1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2381 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Officials and Employees Conflict of Interest Act (Bill 67) Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Pollution Control

(1967) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 26) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Water Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 27) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Land Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 29) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Petroleum and Natural Gas

(1965) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 25) Hon. Mr.

Waterland.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Societies Act (Bill 47) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Oral questions

Defacing of Saltspring petroglyph. Mr. Skelly — 2381

Purchase of B.C. ferries by Toronto financial house. Mr. Wallace —

PREP pamphlet. Mr. Gibson — 2382

Seating of Vancouver East member in House. Mr. King — 2383

Proposed B.C.-Alberta pipeline. Mr. Lea — 2383

Tabling of lotteries report. Mr. Wallace — 2383

Health standards of ferry food dispensers. Ms. Sanford — 2383

Reduction in ferry usage. Mr. Lockstead — 2384

Premier's private railway coach. Mr. Lauk — 2384

Habitat liquor supply. Hon. Mr. Gardom answers — 2384

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 113.

Mr. Wallace — 2385

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2385

Mr. Levi — 2387

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2391

Mr. Levi — 2392

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2393

Mr. Gibson — 2394

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2394

Mrs. Dailly — 2394

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2394

Mrs. Wallace — 2394

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2395

Mr. Gibson — 2396

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2397

Mr. Wallace — 2399

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2401

Mr. Levi — 2402

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2403

Ms. Sanford — 2403

Mr. Gibson — 2405

Mr. Barnes — 2406

Mr.Cocke — 2411

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2412

Mr. Levi — 2412

Statements

Premier's private railway coach. Hon. Mr. Phillips — 2417

Mid-Island public employees dispute. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2418

Mr. King — 2418

Mr. Gibson — 2418

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, one of the people

visiting the Legislative Assembly today in the Speaker's gallery is my

sister, Gail Petite, from Seattle, Washington, and I'd like the House

to make her welcome.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like the House to welcome a delegation of students from the

constituency of Richmond, from the Burnett Secondary School,

accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Cook and Mrs. Hutt.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 67, Public Officials and Employees

Conflict of Interest Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

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

of the House after today.

POLLUTION CONTROL

(1967) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 26, Pollution Control

(1967) Amendment Act, 1976, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

the House after today.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 27, Water Amendment Act, 1976,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 29, Land Amendment Act, 1976,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

(1965) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Waterland, Bill 25, Petroleum and Natural

Gas

(1965) Amendment Act, 1976, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

SOCIETIES ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 47, Societies Act, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

DEFACING OF SALTSPRING PETROGLYPH

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Provincial Secretary. I've been informed by residents of Saltspring

Island that a Mr. Cudmore has removed a petroglyph from Fulford Harbour

to the site of his airport, and that in the process he has defaced the

petroglyph. Does the minister plan to take action against Mr. Cudmore

under the Archeological and Historic Sites Protection Act?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. I will be glad to get the information.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. SKELLY: She could perhaps take this as notice as well.

MR. SPEAKER: If you wish the hon. minister to take that as a

further question, that's one thing, but to ask a supplemental question

on something that has been taken as notice is really not in order. You

can save the question until the time comes when the answer comes back

to the floor of the House, or if there is other information.

MR. SKELLY: This is something that the minister could confirm at the same time as she's checking out the original question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Cudmore is apparently telling people on Saltspring that he has had permission...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: ...from the Provincial Secretary's office...

[ Page 2382 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR.SKELLY: ...to remove the petroglyph.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. SKELLY: Can the Provincial Secretary confirm whether or not this is true?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: That, Hon. Member, is not a question. The member

knew it was not a question when he abused the privileges of the House

to get to his feet to ask it. I would suggest you are making statements

which are completely out of order. They are not questions.

I allowed the member to resume his feet on a further supplemental

question which was not a question. It's an abuse of the privileges of

the House and all of the members of this House, and it won't be

tolerated.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was a question.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. SKELLY: I asked if the Provincial Secretary would confirm something.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd ask you to read the rules that apply to question period, Hon. Member.

PURCHASE OF B.C. FERRIES

BY TORONTO FINANCIAL HOUSE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Minister of Transport and Communications a question with regard to

the ferries Queen of Coquitlam and Queen of Cowichan and the minister's

announcement that these ferries have been purchased by a Toronto

financial house to permit the B.C. government to lease them back and

use federal tax laws to the advantage of British Columbia.

Now that the deal has been completed, will the minister be tabling

the documents with the House so that we can have financial details and

so that we can learn what the government is proposing to do about the

capital sums that were set aside over the past two or three years

amounting to $40 million to $45 million which were destined for the

purchase of the ferry?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, I will be glad to table all the relevant information. I

should, however, add that as a result of the provisions of the new

federal budget there is some question as to whether these leasing

arrangements were completed on time. With that qualification, certainly

we'll make all of the information available.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the

whole proposal hinges very much on federal proposals presently before

the House of Commons in the budget, could the minister tell the House

what immediate plans he has to either meet with the federal Minister of

Finance or at least discuss the issue with the federal officials?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Meetings are proceeding right now between

officials, and I have written to the Minister of Finance in Ottawa in

this connection.

MR. WALLACE: A quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. From the

minister's answer, can we take it then that the decision to lease

rather than purchase is not final but could be contingent upon subsequent negotiations

with the federal government?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, from our point of view leasing

is preferable because it, in effect, gives us much cheaper money.

However, while it's quite likely that the first two vessels — the Queen

of Cowichan and the Queen of Coquitlam — will qualify, we won't know

with absolute certainty until we have a final ruling from the federal

Department of National Revenue.

PREP PAMPHLET

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Did the minister

authorize the publication of a pamphlet entitled "PREP, A Provincial

Rehabilitation and Employment Programme"?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I have here a

copy obtained from the information office of the minister's department.

It nowhere mentions on the pamphlet that the Queen's Printer had

anything to do with it. I would ask him to tell us whether this was

published by the Queen's Printer or whether it was paid for, perhaps,

by the Social Credit Party.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that that particular publication was printed right in our own print shop in the

[ Page 2383 ]

department.

MR. GIBSON: On a further supplementary, then, Mr. Speaker. I

have here a second copy which is identical in paper and weight and

layout and staple placement and so on which was distributed to a home

in the riding of Vancouver East by a Social Credit canvasser. I would

ask the minister if this document was, in fact, paid for by taxpayers

of this province and used for electoral purposes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the particular document that the hon. member refers to.

SEATING OF VANCOUVER

EAST MEMBER IN HOUSE

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the hon. Provincial Secretary. The Provincial Secretary was

quoted over the weekend as saying that the new member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Barrett) would not be entitled to take his seat until, I

believe, June 19. It is my understanding that he would be eligible on

June 14, on the expiration of 11 days. I understand that is the legal

requirement under the elections Act. I would ask the Provincial

Secretary if she could clarify that situation for me.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Revelstoke

for posing the question. The statement attributed to myself was one that was

made on the evening of the by-election and without the benefit of the statutes.

I simply made a statement, which I thought I had heard earlier, which was attributed

to the date being June 19. As the hon. member has pointed out it is 10 days

after the by-election, which would make it June 14. I am pleased to confirm

that at this time.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): A supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. Will she be asking for a recount? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

PROPOSED B.C.-ALBERTA PIPELINE

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Transport and Communications. Has the provincial government

communicated with the National Energy Board and informed that board

what the province's position is in regard to the proposal by Trans

Mountain for a pipeline from the northwest coast to Tete Jaune Cache to

Alberta?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There has been no official communication to the National Energy Board — none whatsoever that I am aware of.

MR. LEA: What is the position of the provincial government in regard to that proposed pipeline venture?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy. It is an interesting project but it is under review, under study.

MR. LEA: When does the minister feel that a position will have been finalized and made public?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, when all of the information is in. It will take some time to gather it. Certainly when the studies are completed.

TABLING OF LOTTERIES REPORT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Provincial

Secretary a question with regard to the lottery fund established under

the Lotteries Act and the requirement that a report of the

administration and operation of the fund must be tabled in the House

annually. In view of the fact that no report has been tabled since the

bill was assented to on May 30, 1974, will the minister be tabling an

annual report during the present session of the Legislature, as

required under

section 8 of the Lotteries Act?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the department makes it available to me I shall be tabling it in the House,

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister made

a statement recently that she was concerned that the lottery would

continue to receive a great deal of revenue because of the federal

action in setting up Loto-Canada which, in effect, extends the Olympic

lottery by another three years and reduces the money available for

provincial lotteries. Can the minister tell the House if any money at

any time has been transferred from the consolidated revenue fund to the

lottery fund as provided for in the Act? If this has happened, have

these sums been repaid to the consolidated revenue fund?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

HEALTH STANDARDS OF

FERRY FOOD DISPENSERS

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The cafeteria aboard the Sechelt Queen, which runs between

[ Page 2384 ]

Comox and Powell River, has been closed. There are

now food dispensers aboard. I am wondering if the Minister of Health

has been consulted with respect to the health standards contained

within those dispensers.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I

haven't been directly consulted, but I will certainly take that as

notice and see whether or not my department has been involved.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wondered if he would also advise

the House, then, what health regulations apply and how often these

dispensers are checked by health authorities.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Health Act would apply. I can't tell

you directly — but I'll take it as notice — how often they'll be

inspected if they're inspected at all. If they're containers they may

not be.

REDUCTION IN FERRY USAGE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Transport and Communications. Traffic counts from June

1 to June 4 of this year are down considerably from the same period

last year: Tsawwassen, vehicles down 70 per cent, passengers down 20

per cent; Horseshoe Bay, vehicles down 60 per cent, passengers down 25

per cent; Departure Bay, vehicles down 50 per cent, passengers down 30

per cent, and so on. If this pattern of reduced usage continues what

will be the overall effect on revenues?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the revenue would be up

somewhat, but not up as much as the doubling of the fares might

indicate if that pattern were to continue. However, a number of people

were planning ahead, and since there were threatened strikes perhaps a

very large part of the reason for the falling off in traffic was an

anticipation of interrupted service.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if so large a reduction was expected.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Some modest reduction over a whole year might

be expected as a result of the ferry increases, but nothing like the

reduction which did occur around June 1, when an interruption in the

service was expected by everyone.

PREMIER'S PRIVATE RAILWAY COACH

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Can the Premier confirm

that Railwest is rejuvenating an old private coach that was used by

W.A.C. Bennett for the Premier's personal use and other official use?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm or

deny it. I have no knowledge of it. The hon. member may not know that

for the first time the Premier is not a director or the president of

the railway.

