1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 24, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

13007 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Mr. Harcourt –– 13007

Confidentiality in Attorney-General's office. Mr. Sihota –– 13007

BCTV series on Swedish forestry. Mr. Smith –– 13007

First citizen's fund loans. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 13008

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 13008

Preservation of W.A.C. Bennett home. Mr. Serwa –– 13009

Soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 13009

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13009

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Serwa

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Michael

Mr. Miller

Mr. Sihota

Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 14). Second reading

Hon. S. Hagen –– 13035

Ms. A. Hagen –– 13036

Hon. S. Hagen –– 13038

Forest Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 13). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 13039

Mr. Miller –– 13039

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 13040

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 13040

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13041

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Sihota

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Miller

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's an honour today to rise and welcome to

this assembly my ministerial assistant's sister and her husband,

Lorraine and John Toljanich. Would this House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join

with me in welcoming over 30 students from Oppenheimer Elementary

School in Vancouver, along with their teacher Mr. Northy. In addition,

I want to welcome my secretary from Vancouver, Sheila O'Reilly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome you after a most wonderful ceremony on Saturday afternoon when you and Val were married.

MR. BARLEE: I would like to welcome Mr. Harry Lali, who is

somewhere in the precincts. He is the New Democratic Party candidate

for Yale-Lillooet in the coming election.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to

join me in welcoming Graham Travers and Blair Robertson to the session

this afternoon. Graham is the son of the assistant deputy minister

within my ministry. Would you please make them welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome

the dean of the faculty of management at the University of Manitoba,

William Mackness, who is visiting our House today.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Minister of Health.

Therapeutic abortions are an insured service under the province's

Medical Service Act. A recent Supreme Court decision has made it very

clear that this is a medical procedure to which all women have an equal

and legal right. However, the board of the only hospital in the

Okanagan that provides this procedure has announced its intention to

outlaw therapeutic abortions. Has the minister decided that he will

direct this hospital board to guarantee access to this legal procedure?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member probably knows that hospitals

in British Columbia are legally autonomous entities. As such, they have

the right to do or not to do procedures, and we don't involve ourselves

in determining what medical procedures are going to be carried out at

any particular hospital.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. This is not a question of local autonomy

This is an issue of access to a publicly funded and legal medical procedure

for the women of this province. This public hospital must conform to the letter

and the intent of the law of British Columbia and Canada. No board has — or

should have — the right or the expertise to go beyond those parameters. Has the

minister decided that he will not allow a vocal minority to impose its own views

on the women of this province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The original answer still stands. My

question to the Leader of the Opposition would be: what would the NDP

be doing to take away autonomy from hospitals? That's the question.

CONFIDENTIALITY IN

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General. What

representations did the Attorney-General receive from the Premier with

respect to her concerns about leaks emanating from his ministry?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Again to the Attorney-General. What

representations did he receive from the Premier with respect to her

concerns about leaks emanating from his ministry?

HON. MR. FRASER: It would be very nice to be able to answer

an open-ended question like that. Perhaps if the member has a question

I can address, I'll think about it.

MR. SIHOTA: In his statement to the House with respect to the

termination of Mr. Walsh, the Attorney-General made reference to leaks

concerning confidentiality of opinions regarding the member for Saanich

and the Islands when he was Minister of Finance. Did the Premier

express any concerns to the Attorney-General with regard to leaks

emanating from his office concerning those opinions?

HON. MR. FRASER: We are always concerned on both sides of the

House, whether it's their side in caucus, our side in caucus or our

side in caucus and cabinet, about caucus and cabinet confidentiality in

every event.

BCTV SERIES ON SWEDISH FORESTRY

MR. SMITH: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

Recently BCTV ran a series on their news hour program entitled "The

Swedish Solution." Many viewers thought the series looked a little like

a Swedish tourism commercial. It now has been reported that BCTV crews

had travel and accommodation expenses paid in whole or at least in part

by Sweden for that series. My question to the minister is: in light of

that information and the fact that British Columbia and Sweden compete

directly in the forest industry, will and can he advise this House

whether in his view the

[ Page 13008 ]

program was complete and whether or not it fairly represented the issues that were discussed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I wouldn't comment, first, on the ethics

of whether they should have been paid to go there, but I will comment

on the content of the series. I watched it as closely as I could and as

objectively as I could, and I think that the reporting was anything but

objective. It wasn't balanced coverage by any means. In fact, Swedish

foresters who have recently been to British Columbia have confirmed

that. So I find it strange to understand why British Columbia

Television, with the largest audience of any news hour in Canada ––

600,000 viewers every evening at 6 o'clock — doesn't use a little more

responsible attitude in their coverage.

For example, they have turned down invitations from our ministry on

many occasions to go and cover things that we would like them to see,

such as the largest plantation in the province; yet they will accept an

invitation to go to Sweden. I would ask that the coverage be just a

little more objective and responsible.

FIRST CITIZENS' FUND LOANS

MR. ZIRNHELT: A question to the Minister of Native Affairs.

On May 13 the minister confirmed that the Premier's freeze on

government loans included the First Citizens' Fund. This is

inappropriate. It breaks the perpetual trust made by W.A.C. Bennett 22

years ago. Has the minister decided to lift the freeze on business

loans to native groups?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The issue of all loan programs and grants,

as I'm sure everyone in this House realizes, is under review. We expect

to report back with a decision within a couple of weeks or less.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Environment. Has the minister instructed his staff to ensure that the

dumping of Expo site soil in Richmond does not begin until the ministry

and Richmond have agreed to a soil-testing protocol?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I was thinking of not answering any more

questions from that member unless he straightened out the public

commentary he made in the very first instance that the soil going to

Richmond was toxic. This description precipitated a lot of activity

based on a falsehood. The soil was originally categorized as industrial

soil because it included broken asphalt and pieces of concrete

foundation. This was about 5 percent of the material. The other 95

percent was sand and gravel — and like sand and gravel.

In the first instance, this member, who has been in this House for

so many years as the critic of the Environment ministry, should have

known better than to start a release....

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's really only appropriate in

question period to answer the question as put. There are other

opportunities for you to have this dialogue on other items.

HON. MR. MERCIER: It's very difficult, if you're said to be

guilty, to then prove you're innocent. In this country it's supposed to

work the other way around. What I wanted to do for the sake of the

House and just to touch on the Expo site.... It's all relevant, because

the Expo site, you might say, got bad press. What we have to do now is

see what the truth was. Before I can answer this question, which was

based on a falsehood, I have to deal with the truth. The truth is that

the soil to be moved to Richmond previously qualified, but because some

people on the Richmond council were nervous about the industrial

category and didn't take the time to realize that the industrial

category was not toxic.... In other words, it was not harmful in any

way. In fact, the soil was going to cover a garbage dump that Richmond

had been using for many years. I'm glad the question was asked. This

soil....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are other members who wish

to ask questions. It's an abuse of question period by the minister, and

this is not the first time.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, listening to

that convoluted, inappropriate answer, the answer was no. What the

minister basically said was no, that he will not follow through on a

commitment to develop a protocol with the Richmond council. I would say

to that minister: you stick with your

definitions; I'll stick with the

dictionary.

Supplementary question. Can the minister inform this House why

Richmond council's request for a brief delay to allow a mutually

acceptable protocol to be developed has been denied by his ministry?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of

difficulty when a very complex issue is involved. I'll do my best to

answer this succinctly.

If the lie hadn't been told in the first place, then we wouldn't be

dealing with the matter the way we are. Since we are dealing with it,

the protocol referred to was to give the Richmond council an

opportunity to find a soil-tester. They put their bylaw in place so

fast that they didn't have the staff in place to police their bylaw. As

for the testing that we do, we meet the requirements; we are testing

the soil. The soil is going to move, because there's nothing wrong with

it. The protocol referred to was to provide them enough time to retain

someone to do the testing should they want to do so.

As to the definition, it isn't just the dictionary; it happens to be

defined in the regulations. So the letter going to the Richmond council

will say that we will only do what is lawful under their own bylaw and

that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the soil that will be moved

to that location.

[ Page

13009 ]

PRESERVATION OF W.A.C. BENNETT HOME

MR. SERWA: My question is addressed to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. Kelowna city council has

decided to support the bid to preserve the W.A.C. Bennett home as a

provincial heritage site. The property has great historical

significance as the home of two Premiers of British Columbia. Has the

minister decided to support the initiative to acquire and preserve the

site as a tribute to the greatest Premier to have lived in this country?

HON. MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the concerns that

have been expressed by the association in that community and by the

city council about the preservation of that site. I'm sure that all

members of this House would agree that it would be incumbent upon me to

have a very in-depth look, on behalf of the ministry and the province,

at any household that was the home of a Premier for as many years as

that one was — let alone the fact that it is the home of two Premiers.

I will be taking that look and hope to visit the site in the near

future to determine the situation as it stands today.

SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister

responsible for the Expo contract, whom I assume to be the Minister of

Lands and Parks. As the minister knows, the province is responsible for

cleaning up contaminated soil on the Expo site before Concord Pacific

begins construction. By what deadline must the province remove the soil

from the Expo site in order to fulfil its contractual obligation to

Concord Pacific?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, that's not my ministry.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the minister

responsible for the Expo contract. If that minister knows who he is,

would he stand up?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is in an awkward

position, because I am not able to assist the member in directing him

to whichever minister may be appropriate. I'm not sure that the

question was so specific that if the minister is present, the minister

would identify himself and rise. As a matter of protocol, it might be

wise to try and ascertain which minister you are going to put these

questions to in advance, to assist all the members of the House.

MR. CASHORE: There have been so many changes in this cabinet,

you need a road map to keep track of who is responsible. It's a

reflection of the bad Expo deal that none of these cabinet ministers

know which one is responsible for this contract. It's appalling.

A new question to the minister responsible for the Expo contract. Can the minister

tell the House what financial penalties the government faces if they are not

able to remove this soil from the site by the time Concord Pacific Developments

Ltd. is ready to begin construction?

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the Select

Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest to meet

this afternoon at 3 p.m.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 52: minister's office, $337,553 (continued).

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, before adjourning the estimates

last week, we were going through the issues of children's policy with

this government. Just to remind some of the members who haven't had an

opportunity to look at the child protection legislation review that

this government has initiated, the initiation was in June 1991, but we

won't actually see any changes, according to the government's plan,

until September 1993 to January 1994.

The government has issued a list of their policies, and we have

repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of real, tangible change and

concrete rights for the children of this province — in particular,

rights legislated for children who are in care of the ministry of this

province. We have gone through a number of the United Nations articles

signatory to. I would like to continue through that process very

briefly.

