issue last year with

the minister and the year before, and it is still a problem, because,

quite frankly, it is policy.

I want to bring to the

minister's attention her own policy in terms of GAIN regulation 3(2)10,

schedule A,

section 8(1)

schedule B, and

section 9(1), where it

says: "The following is a definition of 'unearned income,' and such

income must be totally deducted from any income-assistance benefits."

Then it goes on to list from A to S all of the different categories

which fall under the description of unearned income. Lump-sum alimony

payments fall under this definition under

section S. So I would like to

suggest to the minister that

section S be amended. I cannot amend

regulations; I can only make a recommendation — and she asked for

positive recommendations. So my positive recommendation is that GAIN

regulation 3(2)10,

schedule A,

section 8(1),

schedule B, and

section

9(1), 3S, be amended so that it reads: "...any other income

declared by the director to be unearned income, except back payments of

maintenance." That is my recommendation.

The other matter

raised by the minister, very briefly, had to do with a statement by the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) about the impossibility of

securing reasonable housing as a result of the inadequate shelter

allowance and the fact that the ministry is paying large sums of money

to motels and hotels to provide accommodation for income-assistance

families in instances where they cannot themselves find accommodation

because the shelter portion is just not adequate. My positive

recommendation in that area, Mr. Chairman, is that the shelter portion

of GAIN has to be increased, that it has to be brought more in line

with the actual rents which people have to pay.

The final

issue which the minister raised yesterday and which I would like to

respond to very briefly was her comment — and I'm going to quote from

it — where she said: "Our government's position on day care is very

clear; our response as to whether or not we believe in universal day

care is no, we do not. We believe that universal day care takes

responsibility away from the family." I would like to let the minister

know that the opposition's position on day care is very clear. Our

response as to whether we believe in universal day care or not is that

we do. I would also like to let the minister know that we do not

perceive day care as taking away from the family's responsibility. We

see day care as a very important

part in the early development of the

child.

Research has been done by a number of people in this

field, including Professor Hannah Polowy and other professors in the

UBC faculty of education, where it has been found that children who

participate in a group day-care program are enhanced in terms of their

cognitive development and also in terms of their social development, in

terms of how they relate to each other. Day care is not designed to

meet the needs of parents, Mr. Chairman; day care is designed to meet

the needs of children. That's what day care is designed to do. Day care

is also a preventive program. As the minister herself should know, the

child abuse program of Vancouver General Hospital used day-care

facilities extensively. They found that it decreased the amount of

abuse of children by their parents, simply by removing the child from

continual contact with the parent; placing the child in group day care

gave the parents a rest and certainly gave the child a different

environment in terms of its own development.

We do not see

day care as a baby-sitting service. We so not see day care solely as a

means of allowing people to go to work. We see day care, first of all,

as part of the early development of the child — a very important part

of the early development of the child, especially in those instances

where we're dealing with an only child or where it's a child that does

not have access to the company of other children — children living in

apartment blocks, for example. But it is a very important

part in the

cognitive, psychological and social development of the child. Day care

should be available to all children, not just to those children whose

parents have to work. We feel very strongly our commitment to universal

day care.

There are a number of other issues which other of

my colleagues would like to raise in support of this resolution. They

are disappointed and saddened by the fact that the needs of children,

seniors and other people in this province who depend on the ministry

are not being met because this minister insists on being a part-time

minister. She spends much more of her time trying to develop a

convention centre than trying to relate to her responsibility either as

an advocate for the people of this province who are in need or as the

person responsible for delivering services. That is why I have moved

this motion to cut this minister's salary in half.

[ Page 5954 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, I rise, of course, in support of this amendment. Normally

in the past couple of years I haven't been dwelling a great deal or

spending a lot of time on these estimates or on these problems. So many

members here are very articulate and knowledgeable on these matters.

But as one of the MLAs in this House — and I know this is happening

with most MLAs — we are getting more and more problems from our

constituencies relating to the Ministry of Human Resources, primarily

because of the harsh regulations coming down from the senior level of

the ministry — I presume from the minister's office and the cabinet

level.

Rather than go into the whole thing again, to

illustrate my point I've chosen three cases in three different areas

which, in my view, exemplify exactly what I'm talking about. The first

case deals with an elderly lady who happens to live in Powell River in

my riding. She is 54 years old, lives alone, has no income whatsoever

and has medical problems. She wrote me quite early this year asking for

assistance, as her total income, including the supplement from Human

Resources, adds up to $331 per month. Her rent was increased in January

of this year to $280 a month, leaving her $51 a month for food and

utilities — obviously an impossible situation. I won't name her; I

don't think that's proper. The minister has a copy of this letter, by

the way, Mr. Chairman. I'll get to that in a minute. I know that the

minister is listening.

The rates have gone up

insignificantly, in my view, for some of these people. The problem that

I'm outlining here is that I did contact the ministry, at the local

level first; they told me that they weren't able to do anything because

of regulations. They had not the power or authority to grant any type

of extra funds to this lady. She had to go other agencies — and I did

assist her in that — for survival funds. By the way, they told her at

the local level they would find a cheaper place to live. Now you tell

me where you can find a place to live like a human being for less than

$280 a month. Practically anywhere in the province it's just about an

impossibility. So that was the advice at the local level. They told me

at the local level: "Look, we know that this person needs assistance.

We are powerless to do anything, because if we break the regulations at

this level we're out of a job. You'll have to take the thing to

Victoria." I took this whole matter to Victoria. The answer came back:

"We're very sorry, but regulations are regulations. We can't do

anything for her. We will be increasing the allowance." This has

happened — insignificantly, in my view. So there is an increase in the

allowance. She is still in that same position.

In supporting

the motion by the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I feel that

if this minister were truly concerned about these people — and there

are a lot of people in a similar position — she would spend all her

time looking after them. This is what she's getting paid for; this is

her responsibility; she should be spending all her time looking after

the disadvantaged in the province. That's one example.

[Mr. King in the chair.]

The

second example very clearly illustrates a point in another direction.

Let's remember that this is the Year of the Disabled. This situation

involves an elderly lady who is still working and earning $750 a month.

She has had two young people thrust upon her due to a series of

circumstances, which it is not necessary to go into in this debate.

They are her grandsons, aged 16 and 17, one of whom is a thalidomide

child. He is going to school; he is very bright. However, according to

the minister, he is not eligible for any assistance whatsoever. The boy

has one leg, and his hands, face, etc., are deformed. Could I get the

ear of the minister? Because I think this is very important. I'm really

attempting to make a point here that's really important.

What

I'm attempting to do here is explain something to the minister. I'm

going to quote from the correspondence I received from the minister on

this particular case. The minister may remember it — the Vanichuk case.

I discussed it with the minister personally, and I put it in writing as

well. I'll just give a bit of the background. On $750 a month this

elderly lady, who is forced to work and maintain a home for these two

young people who have been thrust upon her, one of whom is seriously

disabled.... There was no help available of any kind; once again, I am

told, it was because of regulations, to put it in a nutshell. In the

letter from the minister — who was good enough to take a lot of time to

make a very lengthy reply....

The fact is that the situation

that exists in that home is very bad now, particularly in this Year of

the Disabled, when these are the people we should be helping. There is

no help available, primarily because this boy is still going to school.

He will be graduating this year. If he were out of school there would

be some assistance available. He should be in school; he's a very

bright young fellow. But because he's still going to school, there is

no help available for him. It really concerns me that the minister will

send this type of regulation down through the ministry to the local

level. Every case worker in the community is aware of this case. Every

case worker in that community agreed that if there were any family in

the area that should be eligible for assistance, it's this particular

family. Yet nothing was done. There's no help whatsoever available.

It's really disturbing. If this minister were doing her job correctly,

in my view, and working full-time at her job, and she had compassion

for a fellow human being in that very sensitive position she holds as

Minister of Human Resources, these kinds of things wouldn't happen in

this province; they certainly would not happen under a New Democratic

government.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

third case. Just to make a point, rather than going into all the other

things under regulations, I think these three cases will really

exemplify and put in a nutshell what we're all trying to say here in

the debate on these estimates. I have a copy of correspondence from the

director of Malaspina College to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith), the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

In Malaspina College there have been a number of cutbacks because of

funding and inflation, as there have been in every college throughout

British Columbia. The case I'm talking about today is because of lack

of funding. In spite of pleas at the local college level, the college

has no choice but to cut out and do away with the person who was

charged with special adult education for the mentally retarded in that

community. The funds requested were $26,400. Here we are in the Year of

the Disabled. Because of funding cutbacks this position in that college

at that level is being done away with on the direct orders of the

government. They say they will not fund it. Where is that money going?