MR. LAUK: Would the Premier investigate and confirm for the

House that a private coach is indeed being rejuvenated — with colour TV

and bathroom facilities — at a great cost to Railwest and to the

government indirectly? Could he confirm that for the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll direct the question

through the Minister of Economic Development, who is a director of the

BCR during its reorganization period. We'll certainly get the

information for the House if such things are happening or if they are

indeed rumours, as many of these things are.

MR. LAUK: A question to the Minister of Economic Development.

Can the minister confirm that the Railwest facility is rejuvenating a

private coach once used by W.A.C. Bennett, at great cost to that

corporation?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

HABITAT LIQUOR SUPPLY

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): With leave of the House,

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question that was put on Tuesday,

I believe, by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) dealing with

low-priced liquor at Habitat. The substance of the answer is

essentially as I gave the hon. member. The responsibility for granting

special privileges to career consular officials rests solely with the

federal government, Mr. Member, and it allows the admission of those

articles for their own use free of duty and taxes. Included in the

privileges is the right to in-bond purchases of wine and spirits on a

regular basis from overseas and even without going through the

provincial liquor outfits.

In the case of Habitat it is my understanding that the federal

government granted the equivalent of consular privileges to about 180

heads of delegations who are attending the conference. The liquor

administration branch has procedures established under the liquor

regulations which permit these kinds of purchases, and in cooperation

with the United Nations Habitat officials these liquors have been

[ Page 2385 ]

made available at these lower in-bond prices.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 113: minister's office, $124,264 — continued.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I have just one or two questions for the minister.

First of all, I had asked the minister in question period a week or

two ago about the government's final decision on policy towards

patients in extended-care hospitals who are now paying $4 a day and who

would, if they were outside of the hospital, qualify for Mincome. The

minister had stated in reply to a supplementary question that they

would be assured of the old-age security allotment from the federal

government together with the federal supplementary allowance, which is

now $94.99 for a single person. The old-age security is $135.43 so

together they add up to about $230. I just want to be crystal clear on

this, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's intention is either to have

Mincome recipients receive only that amount, or allow them also to have

the additional provincial allowance which they would be entitled to

were they entitled to Mincome outside of a hospital, such as an

extended-care hospital situation.

The new policy of $4 a day came into effect on June 1, and I would

like to know just precisely, if for no other reason than that I want to

be able to answer mail accurately, what policy was implemented on June

1 in dealing with the extended-care hospital charges or payments to

persons who otherwise qualify for Mincome.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Chairman, I attempted to have this particular policy finalized with my

colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), but I think I

can answer generally without having anything formal — because it

certainly must be formalized between the two departments — that where a

person is 65 years of age and over there appears to be no problem in

that they get their OAS and GIS, and that would be coming to them in

any case, either in or out of the extended-care facility.

For those between the ages of 60 to 65, we will continue to grant

the comfort moneys, but there would not be the Mincome in the full

amount as otherwise.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister cannot

be more specific because this hasn't been finalized, but it's very

important, I think, that the House and the people in this province get

some clear indication of just exactly to what degree these payments,

the amounts, are to be decided on some kind of ad hoc basis, because

we've already seen from the letters that have been sent to patients —

and I'm not suggesting for a moment that this minister was responsible

for them — that undoubtedly there was not a uniform and fair and

even-handed approach taken to all recipients of Mincome. Now that the

charge has gone to $4 a day, I think the least we should try and ensure

is that whatever the policy decision is, it is applied uniformly to all

persons.

I take it from what the minister has said regarding patients over 65

that they will not be receiving any provincial supplement, and the

figure I've quoted of approximately $230 a month from purely federal

sources will be the total. Since they're paying about $120 for their

per diem charge, they're left with approximately $110 for the so-called

"comfort money." Now I'm just wondering about the person between the

age of 60 and 65 who is in an extended-care hospital, who has virtually

no income: what amount of comfort money is likely to be made available

and on what kind of formula?

I notice that the minister's deputy is in the House now, and I think

I would just like to quickly repeat the facts. We've decided that

people over 65 in extended-care hospitals, by means of OAS and GIS,

will finish up with about $110 comfort money from federal sources. What

I'm very concerned about, and I want to expand on this in this debate,

is the person between 60 and 65. The minister has stated that there

will be a certain amount of comfort money made available to those

persons, but the amount has not been determined since it will probably

involve combined discussion between the Minister of Human Resources and

the Minister of Health.

Mr. Chairman, that raises another whole area that I might interject.

I wonder if in this discussion of the minister's estimates we could

have some indication from the Minister as to what degree he and the

Minister of Health have looked at the real common sense involved in

bringing some of these responsibilities under one minister. I'm

particularly thinking of the mish-mash and the difficulties that are

encountered in the area of intermediate care where the Minister of

Human Resources is responsible for licensing intermediate-care

facilities, yet the Minister of Health becomes involved in trying to

ensure, where a certain level of nursing and health care is involved,

that the facilities are adequate and that the staff is available. While

this is very much a health responsibility, apparently the Minister of

Human Resources is the person who has to try and determine what would

be a fair amount to pay for looking after

[ Page 2386 ]

each individual patient in these facilities.

In other words, there is an overlap and an intermingling of

responsibilities which, in my view, would be much more readily solved

by having one minister responsible for that total spectrum of senior

citizens and intermediate-care facilities, and we can get back to that

later. But I wonder if the minister might think about that, since I

would like to raise the issue and discuss it in some more detail later

on.

But as far as the 60-to-65-year-old person is concerned, I think this is one area that I'd like to have answered.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't anticipate any change in the

comfort allowance, which has been $25 plus clothing plus medical

coverage — that's the package, and I don't anticipate any change in

this. The only reason we have to discuss this interdepartmentally is

that there is the matter of federal cost-sharing. If there is a debt

incurred by the Department of Health, it may be cost-shareable through

the federal government,

whereas perhaps a Mincome payment might not be.

So this is the type of information we are attempting to pull together

before we finalize it. But basically I believe it will be very much

along the lines that I've presently outlined.

With respect to the overlapping that takes place between Health and

Human Resources, yes, this is recognized and certainly there has to be

a very close liaison between the two departments. Many provinces, of

course, have this as one department. We attempted to bring it together

through the social services committee, and rather successfully — the

example cited by you is one case.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if I may just quite briefly plead

for the persons in our society between the age of 60 and 65 — now I've

no wish to intrude on legislation before the House, and I know the

minister has some thoughts on this — I just want to quote quickly from

the kind of letters I received from citizens. This lady writes:

"During the forthcoming debate in the Legislature, could

you possibly bring up the plight of widows between the ages of 60 and 64? I

am one of those unfortunates. Since my husband's death more than two years

ago my income has been drastically reduced. Every time there is an increase

in Hydro, telephone, insurance, house taxes or water rates, I have to dig into

my savings in order to meet my current monthly expenses since my pension income

is less than $200 per month. Fortunately 1, own my own home, but each year it

becomes more and more difficult to maintain it because of inflation and the

high cost of living. What little savings my husband and I were able to put away

for our retirement is gradually being eaten away.

"When a government budget is brought forth no mention

is ever made of the plight of widows in the 60-to-64 age group. All the

extra benefits such as Pharmacare, special car insurance exemptions,

the $100 special homeowner grant, medicare, et cetera, are all geared

to the 65-and-older age group. There must be many widows like myself

who are feeling the pinch."

I think that's a very well-written and clear articulation of the

problems of many widows in that age group. Perhaps one is being a

little naive to suggest that there doesn't have to be some age at which

certain provisions are introduced, or age groups within which there has

to be some restriction to a general application of allowances — and

again, I don't say this in any attempt to denigrate the efforts of the

present ministers. But the answer to my earlier question shows that in

an extended-care hospital, if you are 64 years old, you've got $25 a

month comfort money, and the day you become 65 you have $110. All I'm

trying to make plain, Mr. Chairman, is that in our structure and our

strategies to try and provide some measure of help to people who are

really in need, we have to be very flexible, and perhaps we have to try

a little harder not to be blinded by a certain birth date, whether it's

the 65th, the 64th or whatever.

I just feel that the letter I've quoted shows the really unfair

degree to which particularly widows between 60 and 64 are struggling,

almost without any help at all, to keep up with inflation and all the

added costs that have occurred in recent months in the budget. Perhaps

the minister might find it difficult because of the legislation that is

in the House, but I wonder if the minister could at least give us some

general outline of philosophy that the government might have in trying

to help the kind of person that I've just described.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I certainly think the

hon. member has hit upon something that has bothered us for some time.

As a matter of fact, in our review we're giving very careful

consideration to these very inequities. The particular example he used,

that of the widow.... I believe she may be entitled to Mincome if, in

fact, she could pass the necessary asset test. She may be entitled to

Mincome. However, the example of the inequity which appears to exist

between someone over 65, or 65 and one day, in an extended-care

facility, as opposed to less a day, is even more obvious when you take

a person aged, say, 50 and someone aged 60, or if you take two people

over 60 on Mincome and receiving $530 jointly, or a mother with two

children and only getting $370 — a basic allowance, that is. So there

are many inequities.

[ Page 2387 ]

Certainly past experience would indicate that we tended to pay more

attention, with respect to adjustments, to those upper categories, very

often at the expense of the lower categories — particularly since most

of the dollars that have been spent in the 60-to-65-year age group were

nonshareable dollars. If they had been used for groups in need below

that age, they would have been shareable — where $1 would have bought

$2 of services. It's recognized; it's something we are giving careful

consideration to. Certainly when the question is raised as to why, for

example, Mincome wasn't adjusted following the federal adjustment for

those 65 years of age and over, that was one of the considerations we

had to keep in mind — that an additional $2 or $3 there would buy $5,

$6, or $7 worth of service in some other area of need.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I couldn't follow the minister's response on the last

question, unless it really relates to saying — as I said on Friday — that what

you are going to do is introduce the asset test, because the member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) was asking for flexibility, and the minister, in his explanation,

is talking about the introduction of an asset test, which, of course, doesn't

give you any flexibility. What it's going to do — and it's already in

— is exclude a number of people who are the borderline cases in the 60-and-over

age group. It's going to create the same problems — more so — for the old

people in this province. And the excuse for that, of course, is that

somehow he wants to be more equitable to the young people. Well, you can't

have it both ways.

If you are committed to the principle of cost-sharing, then you are

not going to have very many people that you can look after because

cost-sharing, certainly with the asset test, eliminates a lot of people

who are in need and who simply will have to penurize themselves in

order to get down to the level where they qualify. Now that was the

very thing that the previous government had to avoid in terms of

dealing with senior citizens, and we're back to that kind of situation,

as we are back to it with the handicapped.