I refer the minister to

article 20 of the UN convention on the

rights of the child, where it says that if a child must be removed from

his or her home because of abuse or neglect, due regard should be given

to "the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background."

We've seen a number of policies and statements come forward — nothing

in legislation — acknowledging the right of native families to look

after native children in this province.

Can the minister give us any information about the progress he is

making in identifying native children who are put up for foster care,

and about the work his ministry is doing in ensuring that those native

children's heritage is respected? Have you put in place programs to

ensure that their cultural and linguistic background is preserved?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, yes to the member opposite.

We have a number of programs that deal with native children. It's one

of the areas we have paid a great deal of attention to, because we

think it's important that native children have the opportunity to grow

up with native people and to be part of their own cultural background.

We work with native people on a

[ Page 13010 ]

number of programs. When a child is taken into care

and we have to put him into a care home, we try first to place that

child with its enlarged family or within the band. If that isn't

possible, we try to find someone of the same native background to look

after the child. Only if all of those are exhausted or unavailable to

us, do we then proceed to provide accommodations that perhaps don't

have a native background. We work together with many bands and councils

to provide services to native children. The overall thrust is that we

try as much as we possibly can to encourage the native community to

take the responsibility and deal with their own children, and we assist

them in doing that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister could provide some

numbers. How many native children are taken into custody and how many

native foster homes do you have in the province?

[2:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The status Indian children make up 32

percent of the native children in care, while non-status Indians make

up 68 percent. On March 31, 1991, there were 6,084 children in care, of

whom 623 had status Indian background and 1,294 had non-status Indian

background. That tells you the number.... Did you want to know the

number being cared for by native families?

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Native foster homes.... We do not have

that particular information. We can develop that, I suppose, but we

don't have it available at this point.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The numbers the minister has given raise two

concerns. One, you don't have ready numbers to reflect the native

foster homes, while at the same time you talk about being sensitive to

the need for culturally sensitive homes and support for their

linguistic and religious backgrounds. That's one concern that the

inability of breaking out those foster homes raises. The second issue

is the percentage of native children in foster care. The numbers you've

given me roughly indicate that almost a third of the kids in foster

care in this province are native children, while very clearly a third

of the population in this province is not native.

I wonder if the minister could indicate why he feels there is that

problem of natives in the province relinquishing their children at a

disproportionate rate — whether that two-thirds of the kids in foster

care are voluntary or whether they have been apprehended — and what the

ministry is doing to alleviate that problem.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The native children come into care for

reasons similar to those that other children come into care — because

their home, for one reason or another, is an unsuitable environment for

them. Obviously the reasons for that vary a great deal, but admittedly

there are an awful lot of native children in care, and it's a serious

concern of ours.

The fact that we don't have the number of native foster homes is not

in any way an indication of the ministry's lack of interest. We have a

policy that encourages the placement of native children with native

families, and we are asking native people to develop native homes for

children. Certainly it's a priority of government to find a solution to

that problem, and we have concerns about removing native children from

the native community. We prefer them to be kept within the native

community if that is possible. But there are, as you've seen, a

substantial number of children, so it is not easy to find accommodation

for all of them within the native community.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, the second member for Central Fraser Valley seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG: From the Central Fraser Valley we have quite a

group of students from the William A. Fraser Elementary School,

together with their teacher Mr. Morrison. I would like to ask the House

to give them a cordial welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to refer the minister to one of his

policy statements. It says: "...to provide supportive services directed

to assisting families in raising their children." I want to go back to

the issue of almost a third of the children in care in this province

being native. That's a disproportionate number; it means that more

native kids are living outside their families. I'd like to hear about

some concrete programs from the minister that reflect this policy. What

are you doing to help keep those kids at home?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We're doing a number of things. For

example, we have a native service unit in Vancouver. This district

office serves all native children in care under 12 who live in the

North Vancouver area. The staffing of that area is one supervisor, who

is native; six social workers, three of whom are native; and two

administrative support workers, who are both native. There are a total

of nine staff. Of those nine, five native people work there to be able

to deal better with the native children.

We have a native group home in Vancouver. The ministry funds that at

the rate of $60,000 a year. It is a three-bed home developed in

conjunction with United Native Nations. It's staffed by native house

parents.

We have the native family support program in Vancouver.

The ministry funds that at $100,000 per year. There are three full-time

and one half-time native staff provided, and outreach services for

difficult-to-reach native families. Staff assist families with the

child welfare court process and provide support and referrals to other

services. The program also provides a connection with native band

resources.

We have those programs and we have others, of course, where we deal with native people.

[ Page

13011 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister can indicate how long those programs have been in place.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Two of the programs have been in existence

for about a year and a half, and the other one — the native group home

in Vancouver — for about a year.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The shortest period is a year and a half. The

minister has said that a number of native children are in care for the

same reasons. Very clearly, when you see one group within our society

that is disproportionately represented — whether it is by the number of

children in care or through the representation in the prison system or

indeed on welfare, as we certainly have seen when we've looked at who

is on welfare — it means that there's something very wrong with our

system and that there is a need for some sort of systemic change that

addresses these concerns.

With the programs in place.... I'm pleased to see the family support

program in particular, in the hope that it does more than just help

families through the courts; indeed, that it helps them stay together.

I wonder whether there has been any analysis done as to why those

children end up in care, and whether there is something the ministry

can be doing more proactively. I notice that all these programs you

have identified are in core Vancouver. I'm wondering what happens to

other native kids in the rest of the province. Do you have an analysis

of where the kids now in foster care come from?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that

the native community has a serious problem that deserves careful

attention, and we are providing careful attention to the problem. We

want to deviate a little from practices in the past where native people

were pretty much told what they should or should not do. We believe the

best way to help alleviate the difficulties faced by many native

families and people and certainly native children is to provide an

opportunity for them to participate in deciding for themselves and

having input into how their circumstances should be dealt with, what

facilities should be constructed and how they should be run. We work

with several bands and tribal councils in order to encourage input from

the native community.

That's important. It's not right for me as minister, or for government

in general, to impose a solution to their problem upon native people. It's

better to enter into dialogue with them. Perhaps it is the first time this has

really been done in a meaningful way by governments, giving them an opportunity

to participate in the solution. Given the opportunities, native people will

address these problems, and it may take some time. They will compete with the

rest of society without any difficulties at all, and then they will not have

a disproportionate number of people in our care or in the prison system. It's

important that they have an opportunity to participate in the solutions. That's

what we're trying to do.

I have an answer for the question you asked earlier, Madam Member: there are 277 native foster homes with a total of 437 beds.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So there are approximately 2,000 kids in care,

and we've got 437 beds within native foster homes. You've already said

that you think it's important for government to support native people

in dealing with their own problems. Can you indicate what dialogue

you're having with native groups — whether band councils or others — to

provide more foster homes for those children?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The type of dialogue we're having is to

help them establish programs for family support systems within their

bands, for which we have provided funding to assist them. For one band

we have $337,611 in family support; for another one in McLeod Lake we

have $46,000. For another one we have $15,000, and for another one we

have $140,000 to assist them to develop programs that they wish to

develop. But they need help and support in order to do that.

We provide them with financial assistance and also support workers

to assist them in developing the programs. The programs are designed to

help native people care for the children in their band or on their

reserve who need care and help, to remove the necessity of taking

native children away from their cultural background.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One final question in this area. As the

minister speaks, he doesn't seem to differentiate between status and

non-status, reserve and off-reserve. Can the minister indicate whether

or not it is the policy of your government to actually become involved

with contracts on the reserve?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I guess they will do it themselves on

the reserves. But I'm told that we fund group homes on the reserves. I

have here the booklet on an overview of family and children's services

for 1989-90. Perhaps the member has that. It contains a fair amount of

information about our dealings with native people. If you don't have a

copy, we'd be happy to provide you with that.

[2:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: So the minister is saying that it's your

policy.... You are involved in funding actual group homes for children

who are, for some reason, away from their families, but you don't

actually involve yourselves in support programs to keep those kids with

their families on the reserves.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm told that we fund group homes on the

reserves and support services for families. We work with the federal

government to encourage them to provide more assistance to families on

the reserve. You would appreciate the complications between the federal

and provincial authorities when it comes to dealing with programs on

reserves. As I understand it, they are also involved in providing some

of the services.

[ Page 13012 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I actually want to move on from this subject,

but I want to get this very clear for the committee. Are you saying

that you are involved in funding support programs for families? Let me

give you an example. Would it be against your government's policy to

fund a day care on a reserve?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The example that the member gives would be

the same as anywhere else. We don't fund day cares, as you know; we

fund the users. And we would fund the user on the reserve.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will probably come back to native issues a little later, and more specifically.

Let me move along on the UN charter of rights for children.

Article

23 requires us to ensure that disabled children enjoy a full and decent

life in conditions promoting dignity, self-reliance and the child's

active participation in the community. While the government has very

clearly begun to address the support of families with severely disabled

children, I believe it is also clear that a number of the government's

policies, recognizing that I'm dealing with this in the broadest

possible way.... The government's policy on education, specifically, is

now seeing a cutback in some of the education funding for special-needs

programs that support children in their schools.

Before the minister gets up and says that's for the Education

estimates, let me say two things: first of all, in the minister's own

policy, he says "...to provide an educational system which respects and

encourages individual potential"; and secondly, the fact that, again,

the ombudsman has said that the only way we are going to be able to

deal with children and family problems in this province is if we

co-operate in identifying the whole child. Because of this government's

policy, we are beginning to hear phrases like "park and run," where the

government has deinstitutionalized children in the province and failed

to follow through with support programs in the community. I'd like to

hear the minister's comments on that and whether or not the minister is

actively involved with other ministries in trying to ensure that

children are not abandoned once they do have the support of their

families and communities.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all it is correct that the first

part of your question deals with the Ministry of Education, but since

you strayed into asking a question about it, let me then try and answer

it. We do not abandon children. We provide services to children, and we

make a very good and successful effort in meeting children's needs. You

say that special care and special education needs for children are

being cut. If any programs in schools are being cut, it's not because

we have not provided funding for those programs. It's because someone

has decided, at the school board level, where they will spend the

dollars that are available. They have chosen to spend it in some other

area — be it salaries or it could be a number of things — and remove

certain programs. The people that make those decisions should be

accountable, every one, as to why those particular programs are being

tampered with.