[ Page 5955 ]

I understand $800,000 was earmarked for adult special education through the Ministry of Education.

The

minister goes to cabinet and has the opportunity to make representation

to Treasury Board. Why has that minister not stood up in cabinet and

gone to Treasury Board and demanded these funds? She's demanding funds

for Pier B-C, B.C. Place and public participation in the northeast coal

deal, which is going to cost the taxpayers literally billions of dollars

in the initial stages as a subsidy. Yet she could not find the money to

maintain these services for the mentally handicapped people in that

community. I suspect this is happening elsewhere; in fact, I know it

is, because I took the trouble to check. The minister must know that

when these people attend these classes to upgrade their capabilities,

they very often have the opportunity to go to work in the community in

some capacity. But they can't do that without proper training and

education. This is exactly what's happening.

In my view,

it's making a laughing-stock out of British Columbia, when we have

banners, leaflets, scrolls and all of these things discussing the Year

of the Disabled and funds are being cut back for this very purpose in

this province, while we can subsidize these big-ticket political

projects. In my view, that is a farce. I hope that when she replies the

minister will address herself to that question.

On this

particular issue, I am now making a plea in this Legislature that these

funds for the mentally disabled be restored so Malaspina College in my

community at least can continue that very fine program they have

underway.

Secondly, I ask that the minister in regulation or

legislation allow some leeway to the people of Human Resources at the

local level to make arbitrary decisions for funding for special

purposes. Because in both of the cases I've mentioned — there are many

more, but these happen to be two cases that have gone completely

through the ministry and right to the minister's office with no action

— the situation is as bad today as it was a month or three months ago

when they were first brought to my attention.

I'm asking the

minister to spend more time at her job. The job she was assigned by the

Premier to do was to look after the people who require special

assistance in this province. Give Pier B-C and her other projects to

somebody who can handle them possibly better, and at least well.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before recognizing the next speaker, let me point out that the

committee cannot discuss a grant on which the committee has resolved,

or a grant not yet brought forward. The member just taking his place

was discussing estimates which might have been more property addressed

under the Ministry of Education.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just

to correct an impression you seem to have, my question to the minister

was simply this. Since this correspondence went to the minister that I

referred to, as well as to the Ministry of Education, I simply asked

that she at least raise her voice in cabinet on behalf of the disabled

people of this province and to Treasury Board to have these funds

restored. The minister obviously must have influence. Why else would

these people be writing to her? Certainly the minister is responsible

to some degree for the disabled people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member's point is well made. However, the Chair does remind all

members that we must maintain debate relevant to the ministry, the vote

and the grant before us.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I

would like to speak against this amendment. First of all I'd like to

say I had a little bit of difficulty following the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead), who got up speaking in favour of the amendment to cut

the minister's office expenditures in half. Then somewhere in the

speech I heard requests that the minister do more, and that her office

do more and so on. I'm having a bit of difficulty in equating those two

in the same concept.

I am speaking against this amendment

because I feel that the minister is doing an excellent job in the

ministry. I think she has brought imaginative ideas and has introduced

some new programs that have brought good administration to that

ministry. She takes a very strong personal interest in any of the

problems that are brought to her attention. In other words, whenever I

have brought problems to her attention — I know of other members who

have — she has sought solutions. I know she has made every effort to

try and get out and establish personal contact with the people in her

ministry. With that type of contact there comes a cooperative

commitment to try and help the people who require help. That certainly

is something that minister has instilled in her staff — a feeling that

something can be done and that the answer is not just to keep handing

out more money. Where people need money to get by and where help is

needed, every effort is made to provide that to the extent possible,

but we look for other solutions to get people off welfare or income

assistance, rather than just constantly providing more money. I think

that is a responsible attitude. It's responsible not just to the

taxpayers or the economy of this province, but is also responsible to

the very people who need assistance. If you can get people helping

themselves, instead of increasing their help, that does much more for

them than any handout programs.

I think this particular

amendment to cut this minister's office expenditures in half does a

disservice to the people of British Columbia. Certainly not everyone

will be satisfied. All of us can expect correspondence from people who

would like, expect and need more. To suggest that the solution lies in

cutting the expenditures of the minister's office in half has to be a

somewhat ridiculous approach to the problem. I would like to suggest to

the minister that she continue her personal commitment to helping when

problems come to her attention and in trying to get people to help

themselves as much as possible, because therein lies the long-term

solution. I'd certainly like all responsible members of this House to

defeat this amendment so the minister can get on with her job.

MR. KING:

After that ringing endorsement of the minister, I'm somewhat reticent

about getting up and participating in the debate. I want to say to the

member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who refers to handouts,

that in the Year of the Disabled, when the government, at least

allegedly, has made a commitment to the disabled of the province of

British Columbia, I am surprised to hear a member of the House

referring to those commitments to support disabled people as "handouts."

MR. BRUMMET: Don't twist it.

MR. KING:

That's what my colleagues from Mackenzie and Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) were referring to: the cases of legitimate need, not handouts.

The handouts that I'm familiar with that have occurred in this

Legislature over the past few months are not referred to by members of

the

[ Page 5956 ]

government

benches as handouts when they are directed to the major corporations of

this province. Then it's a "subsidy." Then it's an "incentive" — such

as to Denison Mines, Teck Corp. and, just yesterday, Royal Trust.

Millions of dollars of "incentive." Yet when it comes to supporting

people who are disabled and have needs, we hear them referred to as

handouts. It's a clear indication of where the priorities are in this

Legislature. Let the facts speak for themselves. Methinks the member

doth protest too much from his little corner of the world in isolation

down there. Perhaps now we know why.

I want to address some

questions to the Minister of Human Resources regarding an agreement, as

I understand it, that was entered into last year between the minister

and the Spallumcheen Indian band at Enderby. I believe the minister did

meet with Chief Wayne Christian. The problem, as articulated by Chief

Christian, was with respect to the custody of Indian children when they

were taken into custody by the Ministry of Human Resources. I've been

provided with some pretty alarming statistics. I know my colleague from

Burnaby-Edmonds has raised this in debates in past years, but I'm

shocked and amazed to find that 40 percent of all the children in

custody in the province through the Ministry of Human Resources are

indeed Indian children. That statistic in itself speaks of something

radically wrong when one looks at the proportion of Indian population

in the province and we see the disproportionate percentage of Indian

children who are in custody through the Ministry of Human Resources.

want to say to the minister that I'm pleased she met with the chief of

the particular band, and sat down and discussed this problem, albeit

through some very persuasive activity by the Indian band to bring the

minister to the table to discuss it. Be that as it may, my interest is

that a meeting did take place, and I believe an agreement of sorts was

forged out of that meeting. That is what I would like to question the

minister on. I would like the minister to explain to the House what the

essence of that agreement was.

As I understand it from the

media reports at the time, it basically provided for the Spallumcheen

Indian band to assume the responsibility for the control of their own

children. I believe the Ministry of Human Resources committed itself to

this transfer of authority to the Spallumcheen band. As I recall it, I

think the details regarding those children who were currently under

care and how they might be transferred to the custody of the

Spallumcheen band itself were left to further discussions and

negotiations. Then there was the question, I believe, of where the

necessary resources for the budgetary support to give effect to

whatever precise agreement and plan is negotiated between the minister

and the band with respect to the ongoing custody of the children would

come from.

I would appreciate very much if the minister

would simply give to me a rundown or status report on what has

transpired since that agreement of intent, which is, in effect, what we

had. Could the minister tell me whether or not there have been any

subsequent meetings and, if so, whether a final program has been

established and approved by the ministry through which the band can

give effect and bring to fruition the agreement of intent that was

signed? If such a meeting and agreement have not been reached, could

the minister then tell me what her plans for bringing this agreement of

intent into fruition are? What's the time-frame? Is there a meeting

planned or pending between the senior officials of the ministry and the

band to finalize and give effect to the spirit of that initial

agreement? I should appreciate very much having an explanation from the

minister as to what precisely is going on there. I think the native

Indian band is anxious to get on with the job. Although I haven't been

privy to all the discussions that have taken place, I would appreciate

the minister filling me in in that respect.

I do have

another matter to raise briefly with the minister, but perhaps she

might like to respond to this matter first. Is that the minister's

wish, or shall I raise the other point?

