1989 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8801 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. fishing industry. Mr. G. Hanson –– 8801

BCIT operations. Mr. Jones –– 8802

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 8803

Presenting Petitions –– 8803

Tabling Documents –– 8804

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

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 64: minister's office –– 8805

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Barnes

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1989 (Bill 90).

Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8817

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Perry

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Harcourt

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 92).

Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8834

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. S. Hagen

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

Supply Act (No. 3), 1989 (Bill 88). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 8840

Second reading –– 8840

Committee stage –– 8840

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 8841

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Visiting the precincts today are some distinguished guests: His

Excellency Edward Ney, Ambassador of the United States of America to

Canada, and Mrs. Judith Ney. They are accompanied by Mr. Sam Fromowitz,

consul-general, and Mrs. Joan Fromowitz. Would you please make them

welcome.

MR. LOVICK : I notice in the members'

gallery today, Mr. Speaker, a very good friend of the parliamentary

tradition and indeed the practice of parliament in British Columbia, a

man who probably spends more time up above in this chamber than anybody

else and who's probably an authority on the subject. I know this

gentleman will welcome a vacation from this assembly as much as

anybody. We only hope that he doesn't suffer the same withdrawal

symptoms that a number of others of us will feel when we depart. I

would ask the House to please join me in welcoming a resident from

Victoria, Mr. Bill Kirkness.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : On

behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), I would like

to introduce two children of his constituents who are visiting the

Legislature today: Karen Jackson from New Westminster; and visiting her

parents from Finland, Elizabeth Rikkinen. I would ask the House to

please give them a warm welcome.

HON. L. HANSON : In

the gallery today is a very good friend of mine and a prominent member

of the law community in my constituency, accompanied by his wife and

two daughters. I would like the House to please welcome Mr. Glenn

Einfeld, his wife Lillian, and their two daughters, Laura and Nicki.

MR. MILLER :

I would like the House to welcome four people from Prince Rupert. It's

a rare opportunity for me to make these kinds of introductions. John

Kuz and Foster Husoy are both Prince Rupert aldermen who work in the

fishing industry, and Diane Hewitt and Fran Brown work in the

fish-processing industry in Prince Rupert, which is so important to

British Columbia. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH : This morning a group of British Columbians met with

the Cabinet Committee on Regional Development, including Mr. Jack Nichol from

the UFAWU, Mr. Cliff Atleo from the Native Brotherhood and some 30 people from

the coastal communities who work in the fishing industry. They're here to

encourage the government to keep up its good work on behalf of the fishing industry

in this province and to continue to ensure that the industry is maintained at

its high level and grows to provide jobs for British Columbians. I wish the

House to bid them welcome.

MR. MOWAT :

I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today some special guests

who have come from New Delhi, India. They are Mr. Kiran Kapoor, Mrs.

Veena Kapoor, Mr. Ranjeet Kapoor and Mrs. Bubalee Kapoor. They are

guests of Mr. Raj Khanna, Mrs. Shashi Khanna, their son Puneet Khanna

and their daughter Anu Khanna. They are in the members' gallery. I'd

ask the House to make them especially welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C. FISHING INDUSTRY

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. It's clear that Tom Siddon and

your government's Tory friends are selling out the B.C. fishing

industry. Can the Premier give his guarantee that not one herring or

salmon caught in our territorial waters will be trucked or barged to

offshore plants for processing in the United States or Asia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, when I was in Ottawa about six months ago, I had meetings

with members of the New Democratic Party. I had meetings with members

of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Liberal Party. I had a

meeting with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and members

of the Tory party. Yes, we have friends in all of the parties in

Ottawa, and we would prefer to be friends and on good terms with all

members in Ottawa. I take exception to the fact that the NDP should

take the position that their only friends in Ottawa somehow naturally

must be only those affiliated with the socialist NDP. I think we need

to work with all of the people in Ottawa, regardless of what party they

belong to. I think we must insist, regardless of what party is in power

in Ottawa, and perhaps that is what makes Social Credit so strong in

this province.

I don't think we should take the opportunity

to bash one; I think we need to work for all British Columbians,

regardless of what their political affiliation. We owe it to them. We

owe it to those in the fishing industry...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

...to listen to them, to meet with them as we've done over the past

many months, and to do more than a little bit of grandstanding at the

last day that the House sits.

While the NDP, during the whole of this sitting over the last four months, has made little mention of the fishing industry....

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Rubbish!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, that's not rubbish; that's the truth. I will go through Hansard with you and I will show you.