They are needed, and they were put in place to meet the needs of a

group of citizens that need our support and help. They should not be

tampered with. They should be carried through. I don't believe there's

any conscious effort on the part of this government to take away

funding from those programs, but if someone else chooses to apportion

the money in a different way, that's something we have a hard time

being responsible for. I don't think it's right for them to come to us

for it. Go to the people who are doing it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would argue with the minister that as much

as the electorate has a responsibility to ensure a school board carries

through with their priorities, it is also the responsibility of the

government when you are giving school boards and districts grants to

provide services. Beyond that it's the province's constitutional

responsibility to be involved in delivering a good education system.

To make the argument that you have no direct influence over how

money is spent doesn't.... The point I'm trying to make is that you are

not abdicated of that responsibility any more than the electorate is in

ensuring that their school boards represent them well. I would hope

that there would be more coordination, and if there's a problem with

the system, it should be addressed.

I want to remind the minister of an earlier discussion we had around

the UN Charter where the minister and this government brought in policy

stating their priorities around the care of children; not committing

you, as a government, to deliver on those priorities, but nice

platitudes about feelings that you might have about how children are

looked after in the province.

When we began to talk about the UN Charter, the minister made a

reference to Third World countries, and more or less said that the UN

Charter doesn't pertain as directly to countries such as Canada. As we

have gone through each of these articles, it's very clear that the UN

Charter pertains to Canada and to British Columbia just as much as it

does to any of the poorer countries. Perhaps it's a bigger shame that

we still have children living in poverty in British Columbia and that

we now have food banks being developed to specialize for single parents

and children. We see food banks now not only calling for the support of

their communities to provide food for those unable to feed their

families, but now asking specifically for infant food, formula and

diapers. When we see women and children in this province having to line

up for the very basic needs, it's a real indicator of the failure of

this government.

Before I leave the government's policy on children and continue into

issues around foster care, I want to make one final reference to the

minister's press release. In that press release, where we have this

time-table laid out — everything from June 1991 and all the way through

to June 1994 — the minister includes the Family and Child Service Act.

I actually considered whether or not to bring this to the attention —

of the minister, but I think more than anything it underscores how

antique this act truly is. The minister, if he has the

[ Page

13013 ]

time, might take a look at the act where it refers

to the superintendent of child welfare and his powers. I'm sure the

superintendent will be pleased to see some gender-neutral reference

just for a start. It goes on in the act to talk about the parent, and

that parent is once again a "he." Further in the act, the

superintendent or police officer — in this case the police officer — is

also a "he." It goes on then to refer to the child; the child also is a

"he." There is a real problem with the legislation. Not only is it not

sensitive to some of the needs of families in this province, but if

this act pretends to reflect the reality in this province, it would

have us believe that there are no "she's" at all. If the minister is

looking at redoing the act, it might be a good start to make sure that

the legislation is gender neutral.

I'd like to raise a couple of other issues with the minister. This

one has to do with youth in care in this province. I'd like to ask the

minister whether the ministry has any programs dealing with AIDS or

sexually transmitted diseases and with educational requirements for

youth in care.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: While I'm getting the information on the

last part of the question, perhaps I can comment on some of the other

remarks. You talked about the policy on children — that it was a nice

thing, but government had no responsibility to it. I want to tell you

that government has a great deal of responsibility to it. Not just this

ministry but every ministry in government has a responsibility to it —

to fulfil the objectives of the policy. That's what the purpose of the

policy is: that government will be directed in their legislation in not

just one but all ministries to fulfil the policy that was laid out.

The member talks about the needs of children, that we need to have

more money for children and single parents, and that they have to

depend upon other sources to live because they don't have enough money.

I don't know what the member is advocating.

The members opposite have expressed some concern about the letter I

sent out urging people to cooperate with us in order to get off the

welfare system and to become financially independent. Maybe the member

is suggesting that I didn't take strong enough measures, because

obviously there are people on social assistance who need more help than

we're able to provide. If we are going to increase it to anyone, then

we have to find somewhere to take it from. We have to find some ways to

adjust it.

We spend almost $2 billion now in social services, and that's enough

of a load for a province of three million people to carry. So if we are

going to provide more, we will have to find ways to encourage people

who are able to find work to be somewhat independent — if not totally

independent — so that we will have more money left for those who don't

have that option That's something we will have to look at.

You talk about the act. I agree that the act needs to be redone, and that's

exactly what we have announced. We will be redoing the act. Earlier the member

made some comment about the length of time it would take. It's far more important

that it be done right than that it be done quickly, because we have legislation

that works and serves the public today. It serves them quite well, but it does

need updating. The experience in this province and in other provinces that have

done similar reviews shows clearly that it requires at least two years of input

before you can be sure that your act reflects the views of the people who are

dealing with the issue. So it's important to take time to do it.

As for the parts of the act the member mentions that have to do with

gender, I appreciate that it's not right and should be corrected.

Obviously we should not be talking about just "he's," we should be

talking about everyone in society equally. But that wouldn't be a major

concern of mine within the act; rather, my concern would be that the

act could be worded or rewritten in such a way that it provides better

service to children — be they boys or girls. I think that's what we're

interested in: providing better service.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

So the wording will have to be improved with respect to gender, but

those aren't the important points that will have to be improved. The

important points are the kinds of service that will be provided for

children of both sexes.

We do have an AIDS policy for children in care, and it requires

assistance from Health with a training package. I'm not exactly sure

what that entails. I would assume that means we get information from

the Ministry of Health, which obviously we wouldn't have. We provide

the information to do with AIDS to the people who are looking after the

children.

[3:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister touched on a number of things,

and I'd like to go through a few of them. The minister said in his

press conference that in regard to the policies the government has

brought down, each and every ministry responsible for children is

responsible to deliver on those policies. Perhaps you can indicate what

the penalties are for not living up to those policies, whether or not

the client has some appeal to the government when the government is not

living up to that responsibility. When the minister says "legislation,"

perhaps you could point to the legislation that guarantees the public,

or those children in care, the right to those policies.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The policy is not drafted as a legal

document. If it were, it would be introduced in

an act. It's a policy

to guide the government. It is the view of this government of how

children should be cared for in this province. Its purpose is to be a

guide. It's a goal that we would aim for in dealing with children and

families. I don't want to leave families out of this, because they are

a very important part of this component. It's a policy of this

government; it reflects our attitude towards children and towards

families. It's expected that each ministry will evaluate their programs

and see how the programs that they deliver may better fulfil the intent

of the policy.

[ Page 13014 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I know that the minister has only been with

the ministry for a year now, but one of the first things that strikes

you in any work that you do with the ministry is all of the nice words.

There are a lot of nice words wrapped around the delivery of human

services. I suspect it is the case everywhere, whether it's in the

private sector or within a ministry. But what the people of this

province — the families, the kids — are saying is that they need

something more than just nice words. They need something tangible, some

process that can ensure them the right to those services and the right

to the values that are reflected in these nice words. That's why we ask

about the legislation. That's why we look for some kind of legal

framework, for an appeal process and for penalties for not delivering.

When I ask the minister, it isn't out of some misunderstanding that

the policies are anything more than what the minister explains, but it

is a reflection of the real, tangible needs that children and families

have in this province.

I ask the minister why, in developing these nice sounding phrases,

he didn't consider bringing into full force a provision within the GAIN

act to allow children and families the right to appeal the delivery of

services. It would have been a nice way of carrying out your policy.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think the evidence is there. The policy

is the guide, and the policy and our commitment to it will be

demonstrated in a number of ways. One of the first ways it has already

been demonstrated is a review of the Family and Child Service Act.

The benefit of the policy being there is that the member opposite,

when sitting there in opposition a year from now and two years from

now, when policies are announced and this review is coming forward, can

say: "Well, you have a policy on children for British Columbia, and I

question whether this particular recommendation complies with that

policy. If it doesn't comply with it, then you should be changing it."

That's the benefit. It will be a wonderful tool for you and the

opposition to use. It's there as a guide to help direct the policy, to

make sure that the policy of government goes in the proper direction.

You asked whether there was an appeal mechanism. That is something

that can very well be discussed and looked at in the review. I'm sure

it will be looked at as part of the review. There may very well be a

proper procedure put up, but all the people who would want to use that

will have input into how it should be formulated. That's the benefit of

a detailed review: they will all have an opportunity. That's what the

review is all about: to bring issues like that into the legislation.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank the minister for his kind offer

regarding the policy and the results of the next election. But let me

tell you, the fact that this government is in the fifth year of its

term and is now deciding to review legislation and policies is clearly

not good enough for the kids of this province. Let me tell this

minister that the only way that kids and families are going to get

immediate care, and not promises of new legislation four years down the

road, is by electing a New Democratic government. That's the only way

there's going to be some substantial changes.

For the minister to talk about consultation in the process of

developing a piece of legislation taking four years, when this party

has been sitting in the government benches for five years while

children line up for food in this province, when foster children are

kept in hotels that have used needles in the hallway.... This is what

the people of this province will be judging this government on, not a

promise of four years down the road.

Let me move along. When the minister talked about GAIN and the

number of families reliant on this government's GAIN policies, the

minister asked what I was suggesting. I'm sorry the minister has such a

short memory. Again and again the government members get up on their

side and say: "Well, what will the NDP do?" Since the beginning of

these estimates I have been stating over and over again what the NDP

will do in this major ministry in government, and you completely

disregard our suggestions — and I suggest you disregard them at your

own peril.

The fact is, when we were talking about income assistance for those

families lining up to feed their children, lining up for infant

formula, one of the things we indicated as a positive move to increase

the standard of living for people reliant on GAIN was allowing them to

keep more of their earned and unearned income, to increase their

ability to close the gap between GAIN and the poverty line.

There are tangible things that can be done to support people on

income assistance over and above the need to increase welfare rates.

There are tangible things that can be done to target those people on

income assistance, those children reliant on the government for care.

We've talked about those programs: figuring out who is on income

assistance and targeting the programs to their needs, figuring out who

the foster kids are and targeting those families to ensure that they

don't have to rely on foster care but indeed keep the families together

in the first place. But this minister seems to be completely oblivious

to that kind of an analysis.

I think other members want to raise some issues, and I know we'll

have lots of other opportunities to delve further into some of these

specific issues. In the way of providing some notice to the minister,

I'm wanting to speak to him about street kids in Vancouver, about kids

who have been and are technically still wards of the state, and ask him

about some of the programs. I hope we're talking more than just

pamphlets to caregivers about AIDS, but we'll have an opportunity to do

that later.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I thank the member opposite for her

questions, and I will comment very quickly on the last comments. I'm

quite surprised to hear the member opposite suggest that were they

given the opportunity, they would change the policy immediately. It

would happen right away. That means that the

[ Page

13015 ]

people affected would not have the opportunity for

input. Well, in Ontario they require two years of input, and Ontario

told us that if you're going to do this kind of review, don't try and

do it in less than two years, because it would be difficult to do. Nova

Scotia took two years, and they thought they had run it on a very tight

time-frame. They thought we would require at least that much time in

order to do it properly. It's not something we are doing simply to drag

out time; it's required in order for people to have proper input.