The other point I

had relates to the mentally disabled in a particular way that I don't

think has been raised in the House through discussion by the other

members. I have a letter that perhaps I should read out, identifying

the problem in a more precise and articulate fashion than I could

myself. I'll just read it to the minister and ask for her response to

this particular problem. It's a letter from Pearl N. Mowers, who is

president of the Salmon Arm and District Association for the Mentally

Retarded, and it's directed to the president of the BCAMR in Kelowna:

"At

a recent meeting of the Salmon Arm and District Association for the

Mentally Retarded, a motion was passed that we write a letter to you

and to BCAMR expressing our concern about the present unsatisfactory

situation in trying to set up an estate for a mentally handicapped

person. The specific problem is that concerned parents, guardians or

relatives, who wish upon their demise to provide extra benefits to a

handicapped person to enhance his or her lifestyle, are thwarted in

their wishes by existing legislation. All bequests, whether real or

personal, are immediately attached by the public trustee for the basic

maintenance of the handicapped person in their care. The wishes of the

benefactors are often totally disregarded or, at best, the fulfilment

of some of these wishes becomes a frustrating and prolonged legal

process.

"The members of our association have

attended within the past year two seminars at which estate planning for

the handicapped was discussed. On both occasions either the public

trustee or members of his staff were in attendance. Many questions were

asked from the floor, but few were answered to our satisfaction. We

therefore strongly question the policies of the office of the public

trustee, when they are unable to explain these policies to us and are

also unable to explain how and why these policies will be implemented.

There appears to be very poor communication between the office of the

public trustee and the people whom that office is serving.

"Further

to this concern we also question the reason for the public trustee

having the legal right to claim the benefits willed to other family

members by a benefactor and to use these benefits for the basic

maintenance of a handicapped person included in the same estate, when

such is not the wish of the benefactor. We have concrete evidence that

this practice exists and that it is considered proper. We do not agree.

We are very aware that this problem of estate planning and the handling

of estates concerning handicapped persons has been discussed by many

local associations and at provincial and federal conferences as well.

We also know from information garnered during the past year that where

criminal law is concerned, a mentally handicapped adult has the same

rights — no more and no less — than a normal adult. Yet, in civil law,

where

[ Page 5957 ]

we are most likely to be involved, a mentally handicapped person

appears to have no rights; and while their rights are being ignored, the rights

of their parents or guardians are being equally overridden. We therefore strongly

recommend that BCAMR petition the proper government authorities and insist

that legislation controlling these unfair practices be amended to provide that

benefits willed to handicapped beneficiaries be disbursed specifically as indicated

by their benefactors.

"We

further recommend that BCAMR step to the fore by setting up a legal

financial board or committee to either control or monitor the handling

of estates dealing with mentally incompetent persons. This monitoring

could be further extended by having an appointed committee at the local

level to deal with the problems on a more personal basis and without

undue delays.

"We trust that this letter

expressing our concern will be brought to the attention of your

executive at this month's meeting. We hope also that the British

Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded will make every effort

to set the wheels in motion for immediate action on this urgent

problem. We are sending copies of this letter to other local

associations asking them for their active support of our

recommendations. We are also sending copies to Mrs. Grace McCarthy,

Minister of Human Resources; to the Human Rights Commission of British

Columbia; Mr. Nelson Riis, Member of Parliament for Kamloops-Shuswap;

Mr. King, the member of the Legislature for Revelstoke-Shuswap; and

Mr. Joe Lucas, our regional director for BCAMR.

Pearl N. Mowers"

I want to say, Mr.

Chairman, that I appreciate that there is another ministry involved

here. However, it's a joint area of responsibility. There is

responsibility within the Ministry of Human Resources for delivering

proper services to mentally handicapped people. While the public

trustee resides in another ministerial jurisdiction, it is nevertheless

incumbent, I believe, upon the Minister of Human Resources to ensure

that that service is designed, tailored and capable of meeting the

program needs of mentally handicapped people. And I would ask for her

response or at least her perception of this problem, which I do intend

to raise again when the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom'

s) estimates are before the House, if that should occur this session.

Nevertheless, I would like an indication from the minister of what her

feeling is toward this particular problem,

I know that the

public trustee has a difficult task of protecting the interests of the

handicapped person or the person over whose estate he is trustee. It's

a doubly difficult position to be in, but nevertheless it seems to me

there's some validity in the complaint contained in the letter I just

read. If the minister would respond to those particular issues, I

should appreciate it very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

hon. member and the minister are both aware, I'm sure, that vote 36 of

the estimates of the Attorney-General might be more appropriate.

However, some latitude has been allowed, and the committee is reminded

of that with respect to another vote.

MR. MITCHELL: I

would like to enter this debate. There are three major subjects that I

would like to bring to the minister's attention, where I feel her

ministry is not keeping up with the times or not keeping up to what is

needed to be innovative and to provide a service. The three items I

would like to discuss are the crisis grants, the shelter allowances and

the Langwood adult care institute or school that was in my riding.

Mr.

Chairman, I know that you are not privy to all the correspondence that

has gone on between me and the minister. For your benefit and to maybe

refresh the minister's memory on some of the facts, this particular

case dealt with a lady who was on welfare. She was attending school to

upgrade her chances of getting re-employed and showed the initiative

that I feel is admirable for a person of her age and background. She

had a family and was making mortgage payments on a home. Through the

winter the sewers and drains of her home blocked up. A number of

volunteers from her church came to her aid, dug out the ditch and

attempted to repair the blocked sewers. You can imagine that it flooded

her basement and the lower part of the home. She utilized volunteers.

They dug it all. After consulting some of the municipal officials, when

they had opened it they realized they needed a plumber. So a plumber

was engaged. He charged very reasonably for the work that he did. There

was no complaint about the value that he gave for the work he

performed. The price came to $800. It was something that had to happen

right now.

She received the bill and applied for a crisis

grant. This woman is on welfare, has a family and is going back to

school. She's not earning additional income, because of her attempt to

get retrained so she can get back into the workforce. She applied for

the crisis grant, and it was turned down. What bothered me was that it

was turned down not for the amount or for the work, but because she did

not make the proper applications through the red tape bureaucracy that

exists within the ministry. She hadn't made her application prior to

digging up the ditches. It wasn't made before she had found out by

using volunteers to dig up the ditch that it was damage that the

volunteers could not repair for nothing and they had to have a plumber.

Because she hadn't gone through that bureaucracy, she was turned down.

appealed it through the various levels of the ministry: social workers,

supervisors and right up through the bureaucracy. I eventually appealed

it to the minister herself. It was $800. Maybe to you and me, $800 is

not a great amount; but to someone who is struggling to make payments

on her mortgage, to keep a 16-year-old boy in school and in clothes and

to upgrade her education, $800 is insurmountable. What happened? It was

turned down. I received a letter from the minister which I thought was

very hard and callous. It said that it was turned down because she had

not made the proper application. The letter also stated that it would

not cause any hardship. An $800 bill to someone who is afraid that her

house was going to have a lien put on it is a hardship.

feel that the ministry must be a little more innovative. They must be a

little more human. They must realize that a crisis grant is a crisis

grant. It is not something you can plan ahead. When your basement is

flooded with surface water and sewage, to sit back, wait and make all

the applications to the bureaucracy is ridiculous. I ask the minister,

when she is reviewing the rules and regulations, procedures and

separate applications.... Even if they had offered to pay part of the

grant or make some particular settlement, loan or something....

[ Page 5958 ]

it turned out, the lady did come into a little money and was able to

pay it before a lien was put on the house. But the plumber had to wait.

All the people in the church who were involved in it were very

disgusted with the inhuman attitude of the workers, of the supervisors

and of the minister herself. I feel that we must take a more or less

positive and human policy. We should look at crisis grants for what

they are. I don't want to see them abused. I would hate to see them

just become a blank cheque. But I think that when applications are made

and MLAs have studied them and interviewed all the people, there should

be some better method than saying that the $800 bill will not bother a

person in her income.

A second issue I would like to discuss

is the shelter allowance that is given to people on assistance. I know

that it doesn't matter what you give, you can always find a figure that

should be higher. I think we should look at what a shelter allowance is

for. It is to provide shelter for a person and his family. With

fast-escalating costs for housing today, and because of the high

increase in mortgage payments and the shortage of homes, some of the

rents and the remortgaging that has to come from a person who is paying

a mortgage is taking more money than is allowed under your shelter

allowance.

I have one particular case where the lady was

getting a shelter allowance which I believe at that time was set at

$385. Her mortgage payment at that point was $405. She only had to make

up the difference of $20 out of food. Because of the policy today that

you have to remortgage every year or two, when she went to remortgage

her home, the payments had jumped from $405 to $528. There was no

attempt by the ministry, and there is no give-and-take within the

regulations, so the additional money she must pay for that shelter had

to come out of her family food and the other things you need when

you're raising four boys on welfare.