What I want to deal with this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is that some

weeks ago the minister indicated that he wanted to set up a collection

agency for getting the maintenance-fund payments that husbands do not

pay. He came out and said that what they want to do is to set up an

office and go chase these people who don't pay. Well, this is something

that many governments, including the previous government, looked at and

went after in terms of what they could do. Part of the....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, I'm not ready to sit down yet, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order; I want to give all

of the members all the time they would like to take to discuss the

budget, but if the hon. member wishes to discuss legislation that's

before the House, I don't think that's in order, and I couldn't answer

the questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

MR. LEVI: What legislation is that? The GAIN legislation? Are we talking about the GAIN legislation?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You're not supposed to talk about bills.

MR. LEVI: Well, here we go — the dumb one from Columbia River just raised his voice.

What I want to cover in this is specifically....

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. LEVI: He doesn't want me to withdraw. Don't get so upset there, Madam Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member please

address the Chair, and perhaps be a little more careful in his

selection of vocabulary when he's talking about other members in the

House?

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll do that.

I'd like to discuss some of the problems related to the whole

question of maintenance payments, and where some of the problems really

lie — and this doesn't relate to the legislation at all, Mr. Chairman.

What I'd like to do is remind the minister that many of these

problems were examined very closely when the Family and Children's Law

Commission was set up some two and a half years ago. Report No. 7 of

the Family and Children's Law Commission deals very specifically with

the whole question of family maintenance payments. There is one

specific

section of that report,

section 8, which states as follows:

The two principal functions of the law relating to maintenance of

spouses should be (1) to assure the support of the economically

dependent spouse, and (2) to ensure the least possible social and

financial disruption as a result of the breakdown of the marriage.

I want to deal with the first one specifically because I think,

after all the investigations by this commission, that what they were

looking for was a degree of understanding on everybody's part,

particularly the courts.

One of the outcomes of the Family and Children's

[ Page 2388 ]

Law Commission was the unified family court, which

has had a very interesting pilot-project period which is now set in

place and operates partly in the minister's riding of Surrey, and Delta

and Richmond, and they're moving to set up other unified family courts

in the province.

However, there are still some very significant problems in this

area. Again, I want to state that I have a very distinct feeling that

while there is a very serious and earnest attempt on the part of the

government to pursue the whole question of maintenance payments, there

has to be some very specific discussion with the Attorney-General in

this matter because at the moment it lies with the Attorney-General's

department, under the Family Relations Act, to do the kinds of things

the minister wants to do. Also if it's going to work at all, it can

only work if it's happening in every province across the country; there

has to be a reciprocal agreement. Again, one of the recommendations of

report No. 7 is that immediately there be discussions with the

Attorneys-General of the various provinces about reciprocal agreements

on maintenance payments.

But specifically to our own province, we have situations that I

think the minister is aware of, that we are all aware of, where the

taxpayer is involved in subsidizing the spouses and children of

families who are divorced, because either they're not getting any

maintenance at all or they're getting maintenance but it is not

adequate enough and therefore is being provided by the taxpayer.

Now many of you may have noticed that outside of the building all

last week and today there has been a woman who has had a number of

different placards with which she's been trying to bring to the

attention of the legislators — and I might also say to the press who

have not been particularly interested — her own particular predicament.

I refer to Mrs. Gabriella Scafardi. Now this matter is known to the

public because it's been before the courts and the judgment or report

was rendered recently by the Supreme Court of British Columbia under

the aegis of the registrar, Mr. Abel.

What I want to do is to quote from this report to give the members

an idea of the kind of problem that exists between, on the one hand,

the kind of work the people in the Department of Human Resources want

to do in terms of getting the maintenance arranged, what the

Attorney-General's department wants to do in terms of working out some

kind of diversionary thing from the courts but at the same time coming

to grips with the problem of maintenance of spouses. This registrar's

report, which is dated April 26, 1976, follows from a divorce which

actually took place some time ago when the.... But the question of

maintenance was not discussed by the divorce judge.

There is at the moment a maintenance order in Mrs. Scafardi's favour, and

which was brought in by the family court, but in the particular report by Mr.

Abel he talks about the two people — the former husband and Mrs. Scafardi. What

I'm very particularly concerned about in this report is this: there is an

order that was made by the family court, for $350 a month, and after some difficulty

that money has been paid to Mrs. Scafardi. But the other problem, which certainly

is of interest to the Minister of Human Resources, is that the Welfare department

is also paying Mrs. Scafardi $265, and that's because she needs it. What

concerns me is that Mrs. Scafardi's husband, in 1975, earned some $32,000.

In 1974 he earned some $33,000 and in 1973 he earned some $36,000.

Now I want to get it clear that I'm not in any way levelling any

kind of attack against the Department of Human Resources; I think they

are meeting needs. But what I want to do is bring out the fact that

here is an individual who is making better than $30,000 a year, and

because he can afford to take a lawyer into court on this issue, and he

is able to point out....

What I'd like to do is to quote from this report. I have stated to

you the income this man has. The report goes on to say that in each of

those years the net result of the wig-making business — this man has

two businesses; he is a hair stylist and he's a wig maker — has been a

net loss, but the statements are unaudited and no documents were

produced to support the items. There are also benefits through the

petitioner included, and some items are included solely for tax

purposes. The man lists his expenses, in his affidavit filed March 29,

1976, as $483 a month. They include a $600-a-month bank loan, and $686

on a balance owing on a purchase of shares in the company. There's also

included a $385 bank loan to the Bank of British Columbia. There's also

a car expense for $140 a month and then there's, apart from the capital

cost allowance, $1,800 for the car allowance which is charged to the

business.

His assets are a condominium that he bought three years ago for

$28,000, and he has a 1974 Camaro automobile. I've explained his

liabilities. He gives, Mr. Chairman, his former wife $350 a month.

Again, the registrar goes on to say that the assets.... That's the

house that was bought with savings after the separation. Now we are

referring to Mrs., Scafardi. She bought a house. She'd apparently

accumulated enough money to put down a down payment. This is when she

was working. She's only been on welfare since February of last year.

She has liabilities, and presumably the money that is paid by the

Department of Human Resources allows her to live. The income from her

husband allows her to maintain the house that she has and also to

maintain the equity. She has some skills and when she's well enough,

obviously she'll be able to get off.

But the point I'm making is this. There's a

[ Page 2389 ]

recommendation from the registrar here and he says the following:

"Until the Bank of Montreal and the vendor of shares and the company are

paid, which should be within a year, the petitioner has very heavy monthly payments,

namely $1,600 a month, plus interest on the loans which is charged to the business.

When this hearing first came on in February, 1975, the respondent at that time

said she was going to retrain, which, if she did, should qualify her for secretarial

work at that time." Then he says: "She's a typist. She should

be able to get office work of some kind which is not strenuous. It's recommended

that the $350 a month for the respondent be continued and that the matter.be

brought on again in one year, which may be done simply by appointment or without

order."

That was signed by the registrar.

Now the question here, I think, in terms of the taxpayer, Mr.

Chairman, is that first of all we have an individual who goes into

court with a great deal of unsupported information. It's stated right

here in the report, and yet the taxpayer is subsidizing that individual

to the tune of $265. The issue, of course, is that Mrs. Scafardi

maintains that if she was to get $650 a month from her husband, she

would not be on welfare at all. She would be able to maintain herself,

and once she is well enough — she has a number of physical complaints

which do not enable her to work — she would be able to go to work and

be self-supporting.

We have a situation here where the courts appear to put the

obligations that an individual has to a bank and other obligations he

has in terms of payments before the maintenance of his own family. He

has a responsibility to his children, and, in terms of law, that is the

responsibility that should be met first. I find, frankly, that this

document which indicates that if he pays everything off he's going to

be okay.... But you know, as I said earlier, it's based purely on

information that is not substantiated.

There are three or four victims in this situation. First of all, the

No. 1 victim is Mrs. Scafardi herself, who is not getting an adequate

amount of money to live on, Mr. Chairman. There are the two children

who are being denied a number of things while they have a father who

lives on an extremely high standard of living, and we have the taxpayer

who every month is paying $265.

Now if the minister is interested in the collection process, there

are some very serious situations that have to be discussed not only

with the Attorney-General but with the courts. The courts have simply

got to have a much better understanding of what is involved in the

whole question of maintenance. I find that this kind of judgment by one

of the people in the courts — the rules are there — to be quite an

anathema to the kind of thing that we were attempting to do in terms of

the Family and Children's Law Commission, where we were looking at the

whole question of family responsibility and what happens in terms of

family responsibility after that family breaks up.

But interjected into this is a suggestion that the banks have to

come first, that the obligation that the individual has on the assets

to the purchase of the condominium has to come before the family, has

to come before the children and has to come before Mrs. Scafardi

herself. This is a very serious matter. It's serious because if, on the

one hand, we have a legitimate attempt by the Department of Human

Resources and on the part of the Attorney-General's office to do

something about this situation...and yet the kinds of judgments that

are being handed down in court.... And this is by no means an isolated

case. These cases which are caught up in that whole mill in the courts

in some cases have been going on for years. Somehow there's going to

have to be a coming together.

The previous government, for its part, did initiate the whole

situation in terms of the review, bringing together the Family and

Children's Law Commission to look at all aspects of law as it affects

families and as it affects children. This one affects both children and

the family and the recommendations are very specific. Obviously there

have to be discussions on a national level because the minister has

indicated that he is concerned, as all ministers have been concerned

before, that if a husband skips out and he doesn't want to pay, then

the taxpayer is paying,

But let me suggest that in the final analysis, the hunt-and-chase

game that has gone on in this province and every province in Canada for

years does not pay.

It does not pay because if you have an individual who makes up his

mind that there is no way he is going to pay — and we have had examples

of people who have been prepared to sit in jail — that becomes a double

taxation on the taxpayer, because not only do you have to pick up the

costs of the family in terms of welfare, but you've got to pay for this

character sitting in jail. I have known of people who have been ready

to sit in jail rather than pay.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Now the important thing is that there has to be

another way of doing this; there has to be another way of attacking

this problem. Some time ago — well over a year ago — I had discussions

in Ottawa with the federal minister, Mr. Chairman, and we talked about

the income tax system as the mechanism for getting at these errant

spouses who are not prepared to pay their obligation. In terms of the

taxation system — and, again, this is something that has to be

discussed — if you make a first call in terms

[ Page 2390 ]

of the taxation laws on that individual of his

responsibility to his family, then you have a chance of getting it. The

inevitability is that in cases where husbands or wives, if the

maintenance order is against the wife or the husband, do not want to

pay, it becomes an extremely difficult exercise to convince them that

it has to be that way.

Now the future looks a lot brighter in terms of that kind of

problem, because previously we always had the confrontation situation.