[ Page 8802 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

You are talking about our friends in the industry, you are talking

about the natives and you are talking about the people of Prince Rupert

because they are in the House today. I say we must work for those

people and for that industry every day of the year.

[2:15]

I will guarantee that I will work every day –– 24 hours a day if

need be, and expect the same from every member on this side — to make

sure that we do the right thing for the people in this province and the

right thing for the people in the industry.

MR. G. HANSON : Well, that sounded like a cheap beer promise to me —

pretty fishy.

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. The jobs of thousands of shore

workers up and down this coast are at stake, and vague assurances are not good

enough. I ask again: will the Premier commit that all of the herring and all

of the salmon of this beautiful province will be processed in B.C. plants?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I think I'll attempt to answer it this way. First of all, let me say again — further to what I said a moment ago —

that we will not resolve the problems that face people in this province

and people in that industry through political confrontation. If the NDP

think they can whip up political confrontation and thereby win the day

for those people in all of those coastal communities dependent on that

industry being strong and surviving for years to come, they are wrong.

But it's easy to stand there and make all sorts of allegations and

ridiculous suggestions without having all of the facts or by ignoring

the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's generally known — it's certainly known by people in the industry, and it should be known by the critic from the opposition — that

even today, as we saw six months ago or one, two, three or five years

ago, a certain amount of product was being processed elsewhere. We know

that a certain product was coming in from Alaska and being processed in

Prince Rupert, and we know that a certain product was leaving from my

constituency to be processed in the U.S. That has happened. That

happened months ago and years ago.

So for the member to get

up and say, "Will you guarantee to change the world, Mr. Premier, even

though it hasn't been thus all of the time? But somehow we the

socialists believe that we could have the perfect world," let me say

this. I will repeat again: one of the reasons people in that industry

can depend on a fair deal and can depend on us being fair and dealing

honestly with the matter is that we'll not be dishonest with them as

the questioner was in seeking a guarantee which he knows has never been

able to be undertaken in this province or elsewhere.

BCIT OPERATIONS

MR. JONES : I would like to return to the matter of government interference in the operations of BCIT.

Prior

to his leaving, the former president of BCIT, Mr. Roy Murray, wrote a

12-page letter to the board of governors that was a serious indictment

of this government, and it summarized his concerns in the following

quote: "It's absolutely essential that the ministry withdraw from its

constant interference with operations and its criticism of operating

expenses." Mr. Murray confirmed the contents of that letter last week.

The minister has consistently in this House denied all the concerns

raised by Mr. Murray in his letter. The question to the minister is

then: is it his contention that Mr. Murray has fabricated the incidents

of interference cited in this letter?

HON. S. HAGEN :

Let me reiterate what I said yesterday when I was asked this question.

The government has only one plan for BCIT, and that is that it become

the very best institute of advanced technology in this country. I think

it's important for the member opposite to recognize this.

The

member opposite comes up with these letters, which, I might add, are

personal letters written by the then president of BCIT to the chairman

of the board of governors. As I said the other day, the then president,

Mr. Murray, took the time to phone me from Ontario last Wednesday, very

concerned about this letter being obtained by the NDP, to say

categorically that he has no difficulty with this minister or with the

government. He is very pleased with the direction BCIT is taking.

Obviously

the government is supportive of BCIT or we would not have increased the

funding substantially this year by many millions of dollars in capital

and operating. I had a meeting last week with the new president and new

chairman of the board of BCIT who also see the vision this government

has for BCIT, which obviously the opposition doesn't have. They see the

vision that the institute can become the best in the country, so that

the students can be proud of graduating from the best institute.

Let

me further say that the B.C. Institute of Technology has a first-class

reputation with the employers of this province and that over 90 percent

of the students are placed in jobs as soon as they graduate. Let me

also say that the government has more plans for BCIT in the way of

capital expenditures, equipment expenditures, new program expenditures,

programs in business and programs where people become leaders in

business and in the high-tech industry.

I don't understand

why the members opposite want to dwell on a letter written by a

president over a year ago which the former president has long since

forgotten about. He is in a new career in another province. He is very

pleased with what is going on at BCIT. I think that the letter, which

is a year old, is newer than most of the statistics the opposition

draws on. Most of the statistics are three, four or five years old.

[ Page 8803 ]

would encourage the member to stop rapping BCIT, to become supportive

of BCIT and to become supportive of the faculty and the students at

BCIT.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister confirm that

halfway through the government's internal investigation of the Knight

Street Pub affair his ministry received a letter from a resident of

Vancouver — namely, Don Lee — alleging criminal interference?