We have to be a little

more innovative and flexible. One of the recommendations I would like

to give to the minister for her consideration is that the rate of

earned income should be a little more flexible. To have $50 for a

single person and $100 for a family is not in itself a practical way to

do it. I believe that a family which has shown a little initiative, one

that will go out and attempt to earn additional income, should not have

the amount they earn frozen at $100.

I say that that amount

should be allowed to rise, at the very least, to the poverty level that

has been established in Canada. We have to be a little more flexible.

We must have a different approach to people. We in this House know that

because of the increase in the cost of living we all took an increase

in our indemnity, without any complaint. In our wisdom, we feel that we

need it. Expenses have gone up. In the minister's own department, she

is allowed an extra $300 for her deputy to have a car. But people are

still frozen at $100 earned income. That is not allowed to go up. If

they earn additional money — and they're way below the poverty level — it

is taken off their allowance.

I feel that the minister must

give leadership — in this House and in cabinet — to allow people to

survive. Inflation, cost of living, mortgage payments and food payments

are denying a lot of children who are growing up under this poor

economic system of today.... Those children are becoming very bitter

and disillusioned with Canadian democracy and rights. I say very

definitely to the minister that there has to be a change in the amount

of earned income, and it should be allowed to rise to at least the

poverty level in Canada.

The third item I would like to

bring to the minister's attention is the Langwood school for mentally

handicapped adults. Again, Mr. Chairman, I realize that you are not

privy to the minister's correspondence and a lot of the information

that has been exchanged by me and the Capital Region Association for

the Mentally Handicapped. The association funded a school in the

Langford area called Langwood. In that school were 22 mentally

handicapped adults. Their ages ranged from 22 to 50 or so.

These

were adults whose parents have looked after them throughout their

lifetimes. Many of the parents of these particular students were senior

citizens. The one benefit they received was that the children had an

opportunity to leave home at 9 o'clock in the morning and go to a

school for instruction; they came home at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

This was the only time many of these senior citizen parents had the

opportunity to relax and do some housework and not have to suffer the

problems of people who have lived all their lives with a mentally

handicapped adult in the home.

What did this particular

school cost society? The Capital Region Association budgeted $30,000

from their fund to finance it. For 22 adults, they had two workers to

keep it in operation. It's not a centre that can make money. It's a

centre for severely handicapped people.

The Capital Region

Association also funds another centre, the Sentinel workshop, which

does not have as severely handicapped people. Because of their

capabilities, they can raise additional funds. But the Langwood one

could not raise enough funds to help them. Last year they allowed an

overrun in their budget of $30,000. In fact, they only had a shortage

of $26,000. How was that funded? The ministry does assist. It gives $1

per training hour per student in the centre. But it is not realistic.

One dollar per student cannot fund this particular centre. The actual

funds needed, according to the directors of the centre, would be at

least $1.80 per training hour per student.

A lot of people

say the government can't keep providing additional money. But this

Legislature, in its own budget under the achievement centre program,

budgeted for $3.5 million. Maybe the cabinet ministers get Brownie

points in cabinet if they underspend their budgets. Last year the

achievement centre program underspent by $800,000. If this $800,000 had

been spent, if the grants that were given out to the various centres

had been raised to take into consideration today's costs, the Langwood

centre would not have to be closed down. If they had raised the rate

from $1 per training hour to $1.80 per training hour, it would have

survived, and 22 children would have been better off.

I'd

like to bring to the attention of the minister and the House what

happened to these 22 adults. Six went to the Serio program, a new, 100

percent provincially funded program operating out of the YMCA building

in Vic West. Three have moved out of the community. One was lucky

enough to be able to transfer to the Sentinel centre in Victoria. One

was lucky enough to be able to go to the Garth centre. But eight were

without any service at all. Some of those were returned to Glendale.

Some are back home, being looked after full-time by their parents.

say that every person, and especially the severely mentally

handicapped, has a right to enjoy some meaningful daytime activity.

When we, because of our desire to save a few dollars here, will not

accept the need to raise the money from $1 to $1.80 per training hour —

a very minimal amount — people are being denied this. What really

happened to the

[ Page 5959 ]

six

who went to the Serio program? As I said before, it's 100 percent

provincially funded. The Langwood plant had 22 children and two adults.

The six adults who are being funded provincially in Vic West have two

workers. This is a far better ratio. The provincial government has

provided 100 percent funding for this one program — they have funded

one worker to three adults — but because of their niggardly attitude to

the Langwood centre, it had to close down.

I would like the

minister to re-examine the whole grant system, to pay out the money

that was passed by this Legislature, to give to everyone who is

mentally handicapped the opportunity for their parents to have at least

four or five hours of every day when they are free of a burden that

they carry seven days a week, 24 hours a day, providing services for a

mentally handicapped person. Some parents have had them

institutionalized in places like Glendale, where they have a per-diem

cost of $90 to $100 a day. If you take into consideration the capital

cost of that building, you would be looking at something around $200 a

day. An extra 80 cents per training hour, I think, is needed and will

help. It will encourage parents to keep the children, to give them a

chance to get a break so that they can be on their own. As I say, some

of these cases are senior citizens. I've interviewed them all; I've met

with them and listened to their pleading. I would like to pass on to

the minister that she should look very closely and very humanely at the

money that is paid out to these centres. I know that in the last couple

of years the Capital Regional Association for the Mentally Handicapped

budget was funded 80 percent indirectly from the ministry, but because

of rising costs and the need for additional money it is only being

funded 55 percent from the ministry. I think we have to be innovative

and a little more flexible. I ask the minister to look at our crisis

grants from a human point of view, to look at shelter allowances from

the way they affect people and to look at the need for allowing earned

income to rise at least to the poverty level before they start cutting

off the amount of money the ministry is paying.

Again, in

closing, I would ask her to look at Langwood and to see if we can have

a better method of funding all the centres that are looking after the

mentally handicapped.

MR. NICOLSON: First of all I

guess I'd like to say, if it's not out of order on a non-confidence

motion — which I will be supporting, Mr. Chairman — that in spite of

the fact that I'll be supporting this motion, I would like to thank the

minister for returning a call to me in the evening on a very important

matter, and to indicate that on that basis I will give credit where

it's due.

However, there has been a matter canvassed a

little bit here today. It isn't just a statistical thing, and it is

something I would like to re-emphasize: that is, the way people are

victimized when maintenance payments do not come in regularly, but come

in in a lump-sum payment. I started correspondence with the minister on

this some time ago, and I did receive her final answer a week or two

ago. I cannot for the life of me think why she did not enter these

estimates with an announcement that regulations were to be changed. Why

not take the rug out from under us? Why not cut out the need for this

kind of debate? I can see no ethical reason why a person who is on

assistance from Human Resources is entitled to receive up to $100 per

month in excess of outside earnings — often coming in the form of

maintenance payments — and I don't see any reason why that person

should be the victim of the irregularity of those payments. I can't

understand it. I guess there are a lot of things I can't understand, and

that's one of them. You could have the best teacher in here trying to

explain this regulation to me, and I would still flunk the test. I

couldn't understand why a person who doesn't get a maintenance payment

for about three months or four months, and whose husband — who might be

working out in the bush, up in the Northwest Territories or in some

other province — finally gets his act together and says, "Okay, I'd

better send that money," is docked and not allowed to have that $100

in excess of what would otherwise be the nominal value of a monthly

payment for social assistance. It isn't fair.

I should not

accuse this minister of not having good political judgment, but I think

it's bad political judgment to allow this condition to continue and not

to have rectified it before coming in for these estimates. I can only

conclude that the minister is so preoccupied that even some of her very

fine political instincts are being numbed and dulled by the activity

and the preoccupation of the convention centre. It's a pretty sorry

thing to see. If I can admire a person on any level, I can admire a

person of astute political instincts. When something like this is

allowed to slip by, I am at a loss. I know of no way to approach the

subject with this particular minister if it isn't on the basis of

compassion and fair play. If at the last resort one cannot appeal on

the basis of politics and say that it's darn dumb politics, if one

can't make the argument for fair play or the other arguments.... I

think that this is the one thing that has maybe bothered me more than

anything this year.

I would say to the minister that it

seems in the past year.... I guess various things take up an MLA's

time. I think the Minister of Human Resources is taking up a great deal

of the time. Probably half or more of the people that come across the

threshold of my office come in with a Human Resources problem — little

things such as a lady and her husband, both pensioners. They were on

full medical benefits. She has feet which require corrective orthopedic

shoes. This particular lady went to a doctor. The doctor thought that

rather than send her to the specialist in Vancouver that he had sent

her to before, he would send her to another specialist in Kelowna. The

specialist in Kelowna almost instantaneously produced some plastic

shoes which appeared to have already been fitted before she even

arrived.