You can talk about why I didn't bring this in earlier. I have to

remind you that I became responsible for the ministry in June of last

year, and this is the first opportunity to bring it in. I brought it in

as quickly as I possibly could. I'm very pleased with the changes we

have brought in. The final suggestion of helping the people by allowing

them to keep more of their income is precisely the same policy

operating in Ontario today. That is exactly what they're doing. That is

the difference between the Ontario welfare system and the B.C. welfare

system: it simply comes down to allowing them to keep a larger portion

with bigger exemptions. By adopting that policy we would adopt the same

policy they have in Ontario. I don't think British Columbia can afford

the policy they have in Ontario. I don't think Ontario can afford it

either, and time will certainly tell. There's a lot of concern about

that.

It is a difficult thing. We have to care for the people in need and

do it properly. We have to look after people when they have an

emergency in their life, but we also have to be concerned about the

taxpayers' ability to meet the cost of it.

MR. LOVICK: I want to turn to another area under the mandate

of the Ministry of Social Services, which is the whole difficult area

of suicide, suicide prevention, suicide counselling and so forth. A

couple of years ago I met with the minister's predecessor and had a

private meeting in his office with a woman whose husband had

unfortunately taken that awful step. At the time, the woman was trying

to get counselling and assistance. To her credit, when she encountered

a blankness, if not a brick wall — there was nothing there in place —

she didn't give up instantly. Rather she talked about establishing some

self-help organizations.

The conclusion to all of that was the development of a group in

Nanaimo — my constituency — called Survivors of Suicide. It was

established about a year and a half ago, and in a relatively short

space of time they had a flood of applications. People said that they

had never had counselling or assistance to make them, as survivors, put

their lives back together.

Of course, it doesn't take a leap of imagination to see that if someone

close to us were to commit suicide, obviously a good part of the problem would

be our own feelings of inadequacy and guilt: "Did I do everything I could?

Is it partly my fault?" The literature shows that it is a very common phenomenon

that bereaved individuals require a considerable amount of assistance and help.

The question I'm getting to is simply: what are we doing at the moment and

are we doing enough?

I'm not going to try and surprise anybody with new information or

anything here, so let me spell out the information I have for the

minister's consideration. In British Columbia we have something like a

suicide a day. I'm told that's the case; I don't know. I also

understand we have very little in place to provide those who are bereft

with any counselling and assistance.

[3:15]

I know that in Alberta there is something called the Wild Rose

Foundation, which is a creature of the government. They sponsor

workshops, schools and so forth consisting of one or two days. Members

of groups such as the Survivors of Suicide can go and actually take a

short one- or two-day course in suicide prevention, bereavement and

crisis intervention.

I wonder if we have anything comparable to that in B.C., and would

the minister care to tell me, if this falls within the aegis and

responsibilities of his ministry, what kinds of things we are doing and

what he envisages we might be doing?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I listen with interest to the remarks of

the member opposite, and I'm interested in the program that exists in

Nanaimo. It is a terribly serious situation when that happens. Of

course, in our ministry we deal with people who are facing very

dramatic and traumatic experiences, and so there's an awful lot of

emotional upset involved. We do encounter the problem or the tendency

towards suicide, but it is not within the mandate of the ministry.

Suicide is considered a very serious mental health problem and lies

with the Ministry of Health. Our responsibility is to direct the people

to the attention of the Ministry of Health, or to bring the Ministry of

Health's attention to the individuals so that care is provided. We are

not involved in providing that particular treatment, counselling or

service, because it is very complex care that falls within the other

ministry

MR. LOVICK: I recognize that there is a line between mental

health within Health and Social Services and Housing that is, sadly,

sometimes rather grey and obscure. It seems to me that here again we

have found an example of precisely that problem. What we're talking

about, ideally, is providing people with prevention counselling so that

it doesn't become the ultimate problem of bereavement.

I take it, however, from the minister's answer that there is nothing

within the Social Services and Housing budget for this particular kind

of activity. The reason I ask with a certain amount of incredulity in

my voice is that when we dealt with this before, it was entirely within

the mandate of the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Perhaps

that was for other reasons that I wasn't aware of at the time, but I'm

surprised, as I say, to discover: "Well, sorry, you'll have to shop

somewhere else because we don't do it in this ministry."

I haven't had a chance to look closely at the estimates document

about this to see whether there isn't some kind of counselling program

available within Social Services and Housing. It would seem to

[ Page 13016 ]

me that even the kind of work done by financial aid

counsellors within the ministry — the people that I deal with in my

constituency — would come pretty close to the kind of program we're

talking about here. I'm wondering if the minister would care to comment

on that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer is that there is nothing within

the ministry that provides counselling or treatment in any way to

people suffering from this particular illness. That's not to say that

there isn't counselling available or that there isn't preventive

counselling available, and so on. I can't give you the details of

those, because they are within another ministry. Certainly we have

extreme regard for circumstances where there's a possibility of this

occurring, and we would direct the attention of the Ministry of Health

to that immediately.

So I don't think the grey area you talk about is really that grey.

We obviously, because of the nature of our ministry, come in contact

with people where this problem exists, and we refer them immediately to

the Ministry of Health, because there is treatment — and it is very

complex treatment — there. The counselling is complex, so it's not

within this ministry.

MR. SERWA: I would just like to ask the Minister of Social

Services and Housing some questions on the matter raised by the

colleague from across the floor. It is a very serious matter and a very

serious concern, and the suicide rate among young people — certainly

among young males — tends to be very high. I think we all express quite

a bit of concern over that. In a way, it appears to be stress-related

and induced by environmental issues. My question to the minister is

whether the Ministry of Social Services and Housing has been able to

come up with anything definitive, through an assessment of different

jurisdictions, on the causes, first of all, so that rather than treat

the symptoms, we address the causes.

One of the reasons I'm standing here today and asking that

particular question is because in Sweden, which is governed by

democratic socialists, they have the highest rate of suicide of any

nation in the world They have the highest rate of mental illness of any

developed country, and they have the highest rate of worker

absenteeism. That is in a society which has been designed and

structured to provide a tremendous degree of support to individuals. My

question to the minister is: what has gone wrong there? And perhaps,

what is going wrong here, so that we can minimize this regrettable

tendency in society today?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I can really

comment on the situation in Sweden or in any other place. I certainly

agree with the member that it is a very serious situation. When you see

this happening to anyone, it's a tragedy. When you see it happening to

teenagers or young people, which is a fairly common occurrence —

regrettably so — it's absolutely appalling. If we're not terribly

concerned about it, we certainly should be, because it is something

that we as a society cannot take lightly and must in some way feel

there's a responsibility in how society functions that causes people to

make this terrible choice.

As far as research into the causes and how we might prevent it are

concerned, my only response would be that I assume that is a very

important part of the work of the Ministry of Health. As is expected in

all cases, when the Ministry of Health is treating an illness, part of

the treatment would be not only to help the person with the problem to

overcome it, but to prevent other people from getting it. So I would

assume that is looked after in the Ministry of Health, and I certainly

hope that it's taken care of and treated very seriously, which I'm sure

it is. But it's not within the mandate of this ministry.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: Thank you, I appreciate that very much.

Earlier we had half of the group that you, Mr. Chairman, introduced to

the House just a few minutes ago. I understand the other half is in the

House at this time. On behalf of the second member for Central Fraser

Valley — the Chairman — and myself, I would like to introduce these

grade 5 and 6 students from William A. Fraser Elementary School in

Abbotsford, which is my community. I want to wish them well, and I ask

the House to please welcome them to the Legislature.

MS. A. HAGEN: What we're talking about this afternoon, I

think, has to do with the coordination among ministries for people

services. Although this is not relevant to the debate, I might point

out to the member for Okanagan South that it is interesting to look at

other jurisdictions around what happens in Sweden. For example, only 5

percent of youngsters don't finish high school, and the transition

between the world of school and the world of work is one of the most

highly developed in the world. They have a very creative program that

deals with all youngsters, even the round pegs who are trying to fit

into square holes. We have much to learn by looking at how well they

are serving the needs of young people.

On the issue of suicide and suicide prevention, I want to note that

one of the challenges that we face — and it is one that has to be

addressed by the Education ministry, the Social Services ministry and

the Health ministry — is the need for identifying people at risk and

the potential for a person to take an action that may in fact result in

that person's loss of life ... that there are emergency services and

follow-up counselling services available. It isn't something that fits

neatly into the basket of one ministry, and I think that the minister

would agree that there are ways in which we can coordinate the people

who are helping, both ministry staff and volunteers in the community.

To deal with these issues is very important.

Mr. Chairman, I have a large number of issues that I would like to

address. I'm going to try to address some of them fairly briefly to get

some sense of where the

[ Page

13017 ]

minister's and the government's thinking may be at this time.

I'd like to begin with a reference to Woodlands, which is a facility

that has joint responsibilities with this ministry and the Ministry of

Health. I can't always separate them, so I'm not even going to try. I'm

simply going to deal with the issues as they affect the residents at

Woodlands and their families. I hope the minister will respond in kind,

because I know that his ministry and the Ministry of Health have worked

cooperatively on this.

As we all know, Woodlands is in the process of phasing out its long

history as a major home and care facility for mentally disabled people,

whether they are children or adults. In recent years it has been a home

only for adults. There are presently about 250-300 people still living

at Woodlands, some of them to be moved this year and the others over

the next three years.

The model for most of the people from Woodlands who have gone out

into the community is that they are moved into group homes for about

four people. There may be an occasional house that's larger, but the

majority of the models are four-person homes.

I have met on several occasions over the last year with parents or

close relatives of the residents out in the community and of the

residents of Woodlands now in the process of having planning done for

them about that move. While there is a degree of satisfaction among

many of the family caregivers and concerned people, I would say that

somewhere between a quarter and a half of the parents have concerns.

Some are very serious concerns; others are more modest concerns that

have been addressed. The concerns tend to be around these issues: first

of all, the compatibility of the person in the group home with other

residents and the staff.... Those incompatibilities do exist, and if

you're in a big institution, you can deal with those incompatibilities

through organization — where people live and who works with them — but

in a small group home they can get to be pretty serious problems.

[3:30]

The second has to do with the quality of care. Again, there are

variations, but it is clear that there are circumstances where the

training of people who work with the residents in these small homes and

the challenge to those caregivers, who are on 24-hour duty with people

with very special needs and often quite challenging behaviours, means

that we sometimes have a much higher staff turnover than we might like.