We had a separation, usually there was a tremendous amount of acrimony

around it, and then it was very difficult to get anybody to agree on

anything. I think one of the values of the unified family court is, and

I hope will continue to be, that they can bring people together. There

are, after all, the family counsellors — the people who can help these

couples make the amicable arrangements, particularly in the interests

of the children, so that responsibility is understood by both sides and

carried through.

Nevertheless, in most of these cases we deal with where individuals

will not pay, they are the kinds of individuals who will not pay under

any circumstances. They will not cooperate in some kind of counselling;

they will not cooperate with the courts. We have endless lists of

people who are constantly being brought back to court on a show-cause:

"Why don't you pay? Why shouldn't you be found in contempt?"

In going back, Mr. Speaker, to the case of Mrs. Scafardi, there is

something implicitly wrong in the report that came down from the

supreme court. There is something implicitly wrong with that if we, in

our society, in terms of the business sector, do not have the kind of

understanding that we are prepared to say, even as a matter of law —

and I hope that one day it will be law; it has to be necessary to be

law — that the first obligation that an individual has is not to his

creditors; his first obligation is to his family.

The other thing is — one can question this, and that's a matter of

procedure — that we have an inequitable situation here. The reason it

is inequitable is because we have one spouse who can go into court; he

can afford the kind of expensive legal counsel that is required to make

the kind of submission that he wants. On the other hand, we have the

other spouse who does not have that kind of opportunity. Of course, the

opportunity that might have been there before in terms of the legal-aid

system is now gone because the legal-aid system, particularly in

relation to family problems, has been severely reduced. So we have

created a very inequitable situation.

These kinds of things, which have been discussed in the Family and

Children's Law Commission, have been dealt with by a large number of

people who have tremendous knowledge in the field. There was a large

number of committees attached to the Family and Children's Law

Commission. I think that the over two years wherein the discussions

took place was the way you do it. You don't suddenly rush in and make

changes overnight. There was a great deal of public education went on

in respect to a lot of matters relating to the Family and Children's

Law Commission for families and the children.

What I am concerned about is what is going to happen to the reports

from the Family and Children's Law Commission. After all, in terms of

children the legislation was ready. All right, the government is going

to need some time, but I would like to have some indication from the

government, Mr. Chairman, perhaps from the minister, that there is

going to be a serious pursuit by the government that they will

introduce the kind of legislation that is recommended by the Family and

Children's Law Commission. We have an opportunity, as we did when we

first started the whole programme; when we first got the unified family

court going, it was a model for the whole of Canada.

We already have recognition on the specific issue that I have been

discussing — the question of maintenance. I just want to quote a

statement made; it was a press report of April 23. It's out of Ottawa.

It says:

" 'All marriage maintenance orders made in Canada

should have full and immediate effect in every province and territory,

' says a study paper released Thursday by the federal Law Reform

Commission. 'Failure is the universal characteristic of the traditional

system for enforcing maintenance orders in Canada,' said the paper

prepared by the Toronto lawyer, Edward F. Ryan.

"It said: 'Interprovincial and federal-provincial cooperation

on an unprecedented scale is essential for the improvement of maintenance-order

enforcement. Ryan recommends enforcement techniques be uniform and compatible

in all parts of the country. This would allow a family court in one province

to order certain enforcement techniques against a person in another province."

Now that's something that the minister's interested in doing. We've

all been interested in doing this. The question is: can we get the

provincial reciprocal agreement?

One problem that exists is that when a husband deserts his family

and moves to another province he becomes difficult to find and delays

in getting him to pay are inevitable. Provincial laws also vary. The

commission already had proposed a system of unified family courts

throughout the country. That was a direct result of their observations

here 18 months ago of the unified family court project in Surrey,

Richmond and Delta.

Effective co-ordinated tracing services should be

[ Page 2391 ]

established in all family courts in Canada. If it's

Canada-wide, if it can be worked that way, it's worthwhile, with

provisions for exchange of information among courts and for

court-supervised access to public records dealing with location of

individuals and their employment status.

Also recommended is legislation to provide for attachment of wages

for an indefinite period in place of periodical garnishee of wages.

On those last two items, I'm afraid I cannot agree. I can't agree

that we should be setting up the co-ordinated tracing services. These

become very expensive, they're highly bureaucratic, and you have the

whole business of garnisheeing the wages but using some other technique

which amounts to the same thing.

As an interim measure, that may be worthwhile trying, but as an

ultimate goal in terms of how we do it, I would like to see that we

give some very serious consideration to continuing the discussions with

the federal people and to having discussions of a public nature in

terms of what appropriate amendments could be made to the Canadian

taxation system, so that, as I said previously, the first goal in terms

of an individual who has to pay maintenance payments and for some

reason is not, is that that can be taken at source'in terms of the

income-tax system. That would avoid an enormous amount of bureaucracy,

which is inevitable because you have to have staff in order to do the

tracing and you have to have staff that are dealing with other people.

The minister shakes his head. He's only been a minister for five

months but I can tell you that the bureaucracy has a tendency to build

because that's the nature of the operation.

The important thing is that what you are dealing with is a problem

that has been looked at for many years. The Family and Children's Law

Commission report has got it all in there. Look at report No. 7. It's

in there — the recommendation and what you can do about it.

There's no point, just because you want to satisfy the rednecks out

there, in saying you're going to chase the errant husband, because

that's not going to....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I said "rednecks out there," Mr. Chairman. We don't

have any rednecks in here. How can you have a redneck in a place where

there's no sun?

The important thing is that if what he's saying — and I think that

that's what he's saying, Mr. Chairman — is that we not only have people

who rip off the system and they're all 20 years old and we not only

have handicapped people who got pensions because the first time they

had a bellyache or they had to go to the bathroom they got a pension,

which is a disgusting attack on the kind of handicap, but that's just

what that minister has said...and then thrown into that pot, he said:

"We've got to chase the husband." Well, that may sound very nice out

there, but that's very simplistic.

What we're interested in doing in the very first instance is not

chasing the husband but seeing that the wives — in most cases it's

wives — and children have the kind of income that they require. That's

what we're looking at.

That second

part is something that can only be done on a national

basis. It cannot be done simply because the province of British

Columbia want to do it — that's not realistic.

So, Mr. Minister, I would urge you very strongly to look at No. 7 of the Family and Children's Law Commission report.

I would also like you to indicate to the House what the plans are of the government....

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, two minutes.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm aware of that. I just took a look at it. You've knocked me off my stride. I was really going.

I would like the minister to indicate to us what discussions the

human services committee had in terms of the future implementation of

the Family and Children's Law Commission recommendations, particularly

the legislation in relation to children, which is ready, which was

prepared and is available to look at, and also the kinds of discussions

that are necessary, in terms of the courts and in terms of the people

who run the courts to try and avoid the kind of situation which really

makes victims out of the children — in this case Mrs. Scafardi and her

two children — and allows the husband to get away with it simply

because there is a feeling in the courts that the kind of obligations

that a man must have in the beginning are to the banks and to his

creditors first and to his family second. Certainly, in the interests

of all humanity in this province, we must seek a complete reversal of

that kind of philosophy, Mr. Chairman. That is implicit in this

document.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there was

a question asked, but I would like to make a brief reply to one

particular point which the hon. member made time and time again.

I certainly agree with the worth of the family court. I agree with

the example he used and the apparent injustice. But I don't agree with

his continual mention of the cost of seeking out the errant husband and

making the errant husband pay what apparently is his obligation. If all

of your

[ Page 2392 ]

expenses, as you referred to, Hon. Member, are in

terms of dollars, then perhaps you are right. If your values are

strictly dollars, and dollars only, and you repeatedly refer to

dollars, I can then perhaps appreciate your argument, but I think there

is another value which is far greater than the dollars involved. We

know of examples where the law has spent hundreds of thousands of

dollars to track down a bank robber because he held up a bank for

$5,000. I think if there is justice to be done, then really the

expense, though important, is really secondary, and unless we see that

justice is done, we'll never really have an honourable system. I'm sure

if we see justice done, then the pay will be enormous in the long run.

So it's just a matter that we appear to disagree on value. You have

apparently measured your values in dollars; my values in this are

certainly not that.

MR. LEVI: You know, I don't know what we do with that one,

Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether he was so enamoured with the speech

I was making that he didn't hear my three questions. Well, I just want

to go to the points he made, Mr. Chairman.

What I'd like to do is respond to the minister in respect to values.

I don't happen to be one of those people, Mr. Minister, who agrees with

what you say. You know, justice and fairness — what justice and

fairness? That's the kind of example I was talking about; that's the

kind of justice the poor people get in this province. If that is what

you are supporting, I'm not. I don't support that. There's an old

saying in this country — that you get as much justice as you can

afford. Well, that's what Mrs. Scafardi got. She couldn't afford any,

and that's the kind of justice she got.

The argument that the minister uses — that somehow you can spend

hundreds of thousands of dollars to go catch a bank robber — we are,

first of all, dealing with something that is not as significant as the

minister would have us believe, Mr. Chairman. We don't have thousands

of people who are not paying their way. We do have hundreds, but we

don't have thousands. Generally speaking, collections — which operated

in the department at one time, and now operate under the

Attorney-General — was a very successful process. But there is no way.

I am not prepared to accept, as the minister says, that we must justify

the expenditures on the principles of justice.

We have the Attorney-General just come back in. Unfortunately I

think he missed part of the debate in which I was making reference to

an order, the registrar's order, that came out in terms of the

maintenance order.

The thing is that if you feel — and I think that's perhaps where it's

wrong — that somehow we spend whatever money is required to see that justice

is done, then probably what we have to do is to examine what we are talking

about in terms of justice. What are we talking about? — because the taxpayer

has an involvement in this, too. The fact that the minister articulates the

principle...that's a very costly principle to the taxpayer, and it will

be an extremely costly principle.

The minister enunciated some weeks ago that he wanted to go after

looking at who was cheating on welfare. So the first thing he does is

get 75 positions from the Treasury Board, and probably by the time

they're all in place — and it will take some time — the federal

programme will cost about $1 million, maybe more, in terms of the hunt

and chase. Now one has to argue: is that an appropriate expenditure of

money in terms of scarce resources available? Well, it's the same kind

of question in terms of the scarce resources available if you want to

make expenditures for chasing errant husbands. What you have to look at

is, first of all, acceptance of the findings of the Law Reform

Commission of Canada, and also the findings of the Family and

Children's Law Commission here, that that kind of process which the

minister wants to continue with has never worked; it's too costly.

I would refer you to a report that you could obtain from a former

commissioner of the Family and Children's Law Commission, Judge

Roscova, who about five years ago decided to do an accounting of what

it would cost to collect the maintenance payments in his area. He found

that the amount of money it cost to collect equalled what came in — it

was almost equal because they were trying to collect $38,000 and it

cost a little under $38,000 to collect it. This was five years ago, Mr.