At any rate, her family physician and, I think,

also a specialist in another aspect of foot care subsequently wrote a

very disparaging letter. It's the only kind I've ever seen where one

doctor came so close to criticizing another doctor; in fact he didn't

come close — he did. In spite of that, the ministry said that while

these shoes were no good, they had already discharged their

responsibility, and it was up to them to pursue the thing. These are

older people. Thank goodness for the ombudsman. I referred the case to

the ombudsman, who did the job.

I think that is a warning

that the kind of philosophy that is emanating from the top down in the

ministry is leading.... Anybody becomes part of a system after a while.

People go into the penal system with the best intentions and then

become brutalized a little bit by the system. People go into the

vocation of social work with the best of intentions, but if a

philosophy is emanating from the top down. they get a little bit tough

and testy. With that kind of a philosophy at the top, it is manifested

at the bottom. Senior citizens like that get put through a wringer that

need never have occurred and need not take up the very limited

resources of the ombudsman's office if it were looked at in a

commonsense manner.

[ Page 5960 ]

think what we need is response. I don't want to see things explained to

me; I want to see changes when things are obviously wrong and when a

thing could be remedied so simply, such as the proposal made by my

colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) on this subject of

maintenance payments. A thing like that could be remedied very easily.

So I say to the minister: it's fair, it's just, it makes common sense,

and it's good politics. Please get on with it, because if we don't, I

don't think that your excellent staff can operate to the maximum of

their ability if the kind of direction that they're getting is not

responsive. Of course, if they have very limiting parameters to work

in, they just can't operate.

Also, I'd just like to say very

shortly that the minister should look at the fee-per-client-hour

concept in activity centres. I say this because it's been brought to my

attention through the experience of activity centres that have been in

operation for five and six years. It's kind of discouraging, the

placing of some of the more productive workers in the activity centres

out in the community. There is a tendency to hold the more productive

people there to help make the operation more economic, and some of

these people are perhaps ready to go out to a workplace — not into a

sheltered workshop, but to get out of that sheltered workshop and take

a fuller role in society. You almost have to hold on to those people in

order to keep the activity centre — whether it's producing ceramics, as

they do at Cresteramics in Creston, or whatever.

So I think

that we've had enough time, and it's time to move forward in that area.

We should always keep in mind that we want to take people and put them

in as people who participate in the fullest sense in society. And the

$1 per client-hour or whatever — even if it were $2 per client-hour —

does act as somewhat counterproductive, so that should really be

reviewed.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a

number of questions to the minister on this motion. The first one is on

fieldworkers up north. We have presently one fieldworker covering

probably one of the largest areas in the entire province. He has found

that the difficulty in travelling such large districts as the northern

part of the Atlin constituency has caused problems for him as well as

the residents of the area, who need his valuable services and the

services of Human Resources. As a suggestion, I would certainly hope

that the minister could alleviate this problem by having another

fieldworker in Cassiar help out with this large area that the one

present worker is covering.

The second question is of more

essence: food vouchers which are given particularly to the native

people who must shop in a company store in Cassiar. Presently the

system only allows the residents to spend their entire cheque in one

lot. It has caused hardship for the people, when they go into the

company store in Cassiar with their food vouchers from the Ministry of

Human Resources, to spend their entire cheque in one shot. The company

has not allowed the residents — the native people in particular — to

spread out their allotments. They would like to spend $100 in one shot,

come back in a week or two and spend the remainder. They have to spend

it all in one lump sum when they go to the company store in Cassiar.

The

fieldworker up in Cassiar has asked the company to change their

position, and they say they can't do it. I would certainly hope that

the minister could be in contact with the Cassiar Asbestos Corp. to

work out a solution so that people, particularly in the summertime when

they don't have refrigeration, don't have to go in and spend the whole

lump sum. What happens is that in a lot of instances people end up

buying junk food for their children because it stores. Without the

refrigeration in many communities up there, the native people are

caught up in buying junk food — potato chips and soft drinks — for

their children. It would certainly help if the minister could intervene

and set up some system where the native people could spread their

cheques out throughout the month.

The third issue I'd like

to raise with the minister is the need for a group home in Lower Post.

The UNN local 143 has written to the minister on a number of occasions

concerning the need for a group home there, which would serve a very

large area. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that the

federal government should definitely be involved in funding this. It's

part of their responsibility in this area, since it's northern British

Columbia and Yukon, and it would certainly be unfair to have the

province pick up the entire amount. I would certainly hope that the

minister could work out some cost-sharing agreement with the federal

government, so that the residents in the northern part of this province

could have a group home that would alleviate many of the social

problems that the children presently are facing in small communities.

The

last aspect I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the

apprehension of native children. We've all seen the facts; we

understand the problem, I hope, ever so clearly. I would certainly hope

that the minister would take the suggestions brought by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) concerning the apprehension of native

children. Try to alleviate the problem and get native children back to

their own group setting, instead of taken out of their locality, moved

many miles away from their families and relatives and placed in a home,

which often causes problems.

Those are four questions. As I

stated earlier concerning the food vouchers that the ministry has

instigated, that should be changed so that native people can use these

food vouchers over the month instead of having to spend them all in one

shot at the company store in Cassiar.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Chairman, what we're debating here is a resolution of non-confidence in

the minister. While I had an opportunity yesterday to air what I

consider to be some valid grievances, when one looks through the Blues

and thinks about the answers, one realizes that we have a minister who

is only half occupied with this most important ministry. Every time you

pick up the paper you read about the responsibility that minister is

taking for a trade and convention centre in Vancouver.

don't know about the priorities of this government, but I do know this:

to place a minister in a very vital and responsible position such as

Human Resources, where her entire attention should be, and then give

her the added responsibility of a Deputy Premier, and beyond that give

her responsibility for the trade and convention centre.... It strikes

me that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) moved a resolution

that was most generous. The resolution should be to cut it to a third,

but I'll support the half. Basically it's a matter of confidence.

You

pick up the Blues and see what the minister said yesterday with respect

to our very valid complaints about the depopulation of the retarded

centres in our province. What did she say? "We've been meeting with the

groups and playing politics" — not those words, but that's precisely

what she indicated.

[ Page 5961 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I would hope that the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie)

will learn to be a good MLA in the course of some time. He's got a

pretty safe seat over there. Meet with people, listen to their

complaints. When you do, you'll be standing up here and asking the

minister some questions. The one thing that you have shown beyond a

shadow of a doubt is the fact that you sit there and whimper across the

floor with your comments, but you say nothing on the mike indicating

the complaints of the people in your area. I get complaints from the

people in your area. As a matter of fact, I had a phone call from

Clearbrook this morning.

What we would like to see is the

underutilized Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan).... She could very

easily take on the responsibility for the trade and convention centre.

It would strike me that that would be far more in her bailiwick than in

that of the Minister of Human Resources.

Why does she want

to stay there? Because it gives a great deal of focus in Vancouver. She

is able to show the folks in Little Mountain that she's here, looking

after them, looking after their future, and everything's beautiful in

the valley. It's not beautiful in the garden for those people in our

society who are in worse shape today than they ever were, by virtue of

the fact that as inflation goes on the disparity gets greater between

the haves and the have-nots.

This particular portfolio is

the bulwark that should be protecting the needs of those people. The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds has been talking for two days about the

obligation of advocacy. What have we heard? Not a word. It's suggested

that we should even conceive in our wildest imagination of not amending

this vote? Not on your life, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: We should cut it by her back taxes.

MR. COCKE:

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is not being fair, Mr. Chairman. Do

you know what he suggested? Cut it by her back taxes. No, $47,000 isn't

enough; we've got to cut it more.

I got another comment out

of the major comments that she made yesterday. It took her hours to say

nothing in the greatest filibuster I've ever heard. She gave such

little answers to questions to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi), who asked why we were underspending on services to

children. Do you know what the minister replied? She said that it was

underspent by $700,000 because the demand for service was lower. I

wonder where we get the demand for service. When 14-year-old children

are winding up in Riverview, the demand for service to children is

lower. Four psychiatrists are quitting today at the The Maples

children's facility. The demand for children is lower. I can't believe

it. For heaven's sake, who generates the demand? If there were an

advocacy system over there and if she were responsible and doing her

job, that money and more would be spent for the most important resource

in our province — people — and the multi-most important resource in our

province when you consider children. Children are winding up in jail

and in facilities that are not for them at the same time that we get

some child who is acting out to the extent that we can't handle them

any more and we send them to Alberta. What happens? We soak the city of

Vancouver for something that should have happened here.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you one question: is it any wonder that the opposition

has to move a motion of confidence with respect to this minister, her behaviour

and her role in her ministry?