There's an interaction between the resident and a caregiver and perhaps

the family, with situations that are quite tense and difficult. At

times there is a real concern for the life and safety of people.

The third issue is one about the single model — the fact that we are

dealing almost exclusively with a four-bed special-needs home, often

purpose-built for the residents who are going to be there.

I want to ask the minister what role he sees his ministry having in dealing

on an ongoing basis with the first two problems — the problems of residents,

caregivers and family support people where it's clear that things are not

working. At this stage of the game I don't want to talk about who's

responsible for those kinds of problems, because you'd have to look at the

specific circumstances to do that. But it's fair to acknowledge that those

difficulties are there and there isn't any easy means to mediate and to

bring about a more compatible, happy, comfortable, good care situation.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

Quite honestly, I've talked to older family caregivers who are quite

frantic about what to do on this matter, because they don't have a big

institution which has the flexibility to enable some mediation and some

resolution to occur. There's nowhere else for their family member to

go. There are circumstances where people have in fact deteriorated

quite drastically as a result of these tensions — people who have lost

a lot of weight, people who have lost close friends because they're not

in the same home, people who begin to act out because of the

frustration of the tensions.

I want to ask the minister to comment on how the ministry is going

to deal with that problem. We've invested a huge amount of time and

resources in putting all our eggs in that one basket, and if that

basket doesn't provide the necessary kind of facilities, interpersonal

relationships, qualified staff and resources, then we have nothing to

fall back on. Woodlands is not there in the way it was. There's no

place for parents to find some resolution.

From that, then, I want to explore with the minister some ideas that

are being promoted and talked about, very often by families, who are

the people most concerned about their sisters and brothers and sons and

daughters and nieces and nephews. I want to ask some questions about

that.

Perhaps what I'll do is ask the minister to give me some comments

about these very real problems that he and I know exist in the

deinstitutionalizing process, what he is doing about them and how he

plans to have something available where things just are not working and

a special-needs person is at risk because that person is in a care home

where, for whatever reason, the care is not just right for him or her.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm trying to get a document that provides

a list of the recommendations of the advisory committee. It outlines

the operating principles that we have agreed to adhere to. Hopefully

we'll get that in a moment and I can read them off, because they are

important. They talk about the rights of handicapped persons to have a

say in their own well-being and their own placements and services that

are provided to them. To the extent that they're able to participate,

they must be allowed to participate. It talks about the rights of

families to have input as to what will happen, where the handicapped

person may be placed and the kind of care they will receive.

These are the service principles:

"That individuals with mental handicaps and their

families are treated with respect and dignity. "That the service system

shall operate in an open manner to encourage communication and joint

prob-

[ Page 13018 ]

lem-solving between individuals with mental handicaps, their

families, ministry staff and contracted service-providers.

"That there are mechanisms to ensure that individuals

with mental handicaps and their families are listened to when decisions

affecting their interests are made.

"That an eligibility decision is clearly communicated in a timely fashion.

"That there is access to review mechanisms when

individuals with mental handicaps have concerns about whether an

administrative decision is appropriate or fair.

"That the ministry produce plain-language information

on available services, on the role of the ministry staff, the role of

the service-provider and how the review process works."

Those recommendations came from the advisory committee. They

recommended to the minister that they be accepted as the operating

principles.

One morning about three weeks ago in Vancouver, I met with the group

and accepted those principles as the ones that would govern the care

provided to people with mental handicaps. But I went one step further.

When people were in institutions, I suppose it was easier to monitor

what was happening with each individual. Because they are spread out

into smaller homes in a number of areas, even with these principles

carefully spelled out, there will undoubtedly be cases where the

service doesn't really measure up to what was proposed here, or perhaps

there was a disagreement. I agreed that I would appoint a service

quality advocate, That person is now in the process of being appointed,

and we are asking for input from interested groups as to the names of

those they think could be the right person for this particular

position. That will all be happening very quickly

That advocate will be independent of the Ministry of Social

Services, because the ministry is so involved in providing day-to-day

services. They decide the type of service, deal with caregivers and

arrange contracts with the caregivers. To have ministry itself judging

whether or not that service is good, appropriate and fair in all cases

would be having them judge their own work. So I am in the process of

establishing an advocate who will be outside the ministry's control to

monitor what is happening and to have the power to call the parties

together to review situations. That person will report directly to the

minister when he or she has concerns about the service that's provided.

I think that's a necessary structure to have, in view of the

difficulties that people with mental handicaps may have in society This

is a safeguard for them.

The purpose of it, first of all, is to protect the person with the

mental handicap. But it is also to provide a comfort to the family, who

I am greatly concerned about, because I know that families worry about

a family member who may have a mental handicap. Often it's parents

worrying about a child. Sometimes they spend their lifetime looking

after the child, but then they wonder what will happen to the child

when they are no longer able to. Will they be treated kindly, will

there be somebody to see that their life is fair and that they get the

kind of life they had when they were able to look after them?

That's the purpose of the advocate. I want to make it clear that it

is a system I'm quite sure does not exist anywhere else in Canada; it

may not exist in North America. That is a leader in how to care for

people with mental handicaps; it stands alone as an example of how best

to do it. It's something that we can be proud of. We strove to do

something that we recognized was radically different: to have

government hire somebody to monitor our own work. In this case we have

done that.

I want to touch briefly on the number of people still at Woodlands.

There are about 250 people at Woodlands. A few years ago they had 800

or 900 people in Woodlands. The place was crammed, and there was no

doubt that there were people brought in who should never have been

there — they should never have been put in an institution. Given a

little bit of help and a little bit of attention, they could have been

on their own in society. Perhaps they don't function quite like the

rest of us, but nevertheless they could get by. They could have been on

their own, but instead of that they were placed in institutions. No

question about it, it was unfair. One day somebody said that it was

enough, and that we should do something about it, that we should get

people out of there. A move was started to bring people out of the

institutions, and now we're down to 250. The 250 that are left are the

ones that are more difficult to house.

There is a philosophical view that all people who are in

institutions should be put into communities in group homes or whatever

it may be, and I respect that view. I also recognize that there is a

concern with the parents of the people who are remaining in Woodlands.

As a ministry, it's our responsibility to make sure that when these

people are moved, they're moved to a facility able to guarantee that

they will be provided with a quality of care they have now, because

many of them require a lot of medical attention. We can be sure they

will not be put in any jeopardy by that move. Not only is that

important for the individual being moved, but I respect the views of

the parents, because some of these parents have committed a lot to the

child that's in Woodlands, and they deserve to be heard. When it's a

question of rights, while I recognize and appreciate the philosophical

view, I have to lay a lot of emphasis on the feelings of those parents,

because they have a direct stake and have contributed a tremendous

amount to those individuals. They will not be forgotten. I have assured

them that before any final decision is made, their concurrence will be

sought.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm sure that all people are interested in what

the minister has to say about providing support. A single advocate —

the minister called this a service quality advocate — is really

unlikely to be able to deal with some of the situations we're talking

about, because there is no place for people to go, and there is no

resolution.

Let me just read a couple of specific instances to define more

concretely in human terms what I mean, and these are people now in the

community. I want to

[ Page

13019 ]

stay with those people for another few moments of discussion:

"Our daughter moved from Woodlands to a group home

run" — in this case — "by the Ministry of Health, in December 1990. The

traumatic change has been a disastrous tragedy. She is now an invalid,

struggling to gain back the health and happiness she had at Woodlands.

"We are respectively...." — they give their ages;

they're old people — "yet if we had not kept close vigil on her daily

life during the last four months, she would have died. Even so, our

observations were not acted upon before she became like a helpless

zombie, unable to coordinate at all. She could not eat for 12 days and

drank dangerously little."

It goes on.

[3:45]

Another case is of a person who is severely handicapped and who

can't possibly have much to say about choices in his care — a man who

is non-verbal, nonambulatory, incontinent and totally dependent on

others for his every need. He requires repositioning at least every two

hours, a task which requires two attendants. A difficult feeder because

of his poor swallowing reflex, he requires an Osterized diet, fed

slowly and carefully by a caregiver. Drugs are administered four times

daily in an effort to control his seizures. His health will likely

deteriorate, and he therefore requires monitoring by medical staff who

are on site and able to take care of emergencies.

Here's another instance, perhaps a little more like the minister's

description of people who might indeed participate in planning their

care. But this woman is in a setting where she's not compatible with

the other residents of the small group home in which she lives.

"My daughter is very verbal and social. She loves

people. The groupings for her are not right. She is a quadriplegic. She

is grouped with two who are deaf and non-verbal and one who is verbal,

usually, when prompted. Loneliness is what I see in my daughter, and

she could become depressed as well."

An advocate is not necessarily going to provide the answers for

those situations. The question is whether that kind of group situation

is the appropriate one.

We could spend a lot of time on this issue, Mr. Chairman, but I want

to follow up on a leaning that I think I heard in the minister's

comments a moment ago about facilities for those residents still in

Woodlands.

I'm sure the minister is aware that there is a pretty strong impetus among

the parent community and in my community of New Westminster for some special

facilities to be developed for what people are calling a village concept. It's

a concept I personally like very much. It's the idea of there being homelike

and appropriate facilities for people with special needs, attached to medical

facilities with therapists and specially trained people who can provide on-site,

in the community or village, if you like, some of the services for the residents

of Woodlands. There's a real impetus for some of the land associated with

the Woodlands complex and Queens Park Hospital to be preserved and developed

with that perspective. That kind of facility could also have respite or a place

for people to stay for assessment if there was a need, perhaps, for another

kind of group home placement than the one they currently have.

It's a small scale from what we've had at Woodlands, where — the

minister's quite right — there have been many hundreds of people, some

of whom should never have been there. But there are many profoundly

handicapped people who require medical, social and therapeutic support

that shouldn't be scattered all over the community.

In the budget speech there was a reference to Woodlands providing a

legacy in terms of dollars for the housing of people. I think the

people in my community and the parents of mentally disabled people are

much more interested in a legacy in terms of service. The concept of a

village with permanent resources for some of the most needy of

Woodlands residents, plus respite, assessment and a place for people to

come for some training, is a very attractive one that has a lot of

salience to what people now know about deinstitutionalization and about

the needs of this community, and what they see should be in the

planning. I'd be interested in the minister's comments about some of

those ideas that I'm sure have come forward to him and to the Minister

of Health on behalf of this group of people in our communities.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That's exactly what is being looked at.