Will

he confirm that at that time the advice of his lawyers on his internal

committee was to drop the internal investigation and refer it to the

police, and that that advice was overruled by Mr. Poole in the

Premier's office after discussion with the minister, perhaps, and

certainly with the deputy minister, Mr. Lee Doney?

HON. L. HANSON :

It's obvious that the self-appointed Clarence Darrow of the socialists

is back in his fantasy land. I am most pleased to confirm that the

Knight Street Pub is closed and to confirm that the issue is closed.

MR. SIHOTA :

On May 25 during estimates, I asked the minister a question about

whether or not Ms. McRobbie was fronting for Mr. Toigo in the Knight

Street Pub affair. The minister said that his ministry investigated

that matter, and there was no evidence. I have here with me a debenture

between Shato Holdings and Ms. McRobbie's company. Will the minister

confirm that his ministry was aware of this and the corporate

relationship between Mr. Toigo's company and Ms. McRobbie right at the

beginning of their investigation into this matter?

If the

minister is not going answer that question, I have a question for the

Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). Law enforcement authorities

commenced an investigation into a purported meeting between Mr.

Giordano, Ms. McRobbie and Mr. Toigo at the Town and Country Inn in

Delta concerning the referendum. What steps were taken by his ministry

to prematurely terminate that investigation?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The question presupposes an assumption that I quite frankly wouldn't

presume to comment on. I would hope that the member has something more

substantial to back up his presupposition than he has had previously,

because of the kind of innuendo and inferences that he regularly trots

out in this House, then subsequently discovers that he is wrong — as he did with the Wilkinson Road jail matter.

You'll

recall some months ago when, with the Wilkinson Road jail issue, he

stood in this House and made accusations. He got his cheap headline,

and he had his very accommodating little television cameras over from

BCTV, and he got all that good stuff done. But it turned out he was

wrong. Rather than do the decent, honourable and just thing, he snuck

into the House yesterday to do his mea culpa, not looking the Solicitor-General

(Hon. Mr. Ree) in the eye, but rather doing it with the Minister of

Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). Even at that, as he

made his apology for that issue about which he was wrong and about

which he tarred people's reputations innocently, even at that point he

could not bring himself to say: 'I'm sorry, I was wrong." He blamed it

on the staff at Wilkinson Road.

All of that said, Mr.

Speaker, I will take the specifics of his question as notice, pending

the receipt by me of his specific written evidence to support his

question.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled an answer to a question from the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

Presenting Petitions

MR. SIHOTA : I'd like to have leave to present a petition,

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by 1,500 members of the

Indo-Canadian community, most of whom reside in Richmond, in reaction

to the Premier's comments in this House regarding the Komagata Maru ,

just to point out that residents in his riding and their relatives

throughout the lower mainland wish to have the government establish a

permanent commemorative in respect of the Komagata Maru incident of 1914.

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of privilege.

gather this petition was collected on the basis of information that had

been selectively provided to constituents in Richmond from the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I get up on a point of privilege because I

think it's a sad day in this House when members will selectively take

from what's said in this House to distribute to members of a particular

community, a respected community, in order to incite some reaction to

fair debate in this House so that it might be used politically. I

certainly regret the action, though I will be pleased to review the

petition and to communicate directly and honestly to the members and to

those who are a part of the petition.

MR. SIHOTA : On that point of privilege, the Premier has jumped to a whole series of assumptions and falsehoods.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Tell the truth.

MR. SIHOTA : I am.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Government House Leader.

[ Page 8804 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Sleazy Moe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER : The government House Leader rises on a point of order.

MR. SIHOTA : What about the point of privilege?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

presented his petition, made his remarks, and I feel he has had his say

in this House. The Premier has had a chance to rebut his remarks, and

it should end there.

MR. SPEAKER : The matter is a

point of privilege, and a member has a right to speak on a point of

privilege. His petition wasn't the point of privilege.

MR. CLARK :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd ask the Premier to withdraw

references he made recently across the way here to the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I said "sleazy Moe"; I don't know if that's unparliamentary.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. ROSE :

I put forth the contention, Mr. Speaker, that anything, such as "sleazy

Moe" or "tell the truth for once in your life," that is found to be

unacceptable by the member.... These are things that I think the

Premier is far above; he doesn't need to resort to that. He can examine

the petition. If the petition is found wanting in any way, it will be

rejected by the Table.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Well, I

suppose, Mr. Speaker, there's a limit to how much one can take.

Frankly, after listening day after day to some of the sleazy stuff that

has been thrown across the floor, I do get rather frustrated by it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. VANDER ZALM : I'll use a word that I know is not unparliamentary. I'll remove "sleazy Moe" and say "media Moe."