MS. BROWN:

I can't believe that the minister is not going to say something about

this motion. I have always been taught that silence means consent. Does

that mean that the minister agrees that her administrative vote should

be cut in half because she is in fact a part-time minister? Is that

what her silence means?

No, that's not what it means. It

means that the minister has contempt for all of the questions raised

under this particular motion. That's what her silence means. It means

that she has contempt for the issue of native children raised by the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the issue of food vouchers

raised by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and the issues raised by

the members for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Mitchell) and Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). That's what that

silence means. It doesn't mean that the minister agrees that her salary

should be cut in half. It means that the minister has decided that she

is not accountable to this House, and she does not have to respond to

the issues raised under this particular motion.

I think that

my colleague for New Westminster was correct: I was too generous in

suggesting that this minister's salary should be cut merely by 50

percent because she's a part-time minister. The record shows that even

the part of the time that she's discharging her responsibilities, she's

not doing them very well. In fact, she is a failure. She has failed in

her advocacy role and in terms of delivering services to the people of

this province. In the opening remarks the minister made a comment to

the effect that she and her government were proud of the services to

seniors in this province. Let me tell you what the government and the

minister are proud of. They're proud of the fact that the income known

as GAIN paid to senior citizens in this province has not been increased

from $38.88 since 1976. That's what she's proud of. Six years later the

GAIN for seniors is still $38.88. That's the service that she's proud

of.

Something else that she's proud of is that every time

the federal government increases its pension to recipients of GAIN, the

provincial government decreases that $38.88 to the exact amount. Just

recently I got a letter from a senior citizen who is receiving 10 cents

from the provincial government. That's what she's proud of. I want to

read a letter from another senior citizen, who lives in the Lake

Cowichan area. In 1979 they were receiving $21.83. Then the federal

contribution went up. What happened to GAIN? In 1980 the contribution

from the provincial government went down to $13.83. That's what the

government is proud of. What happened as of April 1, this year, when

the government gave another increase to the senior citizens? They

received a cheque for $4.83 from this government, which is proud of its

services to citizens. That's what this government is proud of. Was this

minister's voice raised even once on behalf of the seniors, to say that

since 1976 they have not received an increase, and that as a result of

inflation and the increase in taxes visited on them by her own Minister

of Finance there should not be a deduction every time the federal

portion of the pension went up? Not a word, but she stands up on the

floor of this House to talk about being proud of the service to seniors.

What about the much-vaunted SAFER program, which is continually being bragged about? Let's look at how much

[ Page 5962 ]

money

this government is putting into that program which the minister is so

proud of. In 1978-79, $12 million went into that program; in 1979-80,

$9.2 million — notice the decrease; in 1981-82, $9 million has been

budgeted for it so far. I don't want you to forget, Mr. Chairman, that

this minister consistently underspends her budget in the area of

services to people — never in terms of her office expenses, computer

charges, travel expenses and office furniture. But in terms of services

to people, services to children and seniors there has been a consistent

underspending of the money appropriated to her by this Legislature.

One of her staunchest supporters had to write an

article in the Vancouver Sun on

April 28, talking about the SAFER program. He said: "The SAFER

program, the provincial government's shelter aid for elderly renters,

is becoming less and less a help, because the numbers used in the

formula lag far behind actual rents being paid today." Today no

senior-citizen couples qualify for SAFER. Not one senior-citizen couple

qualifies for this program which is continually being bragged about.

The maximum for a single is down to $66.13. That's the program they're

proud of. When the program was first introduced, we were told that all

seniors were going to benefit from it. Last year we checked the annual

report, and we found that only 13,500 people benefited, and this year

we find that is down to 12,000 people. Yet we're continually being told

about how proud this government is in terms of its services to people,

and that minister sits there and treats with contempt the issues raised

by this side of the House.

I was going to make a comment

about the special kinds of hardship visited on older women who are

totally at the mercy of that department because they're poor and

overtaxed and because their pension is so inadequate, but I'm not even

sure there's any point in mentioning it. In any event, I would like to

bring to the minister's attention a brief prepared by two social

workers on behalf of the School of Social Work at the University of

Victoria, dealing with the particular dilemma of single older women who

are dependent on the Ministry of Human Resources, SAFER, GAIN and all

those programs which are so inadequate. I would also like to make a

suggestion to her that I would be willing to share with her my copy of

Perception , a social-work journal, for January 1980, which dealt

specifically with the plight of people over the age of 65. If the

minister is going to stand on the floor of this House and brag about

services to seniors and being proud of it, I think there should at

least be something to be proud of. The situation with GAIN, which has

not been raised since 1976, is disgraceful, and SAFER is becoming more

and more irrelevant. They should not be mentioned by them again.

moving this motion, I briefly mention the comment of the minister about

the whole issue of day care, and I want to reiterate again my

commitment and the commitment of my government to universal day care. I

want to bring to the minister's attention the brief prepared by SPARC,

the Social Planning and Review Council of the United Way. In its

preamble it states that day care should no longer be viewed as a

child-minding service provided primarily for parents.

I'm

sorry that the minister is gone. Should I move that the committee rise,

report....? No, it's okay. It doesn't matter anyway, Mr. Chairman,

because I can see that what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears.

just wanted to bring to your attention that as a result of the

statements made by the minister yesterday that the government is not

committed to universal day care, we understand why it is that so many

of the qualifications for the day-care subsidy are becoming

stricter and stricter. We also understand why it is that public

day-care institutions are not being subsidized adequately, and all in

all why people who need day-care services are being penalized.

also explains why the staff and people who work in day-care centres are

so badly underpaid. Many of them work full-time and still earn

insufficient income to bring them up to the poverty line. That

certainly is clear. A brief was prepared by the Young Women's Christian

Association, which brought these things to the minister's attention. It

was a plea that day-care workers be financially recognized as

professionals and paid at least a living wage.

It is

essential that the ministry be able to differentiate between day care

for the needy and the need for day care. There is also a letter from

the Broadway West church. They complain not just that the staff is

underpaid but that they can't get their cheques from the ministry on

time. It says: "No matter how responsibly we run the day care, there is

no way we can run a program for children, pay salaries to staff and

build up a large bank balance. Therefore it is essential that our

cheques from the government concerning parent subsidy payments arrive

before the end of each month." A number of complaints have come in

about the lateness of cheques and the fact that the ministry is not

paying its bills on time. Not only is the payment inadequate, but it's

not even arriving before the end of the month. There is a very real

fear on the part of those of us who believe in quality day care that

the situation developing in the province will result in commercial

day-care organizations moving in. We would have the kind of travesty

surfacing in the day-care community that we now see in the private

hospitals and the private health community. Certainly this is the

experience which Alberta and Manitoba and Ontario found. Once

government day care diminished and was depreciated to such a level that

it was going to be totally inadequate, the private day-care people

moved in. The large organizations, the hamburger-joint day-care places,

as they are called, are what we are afraid of.

Certainly

nothing that the minister said yesterday or the day before alleviates

that fear. We don't want a chain of private day-care centres coming in

here with the resultant kind of depreciation in service to children

that has been experienced in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. That is

going to happen as long as the government clings to its commitment not

to deliver good, quality, universal day care. That is what we're afraid

of. Because it's not the parents who suffer when that happens; it's the

children, and that's the reason we are concerned about it.

Mr.

Chairman, TRACY approached the Ministry of Human Resources about the

fact that there are so many teenagers who are becoming pregnant while

they are still in school. Because of an inability to find adequate day

care for their children, they are dropping out of the school system.

TRACY put together a project and appealed to the Ministry of Human

Resources for funding. Maybe TRACY was wrong. Maybe TRACY should have

appealed to the Ministry of Health. Maybe TRACY should have appealed to

the Ministry of Education. Maybe TRACY should have appealed directly to

the Premier, or maybe to the lotteries branch. I don't know. I do know

that the minister talks about an interministerial committee designed to

meet the needs of children. Why couldn't that committee have looked at

the proposal presented by TRACY and recognized the value of it? Isn't

it bad enough that a teenager finds herself a single parent and then

winds up uneducated and illiterate as well? What does that

[ Page 5963 ]

mean for the future, not just of that teenager, but for the child which she has brought into the world?

What

happened? TRACY was turned down. The request for the proposal for the

funding, even as a pilot project, was turned down, despite all the

statistics which show that invariably these young girls drop out of

school and discontinue their education. What we end up with is

uneducated, young, single parents trying to raise children. We talk

about help lines and child-abuse centres. Why don't we start talking

about some preventive services for a change? Day care is a preventive

service. That's what it is. The minister should have leapt at the

opportunity to fund that pilot project. Instead of that, it was turned

down.