There is a planning process in place that is looking at what facilities

are required and where they should be in order to provide for the

people presently in Woodlands. It's a process that is taking some time,

because everyone involved is to be given an opportunity for input. It

may well end up being the type of development that you talk about,

depending upon the input we get from the interested parties. But we are

in that process right now to look very carefully at it.

You read out, member opposite, some problems that individuals have

had in being placed out in the community. I know that they do have

them. But I think the advocate will be exactly the person to deal with

those specific problems. That's exactly the role the advocate will do

very well: come in and say that that isn't good enough, that the

service for this person is not what it should be and that there could

be improvements made — and then suggest how they might be made. That

will deal with many of those particular problems. The position of the

ministry is that, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, we will

know what the proper care model will be before we close out the rest of

the building. We will have that decided.

MS. A. HAGEN: I wonder if the minister could confirm a couple

of things on the matter of the advocate. Then I'm going to ask that

some information be made available to me.

Is he talking about one person, or is he talking about a role that

might be filled by a number of people available in different parts of

the province — so there might be an advocate, for instance, on the

Island and in the lower mainland? Could he tell me how many people this

advocate will be serving in meeting the mandate?

[ Page 13020 ]

I will leave that particular series of questions with the minister's

response, but before I sit down I'd like to also ask if the minister

would please forward to me, when the estimates are over, the mandate

terms of reference of the advocate, and advise me more about how that

person would be contacted, where that person will be located, how he

intends to let parents or other concerned caregivers know about the

existence of this person, and how they will be able to make reference

to him or her to express their concerns or ask questions about the

quality of service.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, we'd be happy to provide you

with the information on the terms for the advocate. On your other

question, at this time there is one person who would be appointed as an

advocate. The advocate will be someone who really does understand the

needs of people with mental handicaps and their families. That person

will assess the situation. They will have it within their power to come

to the ministry and recommend that there be changes. They could come

and say that in order for this to be done properly we would have to

make such and such an adjustment, that additional people would be

required in order to monitor properly. That's something that could come

from the advocate. At this time there's one person set up to begin that

process.

MS. A. HAGEN: How many people are there, in terms of the

clientele, if you like, for whom this person has some provincial

responsibility — some global responsibility?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have 3,500 mentally handicapped in the

community, and this person would begin by serving as an advocate

dealing.... Most of it is centred around the people from Woodlands, but

anyone within the handicapped ruling.... It would be one individual to

start with.

MS. A. HAGEN: We often are somewhat overwhelmed by the tasks

we ask people to undertake, and one advocate dealing with the special

needs of 3,500 people and their families sounds like a pretty huge

task, even though I recognize that not all of that population would

need to have attention. But in these early days, I hope that the

minister is going to look at having someone in place who can do the job

that she or he is being asked to do. That sounds to me like a pretty

impossible task as I look at just what I've had as an MLA in my own

riding, or look at people who have family members close to my riding of

New Westminster. I'm sure I could refer 15 people to that person right

now, just from recent inquiries I've had. I'm sure that other members

have had similar inquiries, and I don't pretend that all of the

concerns land on my desk or come to my attention.

I want to move to another aspect of the minister's portfolio and ask

some very specific questions about the services for seniors in his

ministry. Two years ago, for the first time, Shelter Aid for Elderly

Renters — SAFER — was unfrozen, with rates having been fixed for a very

long time. Over the last two years there have been increases in the

base level of rents to which subsidies can be applied. They have come

more closely in line with market rents, but this year I note that there

is no increase in the budget for SAFER. I'd like to ask the minister,

first of all, how many seniors are currently covered by that particular

program. How many people are under 65 — because when some changes were

made it was made available to people who were younger? Given the fact

that the number of older people in every one of our communities is

increasing and a significant number of those people live in rental

housing, why are we not seeing any increase in the budget for those

services this year?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There are 10,870 people under the program.

We don't have the number for under 65. The average benefit was $137.72

a month, and the total budget for last year was $17.7 million. It was

10 percent underspent last year. That's why you don't see an increase.

There may be an increase in usage, but there was a surplus in that

budget.

MS. A. HAGEN: Can the minister advise whether his department

does any analysis in terms of the potential applicants for SAFER? One

of the concerns that I have raised before this House innumerable times

is that the people who need assistance from this program often don't

know about it. It's not one that is broadly advertised, as the

guaranteed income supplement is. There are many people who I believe

are simply not aware that they might have some help with their rent

that would make it more possible for them to eat. I wonder if the

minister has any comments about how they track the potential for that

program against the actual takeup of the SAFER program.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, we do track the program, and we have

done the best we can. We've made a very substantial effort to make sure

that people are aware of the program. The July 1990 campaign provided a

supply of brochures, applications and posters to pharmacies — there

were 179 sent out; health units, seniors' organizations — nearly 500 of

those; senior citizens' counsellors; DERA; housing registries; and of

course through the MLAs and through government agents and our field

offices. In addition there was a mail-out to 1,785 seniors, including a

letter from the ministry briefly outlining the program. A brochure and

an application was also done at the end of July 1990 for the seniors on

the B.C. Housing Management Commission waiting-list for social housing.

So we have made an effort to contact people.

[4:00]

You may be interested in the caseload for SAFER. In '89 it was

7,970, in '90 it was 9,340 and in '91 it was 10,870. We expect that

there will be an increase again this year.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister noted that the budget was

underspent but the clientele is increasing every year by a significant

number. Is there a relationship

[ Page

13021 ]

between income and rents that produces that result? It's not adding up for me.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, we simply didn't have the uptake. Not

enough people applied for it. But there has been a steady growth in it

from year to year, and we assume that there will be growth in it this

year. There is enough money, we think, to accommodate the growth we

expect.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to shift the discussion a little this

afternoon and talk about some housing issues, if the minister's staff

can shift gears.

Perhaps the minister can give us an overview of some of the work of

the B.C. Housing Management Commission for the last 12 months. What

have some of the priorities of the Housing Commission been? We don't

hear much from it these days. It used to be a very active organization.

I'd like to see whether we can explore that a little bit this afternoon

and see what it's up to: some of the recommendations it's been making,

what policy it's been looking at. Perhaps the minister can give us some

general overview of the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: B.C. government housing accomplishments —

through the B.C. Housing Management Commission, social housing — add

about 1,800 new units of social housing every year to B.C.'s existing

stock of social housing. Later this year we will achieve a significant

milestone: a total of 10,000 new units of social housing committed

since our joint approach began in 1986. The total number of units

committed to date is 9,241. They have managed the rental supply

program, which was initiated as part of a 1989 provincial budget. This

$80 million initiative will boost the supply of rental housing in

low-vacancy areas throughout the province. As of June 1991 the B.C.

Housing Management Commission has approved a total of 6,729 new units

of rental housing under the rental supply program. Of these, 1,337 are

complete and occupied, 1,526 are currently under construction and 3,866

are waiting municipal or mortgage approval. I should mention to you

that they cannot get mortgage approval until they get municipal

approval, so the municipal approval has to be the first one.

By purchasing financial services in bulk, the B.C. Housing

Management Commission has saved Canadian taxpayers about $31.3 million

since this approach was developed in 1987.

We have been involved in a number of different programs. I don't

know whether the member wants me to go through each one, but we have

been involved in such small projects as the one in DERA, Victoria Cool

Aid, the renter's tax deduction, homeowner grants and a lot of things

that the ministry is involved in through the B.C. Housing Management

Commission. I think the member knows that. He obviously has some

specific questions that he wants to ask about each one of these.

MR. BLENCOE: I do have some questions about the B.C. Housing Management

Commission. The minister rattled off a bunch of numbers and statistics. I may

or may not get into some of the numbers and what I believe to be some of the

inaccuracies of that.

At the outset of my

section of these estimates, I want to talk

about: the B.C. Housing Management Commission in terms of developing

policy; long-range planning; housing initiatives in terms of where

we're going in the future, both short-term and long-term; some reports

to cabinet on what can be done in housing — not just firefighting:

"We've got a problem in housing; the opposition is giving us a rough

time on housing, so we'd better get something in the field." Where's

the long-term strategy? What long-range planning is B.C. Housing

involved in? What strategy is being developed?

We know that the housing in this province, like everywhere else,

goes up and down. We've suddenly either got a supply problem or a

housing crisis. The government runs around at the last minute trying to

resolve those problems. Every time we say we could have anticipated

this if we'd had a little bit on the ground in terms of doing some

long-range thought, looking into the future and preparing policy for

housing programs, but we don't do that. I'm wondering where the policy

is on B.C. Housing? Does it have a policy? Is it advising the

government on long-term housing needs in the province? I see very

little evidence of that. Does the government of British Columbia have a

housing policy, or is it just a matter of throwing what it can at it,

citing a few units that are basically federally driven, mostly paid for

by the federal government? Or is it just smoke and mirrors, which we've

come to expect over the last five or ten years? Is there a housing

policy for British Columbia?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I certainly welcome the opportunity to

respond to those questions; there were more than one. Yes, we do have a

housing policy, and priorities. The B.C. Housing Management Commission

is there to work with government in meeting the housing needs of

British Columbians. The policies vary from time to time, because

circumstances vary, and the policy must address the current situation.

The B.C. rental supply program was brought in because there was a

very serious shortage of rental accommodation within the province. More

units were required in the market at that time, and they were not being

built. They were needed in order to meet the rental needs for housing

in this province; we had vacancy rates of close to zero in many areas.

Action was needed. So the rental supply program was introduced for the

specific purpose of developing rental accommodation within areas with

low vacancy rates.

Since that time, things have changed somewhat. There is still a very

low vacancy rate in most areas in the province, although it has

significantly improved over a year or two ago. Nevertheless, people do

have problems with housing, and the concern that I have as minister,

and shared by this ministry, is that we have a number of

low-wage-earners who may not be on government assistance in any way but

nevertheless struggle to meet the cost of providing shelter for their

families.

[ Page 13022 ]

Through the B.C. Housing Management Commission we are looking at how

we might address that problem in the best way possible. It is under

very careful review by the commission. We have had a lot of meetings

concerning it, and I am hopeful that we will soon arrive at a decided

policy to address the problem, because it is a serious one, and there

are people who certainly need the help. There are different ways of

approaching that need, but we want to be sure that when we introduce a

program, we do it in the best, most cost-effective way, with the least

amount of government intrusion into the lives of individuals.