Attorney-General, and still the taxpayer was picking up the burden of

this support in terms of the children.

What I said, Mr. Attorney-General, while you were out, through you,

Mr. Chairman, was that we have to not deal with just the provincial

system in terms of maintenance orders; we have to move toward the idea

of a reciprocal provincial system, and it's important that we do it on

a nationwide basis. Then if we can do that, if we can have that kind of

an agreement, we can avoid getting trapped into the idea that somehow

we as a government in this province can set up a system that is going

to work better than any other system ever worked, when it has never

worked.

There's no point in us as a government rushing headlong into

something simply because it's attractive to some people out there in

the community who feel that that's what they want to hear, that they

are finally going after those guys. Well, you only are going to go

after those who are in the province. Once they skip over the border

you've had it. You're going to run into the situation where guys are

going to be prepared to sit in the jails.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is responsible

for the $12 to $15 a day that the taxpayer is paying for. Is it more

than that now?

[ Page

2393 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: All right, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) tells me that the iron bar hotel is better than $25 a day.

Okay, those are all very realistic expenses. Now the important thing

is that the minister has said that his principle is in terms of

justice. Well, I just wonder how much justice the public is going to

feel they're getting when some errant husband is sitting in the iron

bar hotel at $25 a day for as long as he wants to sit there, simply

because he doesn't want to meet his obligations. That is not going to

accomplish the kind of thing the minister has in mind.

As I said to the minister — and now that the Attorney-General's in

his seat — it is important that they get together and that the kinds of

discussions that go on at the federal-provincial level with the

Ministers of Welfare and with the Attorney-General have to be along

these lines.

Mr. Chairman, again, because the Attorney-General just came in, I

would refer him, as I have referred the Minister of Human Resources, to

report No. 7 of the Family and Children's Law Commission, because they

laid it out. One of their first requirements is that there be

discussions on a national level.

I cannot accept the

Minister of Human Resources' approach on this. He talks about some

principle of justice. Well, children and wives, or spouses, also want

some justice, but they want it immediately. They won't have to grind

through the courts like this where a husband can pay off his debts to

his creditors before he can look after his family. That is not

acceptable.

It's too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General wasn't in his

place when I raised this, but I will send him a copy of it, just for

his interest.

What we have here, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Attorney-General, is an order from the court registrar in Vancouver to

suggest that Mrs. Scafardi can have $350 but she can't have any more

until the husband has paid off his obligations to the bank and to his

creditors. I say that that's wrong. That's wrong in terms of justice

and it's wrong in terms of what the load is on the taxpayer. That's the

kind of discussion that needs to take place. You don't have to turn the

world over overnight, Mr. Minister. You've got yourself three and a

half to four years. Take your time. Don't rush into it. Don't try and

please all those people out there. You've got lots of time to do it,

but the kind of system you have in mind.... If you're telling us that

the money is well spent, if there is some point of justice involved,

that's very nice, except that if the families and the spouses don't get

the justice, it's money wasted.

I want to deal with the three questions before I sit down. I asked you three

questions. One was: what is your approach in terms of the recommendations of

the Family and Children's Law Commission? What is the department going to

do in terms of the legislation? It's been drafted and it's available

in terms of children's law. Will the people who are in the human resources

committee be discussing the family and children's law recommendations? Because

they are there.

Perhaps the minister can comment on one other thing. In terms of

what he wants to do — and I just want to stay away from the

legislation, Mr. Chairman — could the minister comment on why he is so

quick to want to pre-empt the role of the Attorney General? I think as

the former Attorney-General referred to it the other day, he was

rustling on your property.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Usurping!

MR. LEVI: I think he used another word. He wants to get into

the collection business and it's the Attorney-General's department

under the Family Relations Act that has that prerogative.

So we're going to have that system and we're going to have his

system. Now I want to ask the minister: has he had discussions with the

Attorney-General, and is the Attorney-General prepared to give up that

function and give it over to the Minister of Human Resources? That's a

very important cost factor. I would probably suggest that because it's

in place under the Attorney-General's department, that's where it

should stay. You have far more important things to do in your

department than that. You have the interest of children and families.

Let him do the collection business. Let him be the heavy and you be the

sweetheart. You do some things with children and with the families.

Three questions, Mr. Chairman; have you got them? Three questions.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I don't want to be the heavy all the time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer the

three questions all at once. The whole matter of the Family and

Children's Law Commission report is definitely being considered by the

social services committee and the various departments that are involved

in the commission reports. There will undoubtedly be recommendations

coming from it and these will be acted upon.

With respect to the other question of legislation, I certainly don't

want to get into the question of legislation now. The Attorney-General

and I certainly get along well and all of these matters are being

discussed between the two departments.

[ Page 2394 ]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I'd

just like to clarify something. I was out of the House now for a couple

of minutes and I hope I haven't missed this. But I was puzzled to hear

the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) tell us that

maintenance orders outside of the province were unenforceable, which is

what he said, and to see the Attorney-General shake his head. To think

back to the Attorney-General's estimates, I recall that he said that

this question was under control the enforcement of interprovincial

orders. As I may have missed something in the last couple of minutes,

but if I haven't....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, this was earlier on.

Could the minister — if I haven't missed something — just tell me

what the existing status is? Are these orders enforceable

interprovincially at the moment or not?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I can best answer this way,

perhaps. Most of this certainly will be discussed when the GAIN

legislation comes before the House and I really, perhaps, shouldn't go

into too much detail now, because that's exactly where it should be

discussed. There, too, we can advise the House of what the procedures

will be with respect to that very question. But the current situation

is that it is very difficult — if not impossible — to collect in other

provinces unless you have a reciprocal agreement.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I would like to change the

subject just briefly to the area of financing the Human Resources by

the municipalities of the province.

Now I know the Minister of Human Resources is well aware that

Burnaby is one of the eight large municipalities which still

administers its own social services — which is costing it in the

neighbourhood of $5 per capita —

whereas, for the other areas which

have their administration covered through the department, I believe

it's around 60 cents per capita. Now I understand that the minister has

sent a letter to the Burnaby council informing them, and making a

commitment, I believe, that when the estimates are through — I gather

when the House is recessed or prorogued — there will be definite

changes made. It seems to point to the fact that the minister has made

a commitment that the Human Resources department will be taking over

the administration of social services in the larger municipalities

also. Of course, this will be very helpful to areas such as Burnaby

which at the present time, financially, find themselves with inflation

far exceeding the government grants which they have received to date.

I really have a very simple question for the minister: has he made

this commitment? Secondly, if you have — if the answer is yes, you have

made the commitment — can you give some idea, to me as the MLA and also

hopefully to the council, when you would be prepared to move in this

direction? I think this is the question which the Burnaby council is

most interested in.

Looking over the estimates, I also question where the money is,

because at the moment I realize it's over $6.5 million, if I'm correct

— I'm not sure of that — over the whole province. So basically my

question, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, is simply: have

you made that commitment to Burnaby municipality? Does that commitment

follow through for the other seven large municipalities? Thirdly, when

will you be able to come through with the commitment and provide the

actual takeover and the moneys?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, yes, it is my express

wish to see us take over administration from the eight remaining

municipalities who are now burdened with an annual cost of $5 per

capita, as opposed to the others which are paying 60 cents. Following

the estimates and the proroguing of the Legislature, we hope to do this

immediately and accomplish this, if at all possible, by late summer or

early fall.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My questions are more

or less related to specific items that have some effect within the

Cowichan-Malahat constituency, and I would like to raise them at this

time with the Minister of Human Resources.

The first one I have raised on a couple of occasions here

previously, and I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in

the chamber as well, and it has to do with the alternative school at

Duncan.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll give you an answer to that. Oops! Wrong piece of paper, but I've got an answer for you. Ask it tomorrow.

MRS. WALLACE: Fine. If the Attorney-General is deciding that he is going to reverse his decision and...

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: ...provide some funding from his department, I'm

delighted to hear it, but I would like to hear from the Minister of

Human Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're speculating.

MRS. WALLACE: As he is probably aware, that particular school was funded three ways previously.

[ Page

2395 ]

The Attorney-General has now seen fit to withdraw from the scene —

as I understand it — and the extra funding, some $17,000 or $18,000

which was forthcoming from the Attorney-General's department

previously, is now in question. I have had assurance from several of

the minister's officials that it will be added, but the problem is, Mr.

Chairman, that the school board had to let the teachers know as of two

days ago whether or not they are going to be continuing in employment

next year. Would the minister just like to take that question at this

point before I continue with the others, or would he rather wait until

I get all my questions?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Very well, then I'll go on to the second

question. This again relates to something the Attorney-General's

department is no longer doing. It is a grant from the Alcohol and Drug

Commission that was being paid into the Cowichan area. It was the only

grant, incidentally, from that commission into an area which has the

somewhat dubious record of being the highest per capita purchaser of

alcohol of any place in British Columbia. This grant has been

discontinued.

It covered, in fact, the services of one woman who gave her time to

deal with alcoholics and families of alcoholics. She has not been

getting paid for some two or three months now, Mr. Chairman, through

you to the minister, but I would like the minister to know that this

woman is continuing to do this job because she just can't say no to

these people when they phone her and have these kinds of problems and

need the kind of counselling that she is able to give. She is still

having cases referred to her by the probation officer and by

representatives of your own department, Mr. Chairman, through you to

the minister. Manpower is saying to her: "Look, you must spend more

time looking for work. We can't continue to give you unemployment

insurance unless you go out and spend more time looking for work." I am

really concerned that this woman's health is going to break or she is

going to give up. Then we are going to have a real loss in the

community and a real gap there. I would ask another question to the

minister on that, so that's two questions.

The third question deals with the intermediate-care situation in

Duncan. I would like the minister to comment whether or not this thing

is going to progress this year. There has been a lot of delay in the

situation because of conflicting interests between the two departments,

particularly in relation to the land, which is the logical site for the

intermediate-care unit, being held by the hospital board under the

Department of Health. However, I think the minister should be aware

that the present extended-care facility was so designed and so built to

accommodate an adjoining intermediate-care. In fact, the kitchen

facilities were built sufficiently adequate to service both

institutions. I would certainly like the minister to comment on that

point.

The fourth point is a little more far-ranging. It was drawn to my

attention this morning by one of my constituents in Lake Cowichan. He

has suggested that I may use his name; his name is Mr. Bergstrom and

his unemployment insurance number is 700-762-982. He is a recipient of

Mincome, Mr. Chairman. He has been receiving it for some time.

According to Mr. Bergstron, his only financial savings is something

like $900 in the bank. There has been no change in his financial

position. He has been receiving approximately $29 a month. With his

last cheque he received a note signed by the minister.