The other issue that the ministry is into — again, in

terms of maintaining the bottom line and underspending her budget — is

the whole issue of contracting out services to abusing parents,

families in crisis, child care workers and diagnostic treatment for

children 6 to 16 years of age. Why? Because the private agencies are

cheaper, that's why. The study was conducted by her own ministry, and I

read into the record earlier that they found that 40 percent of the

people who are on and off income assistance work directly or indirectly

for the ministry in the area of day care and homemaker groups, creating

a ghetto of poverty through the system of contracting out.

They're

giving agencies insufficient funds to operate with and are forcing them

not to be able to pay adequate salaries. All the people who work for

these agencies turn around and need subsidies if they want to put their

children in day care. Half the time the agencies can only hire them

part-time. When they're not hired by the agencies, they're back on

income assistance. It's an absolute travesty, While all this is

happening, that minister is worrying about building a stadium, a

convention centre and B.C. Place. That minister is concerned about all

kinds of other things, and these kinds of things are happening to

people who are directly dependent and at the mercy of her ministry.

Nothing is being done about it.

The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) raised the issue of the increasing number

of Indian children who are being apprehended. I want to ask the

minister if in her role as an advocate she is ensuring that the federal

government is giving adequate money and resources to ensure that these

Indian children are being taken care of. I'm asking why the province is

not participating in the federal-provincial task force reviewing the

whole question of adequate care for Indian children. How much money

does the provincial government receive from the federal government for

the care of Indian children? I want to know that in dollars and cents.

I don't want a speech about it. I want to know how much money in terms

of dollars and cents the federal government is placing into the coffers

of the provincial government to take care of these children. I want to

know what items are covered by the federal-provincial agreement in

terms of their behalf.

My colleague the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) raised the whole issue of the shelter

allowance and how totally inadequate it is. Yesterday my colleague the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out the fact that a

directive which went out from the ministry told the social workers that

it is not their responsibility to assist income-assistance families in

terms of finding adequate housing. Rather than do that, when the

income-assistance families cannot find adequate housing, the ministry

pays whatever it costs to put them up in motels and hotels.

don't want to be accused of giving information which is not correct, so

I want to read a letter from a woman into the record. She said:

"Three

months ago I came to Vancouver for Christmas holidays with my

common-law husband and my three boys, because my husband had left me

and I had applied for income assistance. Since then I have been looking

for a place to live. In the last three months I have gone to an average

of at least five places a day. Every time I've been turned down

primarily because I'm a single mother with children on income

assistance."

I mentioned earlier that in terms of her

advocacy role, she should have been having those pieces of legislation

amended to ensure that that kind of discrimination couldn't go through.

However, she hasn't done it. Okay. So she went back to MHR, and the

result of this is that the Ministry of Human Resources is currently

paying the Cariboo Motel $1,200 a month in rent for her to live there

with her three children — a boy of 16, one 13 and one 11 — while they

continue to look for housing. Now they're not going to be paid $1,200 a

month to find housing, I'll swear; they're not even going to be paid

adequately. We have four people here, Mr. Chairman, who would

presumably need somewhere in the area with two or three bedrooms at

least. Well, I don't need to tell you that the shelter allowance

doesn't permit anything in that area. I think that, as a matter of

fact, they would be eligible for about $240 a month in terms of shelter

allowance; but I may be incorrect in that figure, because I haven't got

my brief here with me. I do know, though, that whether that woman wants

to live in Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, New Westminster or anywhere in

the lower mainland, the rent is going to be more for her three teenaged

boys and herself than what is covered by the shelter allowance. So

rather than increase the shelter allowance and allow her to live in

decent housing, the ministry is paying $1,200 a month for her to stay

in a motel because she cannot find adequate housing.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

study done of the lower mainland shows that in all 23 urban areas the

new shelter allowance of $170 for a single person was totally

inadequate, and that also applied to areas like Fort St. John, Victoria

and other places outside the lower mainland. Where is the ministry?

Where is the minister when all of this is going on, Mr. Chairman? There

are letters after letters — and I don't want to go into them — dealing

with the fact that people are saying there is a disparity, which was

shown up even by the survey conducted by the Ministry of Lands, Parks

and Housing, between the actual amount of shelter allowance which is

allowed by this particular minister and.... And, of course, the United

Way housing survey supports that point as well.

I want to

say a word or two about the family-support worker — and we're going to

be talking more and more about the family-support worker and the

financial assistance workers and other people like that as we get into

the votes. But I just want to say that the lack of training of these

workers really is unfair to them. They're on the front line doing a

very special kind of work and, in fact, they're not getting the

training to support this. The evaluation study done by the ministry's

own evaluation unit supports this. I'm reading from it where it says:

"Generally speaking, the workers hired were young, inexperienced and

not trained." Now I hope that since that time something has been done

about that.

[ Page 5964 ]

just have to very briefly go back to the contracting out and just

mention one particular instance, and that has to do with the foster

parents who take care of special-needs children, who are now being told

that they are independent businesses and they have a contract with the

ministry. As a result of that, these people are finding — and I bring

this to the minister's attention because she may not know it — that the

family home is now being seen as a place of business and so is eligible

for all kinds of taxes which a family home should not be covered by.

Also, in terms of trying to identify the financial needs of the future

and come up with a reasonable financial statement about their needs, a

number of these foster parents are now finding that they have not got

the experience to do that adequately, because they're just not business

people. I think that the contracting agreement which is being forced on

them is unfair.

Mr. Chairman, I'm saying all of this merely

to support the motion which I moved earlier. A lot of the problems

which we're experiencing with the Ministry of Human Resources could be

alleviated if the minister would spend nearly — not actually, just

nearly — as much time addressing herself to the demands of her ministry

as she spends in terms of trying to design that "glass slipper" in

Vancouver. I am really upset that the minister has not found it

necessary to at least respond to any of the questions and issues raised

by members of the opposition under this particular motion.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, speaking against this motion, I do not believe that of

any ministry in this government.... Certainly no Minister of Human

Resources in any government in these parliaments deserves more credit

for humanity and understanding in this most difficult portfolio than

the present minister. It is difficult for me to understand how certain

members of the opposition can stand up and refer to isolated cases. The

province is the third largest in Canada, and there is no such thing as

perfection. But for the effort, the desire and the results obtained, I

will say that never was a ministry better operated, and never was there

more humanity shown in all facets of its operation to children and

adults alike.

I think I can refer you now to the report of

the ombudsman. It's strange that the honourable opposition has not

referred to this report. Of course they would not refer to the report,

but this is a statement made by an impartial judge; the ombudsman does

not speak for political reasons. He's out to show his judgment and the

judgment of the people of British Columbia of this minister. I will

read briefly from the report:

"A large portion of those cases closed were due to my decision

to decline or discontinue investigations where suitable, untried administrative

review mechanism was available to the complainant. The ministry has a reasonable

appeal system in place that permits a review of the ministry decisions on social

assistance by a tribunal. The appellant may nominate one person of his choice

to the three-member tribunal. The tribunal's decision is honoured by the

ministry."

What could be fairer? That's the statement of the ombudsman. He goes on to say in another part of the report:

"It

is worth noting that the ministry, both executive and line staff, have

been very cooperative, and this has facilitated complaint resolution.

My staff followed up a few weeks later about this matter and the

complainant was in a much happier frame of mind."

reference to a dental problem, this man's teeth had been fixed, his

other problems had been attended to and — most important to him — he

felt that the ministry had treated him like a human being. What better

could you say about any ministry of government? That's from the

ombudsman. Then members of this opposition say things that rub here and

here there. It's impossible for me to understand.

I'll go on further. In referring to another special case the ombudsman

says: "This case represents a good example of the concern which

the ministry has shown in ensuring that the concept of administrative fairness

is applied as fully as possible to recipients of income assistance." What

could be more factual than the ombudsman's report? It's full of these

statements. If this opposition was not trying to be so political, they would

bring out these facts from an impartial source. Here's another statement,

about a child's complaint: "The child had a valid complaint which the

ministry remedied very quickly. It issued a cheque for the missing month. I

greatly appreciate the speedy resolution of the problem."

I could go on, but I think that's sufficient to prove what this ministry does and how they handle matters of such importance.

The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) went on at length about the GAIN

program, about the SAFER program; and how would anybody attack these

two excellent programs brought in by this government? They were the

first of their kind in Canada. They work by strict formula according to

income. I'll say to that member that if this person she referred to

received ten cents it was because they were receiving due income from

some other source. That's what happened, because it's on a strict

reported formula. They don't just send cheques for 10 cents or $10 or

$1,000 except by formula.