The second area of serious concern for me and for the ministry is

that, particularly on this side of the House, we have always valued the

opportunity for British Columbians to own their own home. We believe it

to be one of the paramount rights of people within this society. It is

difficult to get into the market today, particularly for young people

wanting to buy their first home. The B.C. Housing Management Commission

is working with government on that, and we will be bringing forward a

policy in the near future to assist people in obtaining and owning

their first home. It is something that I think would be very well

accepted by society, because it has been the hallmark of this

government and this party since its inception that we would encourage

people to own their own homes and have an interest in society through

home-ownership. It's a great thing for all British Columbians and

something we want to encourage.

Those two areas are being worked on: first, to make it possible for

low-income wage-earners to be able to rent suitable accommodation in

the areas where their employment exists — it's easy to say people

should move, but people have to live where their jobs are; and

secondly, to find ways of assisting and encouraging people to become

homeowners.

MR. BLENCOE: Would the minister confirm that in terms of

planning and policy, housing development and advising the government on

a broad look at housing policy in British Columbia, there is only one

person doing that in this province?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know who the one person is. I

would like to commend him, because he's doing a lot of work. I talk to

a number of people about it, and they offer valuable input. I'm told by

the staff beside me that B.C. Housing Management have their full staff

and are involved in the process.

MR. BLENCOE: If the minister is saying that there's a policy and planning unit, could he tell me how many people are involved in it?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have five people in B.C. Housing

Management involved in research and the development of programs, and

one in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

MR. BLENCOE: Five people in policy planning and community relations — that whole division? Is that what you're referring to, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Five people are in research.

MR. BLENCOE: Could the minister tell me what kinds of policies they're working on these days for the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, they're looking at a number

of things. They're looking at options to choose from in order to

develop a program that would meet the needs of people requiring rental

accommodations or to assist people in becoming homeowners. There are a

great many ways that that might be done. We think it's important that

it be done correctly

[4:15]

In '89 we committed $80 million — a very substantial amount of money

— to the rental supply program. That money has been put into that

program. We recognize that the circumstances are somewhat different

from what they were then, and the next program will undoubtedly require

significant funding as well. But it has to be funding in the direction

that's going to provide the maximum benefit to the people concerned.

That is being carefully researched and evaluated.

MR. BLENCOE: I would basically contend that the B.C. Housing

Management Commission does very little in terms of long-range planning

for the housing needs of the people of this province. It has been an

area of neglect by this government for many years. Quite frankly, it

has been shown in terms of crisis after crisis in housing in this

province. We go from one crisis to another. We try to develop programs

overnight that get us into all sorts of problems, and the government

has to say they're doing all sorts of wonderful things. When you

analyze it, there's very little there. The units haven't been built or

things are not developing. The minister knows what I refer to. Let me

ask a question of the minister. When was the last time Peter Thomas

chaired a meeting of the B.C. Housing Management Commission?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know when the last

time was that Peter Thomas chaired a meeting of the B.C. Housing

Management Commission; I couldn't tell you. I want to tell you this: if

the suggestion here is that housing is not doing well in British

Columbia, that is simply not the case. British Columbia has led all of

Canada in producing housing. We have produced more homes for more

people over the last few years than any other province in Canada. Even

today, the housing construction market is booming. That is not to say

that there are not people who have special needs we have to deal with.

Don't discount the thousands and thousands of units that have been

built, provided and sold over the last three or four years, because

this province has been the leader in homebuilding.

One of the reasons we have had this tremendous demand is that people

are coming to this province and wanting to live here. Of course, with

that comes some problems in trying to meet all of the housing needs in

such a short period of time. Many of the communities,

[ Page

13023 ]

particularly in the lower mainland, have broken all-time records in construction of new housing.

MR. BLENCOE: I know the minister is part of the government

and has to defend what he can, which is basically indefensible. The

minister knows, for instance — and I will go back to this; let's be

honest about this, Mr. Minister — that the government announced in its

budget 6,500 units either under construction or built. Mr. Chairman,

that was outright distortion. I won't say the word I want to use,

because you might rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman. We found, through

phoning the minister's staff, that the claim of 6,500 units was 4,000

short. They were nowhere to be seen. It was really one of the worst

kinds of deceptions you could expect from this government. People are

in desperate need for housing.

In the last two or three years the government announced housing

action programs, all sorts of units to be built and wonderful things. I

will do some analysis of the figures in a minute — what actually is

spent on housing in this province. We are one of the worst in this

country, if not the worst. As for what was announced in the budget,

when we take a look, 4,000 were nowhere to be seen. Mr. Minister, don't

try to pull the wool over people's eyes. The units aren't there, and

the rental supply program is not there.

I want to get back to Mr. Peter Thomas. The minister doesn't know

when he last chaired a meeting. The former Minister of Housing, now the

Minister of Forests, announced with great embellishment that this man

was going to resolve the housing problems: Mr. Peter Thomas, the former

head of Century 21, who is a great guy in development and all those

wondrous things he does and could do for the people of the province of

British Columbia. He was going to develop housing policy, get this

province turned around and put before this Legislature all sorts of

ideas for housing: long-range and short-range strategies,

home-ownership, rental and how we can help tenants. I haven't seen it —

haven't seen a thing. What happened to Mr. Peter Thomas? I want to ask

the minister: do we have a chairman of the B.C. Housing Management

Commission today? Do we have anybody at the helm? I know there's nobody

at the helm of this government, but do we have anyone at the head of

B.C. Housing Management? I haven't heard a whimper from Mr. Thomas in

over a year, or two years — I don't know when he was appointed; it was

a long time ago. I haven't heard a statement, a plan, a program or a

strategy to help people in British Columbia with housing. So I ask:

where is Mr. Thomas, the saviour for your government in housing? When

was the last time he chaired a meeting? When was the last time he

developed a program for the province?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The rental supply program is being distorted here.

That is true, but it is not being distorted on this side of the House; it's

being distorted on the other side of the House. It's the member opposite

who is trying to distort the program. I told you before what the numbers were.

The province has committed the full $80 million to the program. Let's get

the number right now: 6,729 new units. The province has made the commitment.

Those that are remaining could be built tomorrow as far as the province is concerned.

The money is there.

There are 1,337 occupied; there are 1,526 under construction. The

close to 4,000 that you talk about, Mr. Member, are the 3,866 already

funded and agreed to be funded by this ministry. The money is there

from the province; there is nothing to stop them from going ahead,

except that they require approval at the local community level.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's responsible for that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member asks who's responsible for

that. That is a very good question, and that's why we should have a

separate discussion to examine who's responsible. It is not the

government which is responsible for that. I've seen some of these

developments, and they are the best that you could find anywhere. They

are a credit to any community, and yet the people that propose to build

them have had difficulty in community after community in getting the

necessary approvals.

That's something I really don't understand, given the quality of the

projects. As far as the province is concerned, the commitment is made

and the money is there. The uptake on it now is much better than it was

before. There are people now who are very interested in building them

since the market declined somewhat on other types of housing.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, well — more bafflegab and smoke and

mirrors. I asked a question of the minister. Would you send me a memo

in an hour and give me the addresses of those 4,000 units that you say

exist? Tell me where they've been built and where they're under

construction. Send me the list so the people of British Columbia can

see you weren't distorting the figures.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, Jack, you're awake.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm sure, Mr. Member, we'll have no problem in supplying you with where they are proposed to be built.

MR. BLENCOE: You can't do it.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, we can. We can send you the list. And then you can take those....

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, you can take it to your municipal

councils. You can take it to your mayors — the socialist mayors. And

you can ask them: "Can't you let this go ahead, because the people of

this province need some housing?"

[ Page 13024 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I rest my case: "proposed to be built." They're

not there. You've had over two years, and what have you got built?

Maybe 1,300 units built or under construction.

Back to the question again, Mr. Chairman. He answered it; they're

proposed. Anyone could propose anything. So the people of the province

better know that of the 6,500 units that were announced in the budget,

4,000 today are still proposed. They're not built; they're not under

construction. This government did not tell the truth on what it was

doing with housing allocations. It's quite evident. Once again we've

had all these action programs. When we take a look at the figures, they

don't stand up. There's nothing there; it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let me get back to Mr. Peter Thomas. A question to the minister.

When was the last time Peter Thomas was actually seen in British

Columbia? This is the man who's the head of your housing arm, who's

developing your housing policy and who's leading government in the

housing programs in the province. When was the last time Peter Thomas

was seen in British Columbia, Mr. Minister? Where was he? He's the head

of your whole division on housing — as small as it might be. Tell us

about Mr. Peter Thomas and the wonderful things he's doing.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where Mr.

Thomas is today, but I suppose I could go and find out. Last Friday —

today is Monday; we go back Saturday, Sunday; take those two off — he

was with the staff people at the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

That was last Friday. Do you want to know where he was on the weekend,

too, because I'd have to check. I just don't know.

The 3, 800 units that the member talks about in the rental supply

program.... He distorts it when he says they are proposed. They are

more than proposed; they are financially committed to by government.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the minister send over to this side of the

House by memo all the latest housing policies and programs that Mr.

Thomas has put forward? Remember that the Minister of Forests

announced, when he was the Minister of Housing, that Mr. Thomas would

lead British Columbia and bring forward all these housing initiatives,

long- and short-term planning and a housing strategy for the province.

Would the minister send those over, so we can see what Mr. Thomas and

the housing commission have been doing for the last two years? Where

are the strategies to lead us out of the nineties to the year 2000?

Perhaps the minister could send those to us.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I've just been standing here

for the last hour talking about all the good things we've been doing,

and he wants me to send over a list now. Haven't you heard all the

things I've been saying?

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Nothing to hide, no.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister knows who Mr. Peter Thomas is. He

knows where Mr. Peter Thomas is. This is the chairman of the B.C.

Housing Management Commission.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We've been in this House too long, Mr. Chairman.

It was a great announcement that Mr. Thomas had all the ideas in the

world. We know where Mr. Thomas is today. He left British Columbia and

headed south. He said he couldn't do business in British Columbia. Do

you know what he has done? Mr. Thomas has said that he's gone down to

the U.S. because it's easier to flip properties in the U.S. He has

become the king of property-flippers. This is the model for social

housing. This is the man who was supposed to build affordable housing

for British Columbians.

[4:30]

This is what BC Business Magazine

says about Mr. Thomas: "This is down to the nitty-gritty........" This

is talking about Peter Thomas. "How does Peter Thomas make his money?

Well, deep down under the media act and sales spiel that flows from

Thomas like liquid silk, he has fine-tuned the old-hat real estate flip

to a new art."

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is your leader of housing in the province.