"My Dear Friend:

"We are pleased to announce GAIN, the Guaranteed Available

Income for Need Act,

an Act which includes all the benefits of the old Mincome

programme but extends them to more people who need help" and so on. Mr.

Minister, I am sure you are very familiar with that.

"The same policies and benefits for those now in

receipt of Mincome will continue. No one will lose their present

Mincome benefits. More people will enjoy them," and so on.

Mr. Chairman, this man, Mr. Bergstrom, received a cheque, No.

404958, attached to that note — he had normally been receiving $29 —

for $2.47. Mr. Minister, really, that is just not good enough. For a

government that prides itself on good administration and efficiency and

that says, over the minister's signature, that they are going to

maintain Mincome, that there is no change — Mr. Minister, that is not

good enough.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, I

will deal with the last question first. The department is certainly

familiar with Mr. Bergstrom's case. He has been writing and has been in

touch with the department. Mr. Bergstrom's problem is that he reported

an income last year to the federal government which changed his

eligibility for Mincome from $29 to $2.47. So when he filled in the tax

return forwarded to Ottawa, it showed an income which changed the

amount of Mincome that he was entitled to. The amount of money that he

receives is based on last year's income-tax return. So that is the

answer to that particular question.

With respect to the intermediate-care facility for Duncan, that is

under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act, which is

administered by the Department of Health.

However, to the best of my knowledge, all applications are being honoured, depending.on need

[ Page 2396 ]

for the area, and Central Mortgage and Housing will certainly take

care of the financing providing that we can show that there's a need in

that particular area. So I don't know what the particular problem is.

We'll get the answer and I'll give you that either here or out of the

House, whichever you wish.

On the alternate education programme, my deputy will get the

administration to get the answer for that particular question so it's

accurate. But as far as we know, it's being proceeded with in the

Cowichan Valley area. There's two — one in Duncan and one in the

Cowichan Valley.

MRS. WALLACE: Cowichan Lake.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Cowichan Lake. That one is apparently being proceeded with. I'm not sure about the other one.

MRS. WALLACE: It's the Duncan one I'm concerned about.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We'll get the answer on the Duncan one.

The alcohol and drug grants are recommended and paid out of the

Health department. Since April 1, 1976, all responsibility for any item

related to alcohol and drugs was transferred to health.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if I might just follow up then. Did I

understand you to say that the intermediate care is under the

Department of Health?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's under the Community Care

Facilities Licensing Act, but the development of it also comes through

that particular committee or commission that deals with it, and it's

under health.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. Members, perhaps it's not the most

appropriate time, but I'd very much like to welcome to the gallery two

old friends and good friends of mine, Margaret and George Campbell. I

wish them a happy afternoon here in Victoria.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to take this occasion to explore with

the minister a bit the state of his negotiations with Ottawa on income

support, but particularly on income supplementation, and obtain from

him any details that he can give the House as to the stand of the

province of British Columbia in this regard.

The concept of income supplementation, I hope, is one that the

minister will say that he supports. One of the most difficult aspects

of our society has been the observation that people working at low

levels of income have made to the extent that if they ceased working,

they could sometimes do better on social assistance programmes,

depending of course on the size of their families and other things.

This is the very inequity that income supplementation is designed — or

will be designed — to overcome.

So the first thing I would like to have from the minister is a

statement that the government of British Columbia does support the

concept of income supplementation. Then I would be grateful if he could

tell us where, in the ongoing negotiations with the federal government,

the province stands on such questions as who should be eligible for

income supplementation. What should be the tax-back rate, which the

minister knows is one of the critical factors with respect to work

incentives under these programmes? If the programme is so designed that

if you make an extra dollar and the whole extra dollar is taken away

with no incentive, if it is so designed that none is taken away, then

you have an extremely costly programme and you have to arrive at some

benefit in the middle. I'd ask the minister if he could tell the House

whether British Columbia is prepared to adopt the generally discussed

rate of 35 per cent as a tax-back rate on the supplementation side of

the programme, or whether we have some other figure in mind.

I would be glad, too, if he could share with the House some

assessment of cost. The federal government has issued statements

without backup date — released publicly to the best of my knowledge —

of something like $350 million on a national basis. On the other hand,

studies done by the province of Ontario have shown that depending on

the assumptions you make, it could be somewhere in the billions. I

would be glad if the minister could tell the House what studies he and

his officials have done on this subject and what they come out to in

dollar terms.

Perhaps before exploring that one further — I would wait to hear the

minister's reply — let me make to him one other representation and ask

for a response on it. It is also in the income-security field, and that

is the question of Canada Pension Plan benefits for working spouses.

The income-security conference of welfare ministers in February

discussed this subject, and there were three specific possibilities

suggested. Naturally there are far more possibilities than these, Mr.

Chairman, but I'll just talk about these three modest steps to start

with.

The first step is that pension credits earned by spouses during

marriage should be divided equally between the spouses at the time of

marriage dissolution, should such come to pass. This is a concept that

I would support. I would be glad to know if the minister supports it.

Next is the proposal — and this one was submitted by the government

of Quebec — for survivor's benefits, widows or widower's benefits to a

surviving former spouse who had been awarded alimony, and

[ Page 2397 ]

finally the suggestion that for the contribution of lifetime average

earnings contributors who drop out of the labour force to raise

children should be allowed to eliminate those years for the purposes of

calculation of average lifetime earnings. These were three specific

proposals for the improvement of the Canada Pension Plan, as it relates

to homemakers, and I would be glad to know, first of all, whether the

minister supports these and, if he does, what kind of progress is being

made in implementing them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, these items were

discussed at a recent conference in Ottawa, and certainly British

Columbia supported the changes to the Canada Pension Act to allow the

splitting of benefits and also to allow the seven-year period whereby a

person could take that leave and continue on with the payments

following that. This was supported by British Columbia. We also

supported very strongly the income supplementation principle,

dependent, of course, upon the outcome of the First Ministers

Conference which is to be held next week, where the whole matter of

cost-sharing of financing between the federal government and the

province will be discussed. But the principle we did support certainly

would encourage one to accept employment as opposed to welfare,

because, as you mentioned, very often now a person is, in fact, better

off in receipt of welfare than they would be working for a low wage

because of the health benefits and all else that come with welfare and

don't come with the low wages that are earned by the working poor.

So we supported that particular concept, came out very strongly in

favour, and hopefully, if nothing else, it might be tried even on an

experimental basis in British Columbia or some part of British Columbia

where you have a lot of working poor. We are presently attempting to

determine just exactly what the cost might be for the province. It's

very difficult because you're dealing with some unknowns, but it would

appear on the surface as if British Columbia would stand to gain most

in this type of a programme because of the other programmes for the

over-55s and 60 and over that we're already involved with. So it would

appear as if we would stand to gain more than the other provinces

financially and that possibly the cost wouldn't be all that great for

British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Just to follow that up for a moment, Mr.

Chairman, the minister noted that his department was involved in

calculating costs at the moment. I wonder if he could assist the House

in understanding this by telling us, in those calculations, some of the

numerical parameters he's working with. Specifically I'm thinking about

the tax-back rate and the guaranteed benefit rate and the maximum

supplement figures. For example, there's been a figure of $80 a month

for a family of four that's been mentioned in some of the federal

literature. Is British Columbia working with this figure? Are they

working with the 35 per cent, and what is the guarantee? Is it the

$4,500 a year that again has been used in some of the federal

literature or is it another number?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, the formula of which you speak,

which is rather complicated.... Did you wish the details of the

formula? I'm sure you have this information. The $36 for the family

head, the $24 for the second parent, the $10 per child, the 35 per cent

— this is the formula we're working on, exactly as proposed by the

federal government, and hopefully these figures will be available

fairly soon.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate the minister's answers on those particular questions. I'd now like to move on to a couple of other areas.

First of all, a simple question of fact, and the figures may be

available somewhere publicly but I don't know where to look for them.

It relates to the field of adoption. I wonder if the minister could

tell me the size of the waiting list of parents who wish adopted

children at the moment, the annual number of requests that are added to

that list and the annual number of adoptions that actually take place.

Just a simple question of facts — if his officials can't provide them

now, I'd be very glad if he could send me a letter in due course.

Moving from there on to another very brief question — this is the

question of the administrative takeover by the province of the delivery

of social assistance services in some eight municipalities around the

province, two of which include my constituency, the district and city

of North Vancouver.

I'm trying in my own mind to work out the cost of savings to the

municipalities here. Am I correct in assuming that the cost will be

$1.55 per capita once the takeover is complete and that the approximate

cost now is $5, which would indicate we could look forward to a saving

in municipal budgets of about $3.50 per capita? I'm just interested to

know if these are correct order of magnitude approaches to the problem.

Moving on from that subject, I would ask the minister to justify to

the House the reason for the withdrawing of funding from information

centres, which is a matter of some distress to me. Again, I will make

reference to my own community of North Vancouver where there were two

excellent information centres — one of them known as "The Hub, " the

other the Lower Lonsdale Information Centre, which worked out of Queen

Mary School. Both of them, in my view, were doing very excellent

community service in terms of referring people with problems of one

kind or another — be they housing, be they problems with, let's say,

Mincome, be they

[ Page 2398 ]

problems with social assistance, or whatever it might be — referring these people to the appropriate agencies.

The grants were not inordinately high, Mr. Chairman. They were a

matter of a few thousand dollars per year to each centre, which

basically was the funding for the co-ordinator in each case. I believe

that these centres were doing good work, and I make that representation

to the minister in hopes that he might reinstate this kind of

programme. Further, I'd ask him if he could explain to the House why

the grants were withdrawn in the first place.

Finally, I would make a submission to him on the subject of day

care. There is this year, I think, some $15 million provided in the

estimates, up from $13 million last year, but I believe that this

programme should be much larger, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to have

from the minister his commitment that day care is a subject which is

close to his heart, if I could put it that way.

I don't know if he's familiar with a pamphlet written by Philip

Hepworth, who's the research director for the Canadian Council on Social

Development, put out last year which speaks of.... The title of the

pamphlet is "600,000 Children," and this is the day-care need across

Canada nationally. We would expect something like 60,000 in British

Columbia as a rough estimation, and yet the current number of day-care

places in our province is closer to 8,000, if I understand the figures

correctly. This obviously leaves great room for expansion.

While I appreciate the fact that the minister recently was able to

raise the provincial grant per child in need in day-care centres from

$120 to $140, I'm hoping that we can get some kind of long-range

commitment to going much further in the day-care field. I think that

this would commend itself to the minister and to the government on the

very basic ground of economic common sense. This allows more people to

get out and work and contribute to our society, and contribute to their

own lives if they are so minded by making available a facility for

certain hours of the day for care of their children. It's not in any

way an abdication of parental responsibility but rather a possibility

of freeing the parents for certain hours of the day to do other things.