If the honourable opposition would

only realize that we are not accustomed in this government to

shovelling money out of the back of a truck. The issue is an entire

difference in philosophy, which is that money is paid where necessary,

but not necessarily money. Our philosophy is that if we can help people

and encourage them to become self-supporting, that is the way this

government works and always has — particularly this ministry. It works

with humanity and understanding. It's a strange and unreasonable

attitude when anyone can say on that side of the House.... They are

entitled to their political point of view, but let us hear it as a

political point of view. Let us not point a finger at the minister and

say: "We want to reduce your salary because you haven't done a good

job." That is a strict impropriety, because that minister has done a

good job. It's proved by every source you could mention except by the

political one. It's proved by the ombudsman and all those that will

take time to look.

It is extremely difficult for any member

of that opposition, particularly the critic from Burnaby-Edmonds, to

find fault. Never during these two days of debate have they found

factual faults that could stand up before this House or anywhere else.

The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) talked about a child that the

ministry sent to Alberta for care. I'd like to know what was wrong with

that. When the minister found out there was a source in Alberta that we

did not have in British Columbia that could help this very difficult

child, it paid the cost and sent the child. I'll say to you that when

the entire ministry of a government takes it into their heart to go to

that extent to help one child, it shouldn't be criticized. I think they

should be praised for such an action. It's a difference

[ Page 5965 ]

in philosophy. It's interesting how different the philosophy is. We want all individuals to support themselves.

The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned this single-parent with three

children and, I believe she said, a common-law husband. I do not

understand the problem, but I can tell you this: that person received

as much care and as much money as could be obtained, because a mother

with children is the first charge of that minister. I'm ashamed to hear

anyone in this House saying they did not have the heart to look after

them. I understand they're in a motel at $1,200 a month. If it was

$3,000 I want to tell that member that that minister would see it was

paid. It isn't a question of money when it's a mother with children.

But I'll tell you what: if there's a husband involved, common-law or

otherwise, we want to see to it that that person has the responsibility

of supporting that family. That's the difference. We don't shovel money

out of a truck. I don't know what she said about common-law, but I

assume there's a man involved. If he's there, let him go to work. I

think that's fair. I'm not moralizing whether he should be married,

unmarried or what. That's got nothing to do with the issue, and the

ministry does not consider this point of view. Let him go to work, if

there's a man there. I don't know about that, but that's our policy.

That's what we do, and I compliment the minister on that point of view.

Where

there's a man involved in a family, that man must work if he can work.

We'll find work for him. Just look at what we're doing here in Victoria

on a trial program: the job action program and the Individual

Opportunity Plan. I know about that plan. I was there, and since that

time I've followed it up. Many people have been helped, and letters

have come in about the enthusiasm of people who are given the

opportunity of going to work and shown how to get a job. I think what

this ministry is doing is tremendous.

Instead of anyone in

this opposition asking to have the minister's salary cut in half, what

we should be doing is saying we should increase the salary. It's not

possible, but that's the way it should be.

Here again is the

issue of children. It is strange how the members on this side, and

particularly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, get on this thing of

children. There's no one who believes more in helping children than

that minister. Let me give you some facts about children. The

population in B.C. is increasing yearly, yet the number of children in

care is going down. On March 31, 1978, there were 9,081 children in

care; on March 31, 1979, 8,831; and in 1980, the last figures I have,

8,735. This is the attitude of the ministry: finding places, finding

homes and looking after the children. Children were never better looked

after than by this ministry under this government. I tell you the

minister should be complimented.

And the handicapped

children — such care and understanding. The ministry is getting them

involved in this year of the handicapped, and getting them involved in

the schools with other children, and raising their spirits. It gives me

a feeling of enthusiasm. I know a child that was at home absolutely out

of understanding, afraid of school and afraid of the outside. Today,

with the help of this ministry, that child is in school, and the

ministry is paying the bill to give that child special attention. Are

we hearing that from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds? We do not hear one

single word about that. That child is being helped with personal

assistance by special experts in the school. Do I hear that from them?

Not one word about one child. There are many. I know of one who is

gaining self-respect and beginning to learn; he is not half as

handicapped as we thought he was. That is the attitude of the minister.

How can anyone in this House, especially the critic for this ministry,

stand up and say that this minister is not doing a good job? I do not

want to use the word "disgusting." They are entitled to be the

opposition, but they should be fair. They are not fair.

want to inform this House that a few years ago a certain lady with

three children came to me one day — I was the MLA at the time; I think

it was 1972. She said: "I'm sick of your government; I'm sick of your

country. If your government will give me and my children the fare, I

want to go to Manitoba." Well, I thought this was kind of ridiculous,

but I sent the message and somehow, somewhere, the lady arrived in

Manitoba. Three years later I was surprised to see her again in my

office — I was back as MLA. I said: "Well, Mrs...." — I won't say her

name — "you're back." She said: "Yes, I'm back. I'm sick of Manitoba. I

was never better treated." She and her family are still around — I

won't say where — and the children are grown up. They are not what I'd

call self-supporting, nor will they ever be, but they are happy people;

that's what I want to tell this House.

MR COCKE: Poor people.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They

are poor but happy. I want to tell the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) that money does not make happiness. The poor are sometimes more

happy than the rich. I tell you this: in our family we never were

happier than when we were poor — that was not long ago.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I don't know how rich Rosemary is, but let's not mention that at all. That has nothing to do with the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The case at point is that the ministry is doing a good job. On

children, do we hear that NDP critic, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown), ever mention the tracking system for children, where

children in trouble are tracked every day to see that they are doing

what they should be doing? They get them back to their own homes or put

them in foster homes; they watch them day by day. Do we hear about this

system? No, we hear about the odd difficult case.

MS. BROWN: You track them, and you put them in Riverview.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Dewdney has the floor, and should be allowed to speak, uninterrupted.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I don't mind. Thank you for your support, but I don't

mind when the barbs hit home. What I want to say here is that this

ministry is doing such an excellent job. We do not hear about the great

things being done. We only hear about isolated cases which I question

the veracity of; according to the records of the ministry, they cannot

be correct. I would say that the reports

[ Page 5966 ]

are

incorrect, based on the correctness of the ministry. I want to say to

you that today in this House we should appreciate the job being done by

our Minister of Human Resources behind the job. It hurts me to think

that of all the ministers in government with humanity, judgment, care

and understanding.... It's almost as if she were the mother to the

whole ministry — that's the attitude I get from her. I've seen the

concern in her office — everywhere she goes. Yet we hear about the lack

of concern...reduction in salary. I think it is unfair,

unreasonable and unjust. I ask the opposition to reconsider this very

poor stand they have — this rather careless attitude. Play politics if

you want to, but above all be fair; and you're not fair.

MS. SANFORD:

It's always interesting to hear the member for Dewdney express his

philosophy, particularly as it relates to an issue such as human

resources — people in need, people who don't have much money. One thing

about that member is that he's always forthright; he states his opinion

very clearly, and expresses the philosophy which the people on the

other side are not as likely to express as clearly as he does. He lets

us know where they stand over there. The others are a little more

subtle in the way they present their views. In fact, on this issue very

often they don't say anything. They don't have much to say about people

who have needs in this province: people who, for one reason or another,

have to have some special services through government. We hear about

incentives for businesses. We hear about incentives for great coal

deals. We hear about a billion dollars being spent out of taxpayers'

money in order to assist some coal development. We hear the member for

Dewdney talking about shovelling money out of a truck when it comes to

giving services to people in need in this province.

support this motion. I was interested to hear the comment about the

poor being happy. Oh yes, they're happy people. He picked up on that

one.

This minister is like a mother to the whole ministry.

She's so busy being a mother to the whole ministry that she can't even

take care of her own taxes. She hasn't even got time to pay them. For a

whole three years they get behind. I guess that's because she's being a

mother to the ministry.

I want to point out to the member

for Dewdney and the minister that unless you provide some services in

this province we're going to have far more problems than we have at the

moment. The member for Dewdney talks about people getting out to work.

Boy, if only they could all work, then all the problems would be

solved. In this province we have a Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) who has just cut out the youth employment program for all the

volunteer services.

Mr. Chairman, don't frown at me at this

point, because this ties in very well with the speech made by the

member for Dewdney. He says: "Put them to work." But we have a youth

employment program that has been cut out for all of those volunteer

agencies as well as for all the various government services. That is

through regional districts, councils and so on. Then he says that they

should support themselves. A lot of these people are attempting to do

just that, but because they have children they also need the kind of

day-care services that are so lacking in this province today. There's a

desperate need for after-school day-care services. They're not

available in many places because of lack of staff, facilities and

equipment.

I want to read into the record and to bring to the minister's attention

a letter which I have just received from the Comox Valley Children's Day

Care S