This is the guy who is supposed to do all your wonderful programs to

build affordable housing. But BC Business Magazine

says: "...the old-hat real estate flip to a new art. 'Anyone can flip

in a hot market, ' Thomas says, 'when prices are soaring. But can you

flip in a cold market? That's the trick, and that's what Samoth is up

to'" — Thomas's company. This is the guy who's supposed to lead us to

build affordable housing in the province. He is now the kingpin in

flipping properties south of the line. He has abandoned British

Columbia. He can't flip properties as well here anymore. People are

watching. Is this the role model that the government wants to show the

people of the province? Is this the man who was going to develop all

the housing programs for us? But now he has "fine-tuned the old-hat

real estate flip to a new art."

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister can confirm that Mr. Peter

Thomas has been flipping properties south of the line in the last year.

And do you know what he's doing? He's sending messages back to British

Columbians saying: "This is how you do it. This is the kind of housing

programs you want in the province of British Columbia. Flip a few

properties. We can make a little money. To heck with the people. We

will just send out smoke and mirrors. We will say we're building 6,500

units, but we're 4,000 short. We will create a whole advertising

atmosphere around it — television and news ads — telling them we're

actually doing it."

What's the leader of housing doing? He's down in the south flipping

properties. He says it's the way to go. Peter Thomas is back. This time

around he has added a new sparkle to the old magic.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's back for business.

[ Page

13025 ]

MR. BLENCOE: That's right.

I want to ask the minister how long we are going to have this man as

the chairman of B.C. Housing. How long are we going to stand for that,

Mr. Chairman? How long can we accept that as the role model for

developing affordable housing? The man who's supposed to develop

programs for people — what is he doing? He's developing to a new fine

art how to jack up the prices of housing, in terms of flipping and

speculation. Is that the role model the minister wants? I want to ask:

when are you going to fire Peter Thomas?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member opposite asks questions about

who will head the B.C. Housing Management Commission or the strategy of

housing into the future. I guess we will have to wait and see. But one

of the things I have noticed that the people opposite are very good at

— and sadly they delight in.... I think that's unfortunate, because the

people watching and listening throughout the province certainly must

get a bit concerned about that.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

First of all, there's an attempt to distort the housing program as

it truly is. But then there's an even more serious thing: attacking

individuals who are not here to speak for themselves. It's a game that

the member obviously enjoys. If you want to participate in it, then be

my guest. But don't expect that I will participate with you, because I

just don't believe in that sort of thing at all. I have no respect for

it; I don't think many British Columbians respect it. The person you're

talking about is not here to answer the question for himself. It's easy

to criticize and condemn within the protective confines of this room.

But is it fair? Is it right? I don't think so.

MR. BLENCOE: That's not the issue. Don't try that old line.

You're the minister responsible; you're the minister in charge. You're

the one who supposedly does the appointing and the monitoring. You're

the one to make sure that someone this government appoints is doing the

job on behalf of all British Columbians.

All I'm suggesting is that I think the judgment of this government

is questionable, because the fellow in charge of B.C. Housing, Mr.

Peter Thomas, has virtually abandoned British Columbia. He has moved

his operations south of the line, and he's developing the new "state of

property-flipping." Is that the kind of role model you want for social

housing and affordable housing for most British Columbians? Is that

what we should be saying is the way to go?

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we know that Peter Thomas has lost interest in

the B.C. Housing Management Commission. He says he has lost interest in it;

he says he has lost interest in British Columbia. He can't flip properties.

He can't make thousands of dollars overnight by flipping property, so he

went south of the line. He has admitted it. Is that the policy of the government?

Is that what you want to tell the people of the province — that that's the

leader of your housing policy group; that that's the role? I would hope

not, Mr. Minister. It's your judgment.

We're waiting, Mr. Chairman. We've been waiting for two years. I

haven't brought this up before. I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

But now the time has come, because we've had virtually nothing from the

B.C. Housing Management Commission. I see no long-range plans. I see

none of the great things Mr. Thomas talked about. So I wonder: is this

the kind of leader you want for housing? Is this the kind of message

you want to give to the people of British Columbia?

I wonder if you've had any meetings with the chairman to see what's

going to come forth in the future in terms of how we can deal with

making homes affordable for British Columbians again, with

home-ownership, with providing affordable rental units, and how we can

build up the co-op program. I don't see Mr. Thomas talking about those

things. It's your judgment we're questioning. Is the minister

considering a review of the leadership of the B.C. Housing Management

Commission?

Mr. Chairman, I think this speaks for itself. We've had very little

in terms of planning and policy from the B.C. Housing Management

Commission.

I want to talk a bit about the figures the minister mentioned a few moments ago. The latest B.C. News

— I think the minister was citing these figures — claims that the

government is spending $76.3 million on social housing programs. When

we called the B.C. Housing Management Commission to confirm those

figures, they couldn't. They couldn't confirm the claims in B.C. News and the claims in the budget.

The Ministry of Finance said that the figure was made up of two

items: housing programs, $48.7 million; and social housing financing

transactions, $27.6 million. We managed to break it down. What the

government isn't telling the people in B.C. News

or anywhere else — again, more smoke and mirrors — is that nearly half

of what you're supposedly spending on housing is totally recoverable.

Nearly $30 million is going to be recovered, therefore it's not

spending on housing — a pay-out to make a purchase, as the dictionary

defines it. Once again it's more smoke and mirrors. Nearly $30 million

of the $76 million announced for great housing programs is totally

recoverable; it's not spending.

When you do more analysis of the affordable social housing program,

do you know what percentage of the total provincial budget is spent on

affordable social housing? In his

preamble the minister talks about all

the things they're doing for housing and all these wonderful programs

that Mr. Peter Thomas is supposedly doing. It's 0.29 percent of the

provincial budget that's spent on affordable social housing. You nearly

spend more on advertising the programs that you don't have.

Let's be a little honest in terms of what's actually happening with

the figures. Would the minister confirm today that of the $76 million

he announced for social housing programs, nearly $30 million is

recoverable?

[ Page 13026 ]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria

talks about honesty. He talks to the minister about misleading and made

some inferences about not telling the truth. I would suggest that the

member should perhaps look in the mirror, for those who live in glass

houses should not throw stones.

I think that most people in this House will recollect a few years

back when MLAs were talking about a capital city allowance. We had

three MLAs from the greater Victoria area — the two members from

Victoria and the member from Esquimalt — running to the press in a

little huddle, promising their constituents that they would return the

$60 a day capital city allowance and donate it to charity. Mr.

Chairman, I and a lot of other people are still waiting for copies of

receipts from those charitable institutions. So when this member stands

up and starts talking about honesty, trustworthiness, lying, not

telling the truth, etc., I would ask that that member have a very good

look in the mirror.

I'm going to be sending some pictures over to the minister for his

perusal on a subject that I will be raising later in his estimates. I

want him to have the pictures in front of him as I'm speaking, because

it's very important.

First of all, I would like to talk about the social housing projects

that have just been announced. I look at all of the projects on this

communiqué dated June 21, and see projects throughout the province of

British Columbia, but very few outside the lower mainland. As a matter

of fact, of all the projects approved — and I think there are 33 of

them — I believe it's safe to say that there are only three outside of

what I would describe as the lower mainland, those being at Kamloops,

Kelowna and Vernon.

I would ask the minister to perhaps look at the most recent analysis

of vacancy-occupancy rates throughout the province, and I think he will

agree, if he has examined the statistics which have just been released,

that there are only two areas in the entire province that currently

have a zero vacancy rate. Just two communities have zero, and neither

of those are on this list. One of those communities is Salmon Arm, and

the other is Powell River. As a matter of fact, as I look at the

vacancy rates in Vancouver and Victoria, they seem to be on the upswing

right now. There are significantly more apartments available today at

reasonable rates than there have been before. I'm very disappointed, in

looking at these approval rates, that Salmon Arm.... I'm sure the

member from Powell River is perhaps as disappointed as I, if he had an

application in for approval. We in Salmon Arm did, and it was not

approved. So I'm somewhat disappointed in that.

[4:45]

The other thing I want to say to the minister is that I watch these news release

communiqués as they come out. I could go through a number of them here,

but I don't intend to go through them all. I look at one, as an example,

dated April 24, 1991. It's a housing project in the city of Vancouver —

the Red Door Housing Society This project is made up of 22 two-bedroom units

and 21 three-bedroom units. The monthly subsidy of taxpayers' money — two-thirds

federal, one-third provincial — is identified as being $1,094 per month per

unit. I find it a little bit difficult to understand how we can be paying this

kind of money. This doesn't include the rent that the residents are paying.

This is a monthly subsidy granted by the federal and provincial governments

combined, and the aggregate amount on the Red Door Housing Society is $1,094.96

a month per unit in perpetuity.

I go on and can find another one here. This was released April 23

and also is a project in the city of Vancouver. It is going to require

a monthly subsidy of $938.89. I look at another one here, in Port

Coquitlam, the release dated April 24. The monthly subsidy on that,

over and above the rent, is $912.65. We have another one in West

Vancouver, dated April 30. The subsidy on this one is $863 a month, and

56 of the 82 units are one-bedroom. We the taxpayers are subsidizing

these units at $863 a month. I'm assuming, because the press release

says an annual subsidy, that it is in perpetuity. I should also add

that the average cost per unit is $102,508. Mr. Chairman, I don't how

that sits with you, the minister or other members of this House, but it

seems a little bit steep to me from a taxpayer point of view, and

further requiring a subsidy of $863 a month.

We have one here for the Columbia Centennial Housing Society. This

one is a little lower at $772 a month. We have one here called the Red

Door Housing Society, which is $954.29 a month. Here's one in Vancouver

which is $1,037.36 a month per unit. Again, I'm assuming, in perpetuity.

Some of the releases mentioned the total aggregate cost of the

project but most of them don't. Most of the releases just mention the

monthly subsidy. In the future it would be much more interesting to

read these and do an analysis if it had the total cost of the project

as part of the news release. Here's one that does have the total cost,

and it does make interesting reading. It's a Squamish project, the Sea

to Sky Housing Society. This has 40 units. The total cost of the 40

units is $4, 923, 929-a per-unit cost of $123,098. I'm not that

familiar with the price of housing in the Vancouver area, but I

certainly am in the Shuswap-Revelstoke area, and I tell you, you can

buy pretty fancy homes there for $123,098. By the way, this one

requires a subsidy of $1,054 a month; subsidized by the taxpayers —

two-thirds federal, one-third provincial.

If there's one message I would certainly like to leave with the

minister, it would be to attempt to get the housing responsibility and

the housing budgets placed in provincial hands. One of the problems we

have is that we jump into these programs. I don't believe the

provincial government has that much authority in the actual management

of the projects and the authorizing of them. I assume the federal

government has more in view of the fact that they are contributing

two-thirds of the subsidy to the project and the province only

one-third. Based on that, the province probably has on