Not only does this make economic common sense, of course, Mr. Chairman,

but also it makes human common sense.

It's my view that day-care centres should eventually enter the

public school system and that kindergarten grades should go down from

age five to age four and eventually to age three. The difficulty, I

appreciate, is the impossibility of obtaining Canada Assistance Plan

funding for anything that relates to the educational system in any way.

This is another of the reasons why I have been asking the government,

in field after field, to negotiate for tax points so that we can spend

the money on our own priorities rather than having our priorities

directed, and in some cases distorted, by the federal government's

cost-sharing plans.

Basically on day care then, Mr. Chairman, it's a request for the

minister to tell us that he regards this as a valuable programme and,

hopefully, one that will be rapidly expanded in view of the fact that

only, say, 15 to 20 per cent of the potential places in day care in

British Columbia that are actually required are currently available.

I would be glad if the minister could comment on the four subjects I have raised.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Firstly, with respect to adoption, the

waiting period is in excess of two years. One of the reasons, I

suppose, is that the majority of applicants wish little babies. We have

less of these being born every year, so it's becoming more difficult,

in fact, to fill the demand.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We don't know just how many there are. I don't have the figures available to be accurate.

With regard to your question on — municipal per capita charges, your

assumption was not quite correct in that municipalities pay 10 per cent

of the social assistance portion and the child-care portion of the

Human Resources budget. Ten per cent of those figures will vary

depending upon what the total figures are, so 10 per cent amounted to

$1.30 per month on a per capita basis last year, but this year, because

the figures were larger, the amount went to $1.55.

The municipalities that have been paying 60 cents per annum for

administration are now paying 5 cents per month per capita for

administration, so they don't have this one additional charge at the

end of the year. It's worked into their per capita monthly charges so

that, in fact, instead of $1.55, they're now paying $1.60.

We'll be negotiating with North Vancouver and the other seven

municipalities — eight in total — for the takeover of their

administration. They then, too, will pay $1.55 plus a nickel, or $1.60

in total, per month. For administration they are currently averaging $5

per annum, as opposed to 60 cents per annum for the other areas. So

there will be a considerable saving for those municipalities.

The reason, I suppose more than any, that we are not funding the

information centres is twofold: we have an awful lot of applications

this year for various functions, particularly with the discontinuation

of LIP. However, information centres are not subject to federal

cost-sharing. Most, if not all, of the programmes that we are presently

involved with through the community grant

section of the-budget

[ Page 2399 ]

are shared 50-50 federally-provincially. Information centres are

charged completely to the province with no sharing from the federal

government. Also, we found in assessing the information provided by the

information centres, however worthwhile it was, that it was very much,

too, of a local nature — to do with recreation programmes locally, or

to do with facilities locally, or to do with municipal, matters. So it

didn't become a high priority with us — particularly, of course, too,

since a dollar spent there would provide $2 worth of services elsewhere.

Day care certainly is a priority with us. That is one of the reasons

why we so quickly negotiated a new rate for the day-care programme so

the programme wouldn't continue to suffer, since the rates had not been

adjusted for almost two years. We have also provided about 19 per cent

extra this year, much of which, of course, will be to provide the extra

rate. But there is some money there for expansion if needed. However,

your figure of 8,000 should be 12,000; there are 12,000 children in

total involved in the day-care programme. But somehow, for some unknown

reason, the number appears to be dropping little by little every month.

In fact, the programme is now under-utilized. We are getting

complaints from some of the day-care centres in some of the areas —

they are saying that there are too many day-care centres too close

together and they can't make a go of it; so we are reviewing this. We

certainly support day care. What you said is absolutely right — it

provides the opportunity for people to not only go out and be gainfully

employed, but it provides the opportunity to become involved with the

community, meet new friends and, of course, all of the other good

things that come with it. So we wholeheartedly endorse it and I very

much support the day-care programme.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to

comment briefly on the question of day-care centres and child care in

general. When we met with the women from the women's rally for action

earlier on this session, one of the specific points that was raised was

that at the present time licences for child-care centres seem to be

contingent more or less only on meeting fire and safety regulations,

and that there is very little importance attached to the criteria of

the quality of care itself. The whole idea the women were putting

forward was that there should be as much flexibility as possible, and

there should be a variety of day-care centres which would give the

parents some options.

Again, it's a little bit like the issue I raised earlier on —

overlapping of responsibilities and different departments getting mixed

with the minister's department in determining whether certain

requirements are being met. But this was certainly a point that was

stressed in my discussion with the ladies who came to my office — they

really wanted to think that there would be some flexibility and

variation, and that day-care centres should not just be approved

because they met fire and safety regulations, but there should be some

attempt to have the Minister of Human Resources responsible for the

quality of care.

The whole area that I wanted to touch upon beyond that, Mr.

Chairman, is again the question of intermediate care. The report from

the minister's department I have already referred to earlier on in the

session and I don't plan to go into the whole outline of the reduction

of the number of intermediate-care beds that has occurred in the

greater Victoria area. I am sure all MLAs have received various letters

from different groups trying to point out that we are not spending the

total number of dollars wisely. I make no apology for reciting for the

Nth time the fact that the reason we are abusing or misusing expensive

acute-care hospital beds is that there are many people in these beds

only because they have nowhere else to go and that they require some

kind of intermediate-care facility.

I would first of all just briefly quote the correspondence, which

I'm sure many members have had, that is from the group which is

entitled the Mental Patients Association. I know that the first member

for Vancouver-Burrard has already referred to this in an earlier

debate. It bears mentioning repeatedly for the simple reason that many

of those patients often require readmission to acute facilities simply

because the bridge of supervision and care between the acute hospital

and the community isn't there.

The Mental Patients Association, as the minister well knows,

provides some kind of bridge for approximately 48 patients who have

previously received psychiatric care in an acute facility and also

provides various other ancillary types of health, housing referrals and

some advocacy services and activity programmes of one kind and another.

Most importantly, it is eager to provide, for lack of a better word,

the halfway house approach whereby patients who leave the psychiatric

hospital have some kind of support and advice and guidance at a time

when they're still under a great deal of emotional stress and may not

be able to return to the community or to their original place of

residence.

The Mental Patients Association, I think, has contacted the Minister

of Human Resources, who admittedly is being approached from just about

every point of the compass, particularly in the light of LIP grants and

LEAP grants which are coming to an end in the next few months.

In this case, Mr. Chairman, I think the figures speak for

themselves. The Mental Patients Association is seeking $66,000 to take

them from August I of this year to March 31 of 1977. The LEAP grant runs

[ Page 2400 ]

out at the end of July and this $66,000 represents two-thirds of

their annual need for 10 salaries and a deficit in operating expenses

on the residence programme. Even to stay where we are, this sum of

money is required for the rest of this fiscal year, a sum of $66,000,

and there are 48 people who presumably will have to be relocated if

there is no money.

I know very well that the minister can't produce money out of a hat,

and I know that he's been approached by myself and others on a whole

variety of needs, and the reason that he can't solve the problem now is

that there is no ongoing long-term programme that I can determine to

provide these intermediate-care facilities.

I won't be nasty and recall the big one-page ad where this

government made that kind of commitment. It's one of the most crucial

money-saving commitments that they should be embarking upon, because

we're spending millions of dollars looking after people in expensive

facilities simply because the more appropriate kind of facility doesn't

exist.

When I have to keep quoting the department's own statistics of how

in the greater Victoria area we've actually lost something like 400

places in intermediate-care facilities in the last two years, surely

this shows the absolutely foolish gap that exists whereby we have gone

ahead creating very expensive, sophisticated facilities for the most

acutely ill person, but no kind of bridge between the acute facility

and the person's home. Those various people sometimes can never return

to live in their own home for a variety of reasons, physical, mental,

or otherwise.

I just hope that with the new minister.... I'm sure that from his

position as a former mayor in Surrey, he probably doesn't really need

to be told this. But I can certainly speak with feeling in the greater

Victoria area. There is just an appalling lack of that type of

intermediate-care facility and, as a result, we are seriously misusing

many of the acute facilities that now exist.

I've quoted, Mr. Chairman, one of the specifics, namely the request

by the Mental Patients Association for $66,000, and in this case it is

simply to keep the situation as is and not get any worse. I would

wonder where these 48 persons would be accommodated if, in fact, these

two houses have to close down.

One thing we can be sure of: if that happens a certain number of the

48 patients will wind up back in the acute psychiatric facility at $125

a day. That's as predictable as night following day. In fact, some of

the correspondence that I've had from the Mental Patients Association

draws some of these very clear comparisons. The office co-ordinator,

Mr. Gordon McMann, makes the point very plain. I'd just like very

quickly to quote from a letter of April 21 this year:

"If our residences are not funded, the government will

probably have 48 more patients to care for, be it boarding home or

re-entry to acute hospital. We think it is time that all government

departments concerned recognize our organization as an economical way

of caring for a seriously disadvantaged part of the population.

"The present Vancouver hospital rates, as you know,

are running up to $125 a day. Our houses operate at $6.40 per day per

resident, over and above what the residents pay themselves. In other

words, we are looking for a subsidy of $6.40 per day. Our actual

per-diem cost is for a subsidy of $6.40 per day. Our actual per-diem

cost is $9.36 per day."

In other words, the patient makes a contribution and the actual

subsidy is $6.40 per day, which is certainly a far cry from the cost of

having these people in the acute facility when there's nowhere else for

them to go. Perhaps the minister could look at that particular question.

I've also had quite a bit of correspondence from a committee which

calls itself the ad hoc committee on community resources for persons

with psychiatric problems. The letter I first received is from Mr.

Ralph Buckley, Master in Social Work, at St. Paul's Hospital, and he is

mainly saying the same thing as the Mental Patients Association, that

there are many persons who need some community care as a bridge between

the acute facility and their home, or, in cases where the recovery is

incomplete, they may require this kind of intermediate care facility on

a permanent basis.

The point Mr. Buckley makes very clear is that study after study

after study has been carried out over the last number of years and they

all come up with exactly the same recommendation. You would tend to

think that if different groups study the same subject and all come up

with the same recommendation, probably the recommendations are sound.

There's one particular study entitled the Greater Vancouver Boarding

Home Status report by Dr. J. Cumming and Mrs. Sharon Martin and it says:

"Repeatedly the treatment team was forced to admit

patients who would have been treatable if partial hospitalization had

been available, something of the nature of day treatment, overnight

hostel with supervision, available boarding homes, and so on."

And he states:

"After the initial crisis, hospital admission often reflected the unavailability of essential support services."

And then in a more recent paper, Dr. Cummings states:

"Institutional care for the mentally ill will

[ Page 2401 ]

decrease dramatically in the next five years. If, however, this

process is not to result in a new crisis, we must develop an alternative to

the institution which provides the same care elements which the institution

does, and important among these elements is the need for housing."

Then he goes on to make the point that there are enough existing and

planned acute-psychiatric beds in general hospitals in greater

Vancouver to service this area if we could provide adequate support

facilities. Without breaking the rules of this House I would just

recall that this is exactly the same kind of thing that we're talking

about with this 240-bed acute hospital proposed for UBC campus. It's

insane, absolutely stupid. Vancouver does not need acute-psychiatric

beds, but the whole province desperately requires intermediate-care

beds.

It just defeats me that we have to go on hammering away at this

absolutely fundamental fact that's been known for something like 15

years when you look back on all the studies that have been done,

starting with the Hall Royal Commission and the task force reports and

the report we had a couple of years ago by Dr. Foulkes.

Now all these studies add up to the same conclusion, and I just feel

that with unanimous recommendation coming from so many directions,

this, to me, should really be one of the most urgent crash programmes

that the government should be looking at.

The report that I mentioned of the ad hoe committee finishes up by saying:

"As inflation seems to be continuing, the precise

costs of alternative proposals will vary. We can say with certainty,

nonetheless, that these proposals do offer proven alternatives to

hospitalization which are cheaper than erecting more hospitals; they

are more humanitarian and more in line with modern concepts of

community mental health."

So I just can't put that plea to the minister in stronger terms,

that in the short run could he take another look at the possibility of

helping the Mental Patients Association with the kind of grant they're

asking of $66,000 until April 1 next year — or March 31, next year —

and in the long term could he tell us what early moves he's able to

make to have a co-ordinated province-wide programme, particularly in

relation to the large metropolitan areas, to provide these intermediate

care facilities?

The last similar example I would want to mention is another facility

that the minister's well aware of, and he's tried to come up with

funding and has been unable to do so. I'm talking about the recreation

centre for the handicapped on Government Street in Victoria. That is a

very simple place — you couldn't even call it a furnished facility; it

is simply the four walls and little else — where some of the most

dedicated people you'll ever meet in your life are busy trying to

provide some outings and recreational pursuits for very seriously

disabled and handicapped young people.

Mr. Chairman, the use of the words "recreational centre" might

suggest that this is of lesser priority than some of the other needs of

the handicapped, but I think we have to emphasize that some of these

handicapped persons are otherwise trapped within the four walls of

their own home and present a 24-hour-a-day responsibility to the

parents of these handicapped children. Again, it very often ends with

one or other parent developing a serious degree of emotional illness

and that one or other parent — and I could quote examples, but I won't

mention names — ends up receiving psychiatric care simply because of

the tremendous strain of 24 hours a day, seven days a week, looking

after a seriously handicapped person.

Now this recreational facility — and I think you can't call it

anything other than a facility — on Government Street is serving that

invaluable purpose of getting some of the younger and seriously

disabled and handicapped children out for various pursuits, whether it

be swimming or visits to the park, to the degree that they can also be

shown how to practise handicrafts and other simple tasks. And this, I

think, is more than just providing the recreation. It's of tremendous

value to the parents and the individuals who otherwise, for all the

other hours in the day, seven days a week, are responsible for the care

of these young people.

Now the minister has looked the situation over, and I appreciate his

efforts. I have his reply which, in effect, says there is only so much

money and he's had many, many requests, and I appreciate that. I'm not

expecting the minister to produce money out of the ground, but I wonder

if at least we could perhaps sustain this facility for one month or two

months, on a very temporary basis, while the supporters of the

programme make further sustained efforts to obtain funding elsewhere.

They've made every effort to raise money on their own. They've also

sought federal help from the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Faulkner),

and there's a most diligent and conscientious group of parents and

public-spirited people who are trying to keep this centre going.

So I just suggest that perhaps while the initial request was for one

year's funding, things are at such a critical state now that it would

be of great value if we could even have a stopgap funding for a month

or two while we try to arrange longer-term funding.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly all that

the hon. member has said with respect to adult-care facilities is quite

correct. I know that many studies have been done with respect to

intermediate-care facilities, private hospitals and the

[ Page 2402 ]

like; however, we now do have two people from Health and two people

from our department pulling together all the information that presently

exists with a view to making recommendations regarding intermediate

care and also rates for private hospitals which are now very necessary

in order to meet the need that exists. So hopefully this, we expect,

will be finalized sometime in August. We have a meeting then with the

private hospitals' association for their end of it, and we'll be making

a number of recommendations with respect to intermediate-care

facilities, the need, how they might be encouraged, and where. All this

information hopefully will be available about the end of August.

I certainly agree with all that was said, and if the hon. member has

any information — and I'm sure he must, having had a real interest in

this for a long time — that would be of help to us for the review, I

would certainly welcome it.

The matter of the Mental Patients Association and their request for

$66,000 has been noted by my deputy. We have no record of this request.

However, I am sure.... You say a request was made to my department —

not the Health department? In any case, we'll search the files to gee

if there was, in fact, a request to our department, or if it went to

Health if it should have come to our department, and I'll certainly

advise you on that later.

With respect to the recreational facility in Victoria for

handicapped, the problem here is that our most recent addition would

indicate that if we approved this one now-defunct LIP programme, we're

probably looking at $250,000 worth of more like it, none of which is

shareable. It's all straight provincial dollars.

I agree again with all you've said about the usefulness of this, and

the value with respect to particularly, I'm sure, the handicapped, but

also the parents, in the relief they get for at least the time that the

handicapped are involved in the particular programmes. We'll look at

your suggestion and see what can be done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member deferring.

I want to leave the record completely accurate in regard to my

statement about $66,000 being asked by the Mental Patients Association.

A letter of June 2 states that the Vancouver Mental Patients

Association residence programme was not funded by the Department of

Health, and is looking to the Department of Human Resources for $66,000

to take them from August 1 to March 31. So it does not specifically

state that they've written to the minister; they are looking to a

department. I wouldn't want to leave the impression that they have

written to the minister when perhaps such an approach is pending.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the office has obviously

received the letter, but I suppose June 2 is perhaps too recent.

However, could the hon. member perhaps advise me if this is an

operating cost or capital cost?

MR. WALLACE: An operating cost.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, this might help the minister: as I

understand it, they also made a direct request to the Vancouver

Resource Board grant committee for the money — they applied there

because it's in their area.

What I want to do was go over with the minister a statement he made

in the House on May 6 in reply to a question from the member for New

Westminster in respect to the Glendale Hospital budget cut. At that

time he indicated, if I might quote: "I'd like to provide an answer to

a question which was placed on the floor yesterday by the hon. member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Contrary to the statement made by

this member, the budgetary estimates of the Glendale Hospital have not

been decreased."

I recall in dealing with the estimates of the department, when we

were still government, that we had estimated $6.45 million, which was

done sometime at the end of 1974. During the fiscal year 1975-76 a

considerable sum of money was added to the expenditures of Glendale

Hospital — as a matter of fact, something in the order of almost

$600,000. That amount of money was deemed necessary as a result of

contractual arrangements in terms of the collective bargaining

agreement and to meet auxiliary personnel.

Now what concerns me is what the minister indicated in his statement

made in the House on May 6. He said: "In 1975-76 the budgetary estimate

for Glendale was $6,041,000" — which was correct; that was the

budgetary estimate — "and our estimate for the 1976-77 fiscal year

projects an increase to $6,091,000." Now the crux of this discussion —

the question that was asked by the member for New Westminster, and also

in which the member for Oak Bay was involved — really related to a

$50,000 increase in the budget that was estimated at $6,041,000.

I was in the House that day, listened to what they were saying and

was quite perplexed that you could take a large operating budget of

some $6,041,000 and then get up in the House and say: "We haven't

decreased the budget; we've increased it by $50,000." The crux of the

argument put forward by the member for Oak Bay was that service was cut

back. I'm not making that statement at the moment, but what I'd like to

know from the minister is: how can you take a budget of $6,041,000

increase it by

[ Page 2403 ]

$50,000 and then tell the House that there won't be a cutback in

service? Surely the minister knows that if you're operating on March 31

of any end of any fiscal year, when you start on the first day of that

fiscal year you've got to project your incremental costs and other

reasons.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'm not ready to sit down yet, Mr. Minister; I haven't finished.

The thing is, if you take a budget of $6 million and you project 15

per cent — which is a fairly good guideline to do it at; at least you

know you shouldn't really go below that — you're looking at something

like a need to increase the previous year's budget by about $900,000,

bearing in mind that the minister said that they'd increased the budget

by $41,000.

During the discussions that I recall when I was the minister and we

were preparing the estimates, we were looking at a budget based on the

projections of 15 per cent, approximately, plus the incremental cost of

something like $8,600,000.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I actually have the documents and can make them available to you.

The thing is, perhaps the minister would be able to tell us how it's

possible to start out with a budget of $6,041,000, put it up to

$6,095,000, and not have a cutback in service. What wondrous things has

he worked in order to save what looks like an approximate amount of

money that's pretty close to well over $2 million, bearing in mind that

during that fiscal year the amount of money that was appropriated

because of a special request from that board...and we should be

reminded that that is a non-profit organization.

As a matter of fact I have the document that I'm looking for here.

When we looked at 1976-77 estimates, when we worked out the projection,

the projected expenditure for 1975-76 was estimated at $6.8 million —

actually, $6,842,000. Then we ran into the whole question so we had to

work on a baseline, and the baseline was $7.4 million. We ran into a

cost-of-living increment, which was part of the collective-bargaining

agreement, of $1,137,000. That gave us a total of $8,600,000.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Again, perhaps the minister could tell us if he's quite happy with

the amount of money he's got in his budget and if all of the services

that were in place in the fiscal year 1975-76 are going to remain in

place. I know that he also said in his statement: "I would like to

point out, however, that the 1976-77 estimates do not reflect

substantial amounts of services rendered by other government

departments."

Now what we're dealing with here is an operation. He may get up and

tell us, I suppose, that some of the laundry and some of the cleaning

and that kind of thing will be done by another department. Yes, he's

shaking his head and that's what they did. He was able to accomplish

something I couldn't accomplish.

I realize that we could do it under his estimates, but the issue

here is really — as raised by the two members I mentioned — the cutback

in service. Is he satisfied that (

a) there will be no cutback in

service and (

b) that he does have enough money to finish the fiscal

year? Is he aware that in calculating $6,045,000, which was what he

started at — that was the budget figure last year — that figure was

actually, as a result of the extra appropriation made during the fiscal

year, $6.8 million? There was another $800,000 required which was

approved.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, yes, we do have