MR. ROSE :

Well, Mr. Speaker, I know it's picky, and I know it's the last day and

we're all supposed to end up on nice, friendly terms and all that. But

the fact that he used "Moe" is the use of the first name. I'm quite

sure you wouldn't want to be called "Bill" or "three-dollar Bill" or

"phony Bill" or anything like that.

In the interests of the

Christmas spirit, because we have almost arrived there by now, I wonder

if all of us could sort of abandon our suffering from withdrawal

symptoms once the Premier has squared it away with my hon. friend from

Port Renfrew.

MR. ROGERS : On a point of procedure,

it seems to me that when the Premier stands on a matter of privilege

and brings the matter of privilege to the Chair, it is then up to the

Chair to determine whether in fact there is a matter of privilege, and

only at that time can debate continue. It would seem to me the Premier

has stated his matter of privilege and until the Chair has ruled

whether or not there is a matter of privilege there can be no further

debate.

MR. SPEAKER : As the member knows, it has

been a tradition in this House, when a matter of privilege is raised,

to allow other members to contribute to that point of privilege before

a decision is made by the Chair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I certainly agree with the opposition House Leader that we've had

generally good relations in the House, and it's always been my wish

that they be such. We often sit here and take a lot of stuff that we

take exception to for good reason, and perhaps more so from some

members than others, but I appreciate as well what you said. I can't

use first names; I can't use Moe nor Curly nor Larry; it's not

parliamentary or proper.

I withdraw in the hope that we may leave as friends.

Hon.

Mr. Dueck tabled the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation

annual report, 1988-89; the vital statistics annual report, 1988; and

the Ministry of Health annual report, 1987-88.

MR. SPEAKER : The Leader of the Opposition seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HARCOURT :

I'd like members of the Legislature to greet two gentlemen who fought

in the Second World War to preserve our democracy. They have the

privilege of watching our democracy in action today. I will comment no

further. I would like members of the Legislature to greet one of your

constituents, Mr. Speaker, who is a longtime coroner in West Vancouver

and a member of the bar, Mr. Bernard Nash. We bring greetings to Mr.

Bernard Nash, who is seated in the members' gallery. A constituent of

the Premier and his seatmate from Richmond who also fought in the North

Atlantic is here with his good friend Mr. Nash: my father, Mr. Frank

Harcourt.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call Committee of Supply.

[ Page 8805 ]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 64: minister's office, $301,553 (continued).

MS. SMALLWOOD : I was wondering, after the time that passed, if perhaps the minister would like

to make some comments on family and child services, given some of the

debate yesterday, and the fact that he's had an opportunity to talk to

his staff. Does he have any news for us today?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Perhaps the member could be more specific on what

she would like to hear. Offhand, I don't remember where the debate left

off yesterday. One thing I will share with the member, because we did some investigation

into the case involving two boys — one a foster child.... I'm just trying

to find it as we go here. I quote first of all from the Blues yesterday where

the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley said: "Just to provide the minister

with some additional information, the boys' damage of something like $70,000 — a $70,000 judgment. I had the staff do some checking into the case, and

I can assure the member and this House that while the court did find the boys

liable, there was no amount put on a judgment. We have searched the court records,

the Attorney-General's (Hon. S.D. Smith'

s) records and our own records,

and the court registry confirms that there was no assessment in our absence

against the boys. There is no amount put on the judgment. I just wanted to clear

that up for the record. While they have been found guilty and the case is under

appeal, there has been no amount. I won't comment further as to the question

of who will pay the damages if any are assessed, because no amount has been

assessed.

Just to come back to the member's opening remarks, could you be more specific? I don't know what you're after from yesterday.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I was specifically talking about the cases of teens who were in

Corrections mainly because there were no foster homes available to

them. I was hoping you'd have more news on the foster care situation,

but if you haven't got any further information, we'll proceed and I'll

talk to you after the estimates are over to see how those circumstances

develop.

In my introduction I talked about the fact that the social service system,

as far as I can understand, is spending far too much money on crisis management

and not enough on prevention. I think that most professionals in the field will

acknowledge that prevention is not only more cost-effective but that it does

prevent crises and is a far better way of going about social wellness. I want

to come back to the emphasis on social well-being. I think it would be well

for the ministry to consider that as a concept and a challenge for the future.

Very clearly society generally, because of the kinds of policies that have been

brought about by this ministry, is paying dearly, and I'll talk a bit about

some of the numbers.

Again,

I want to refresh the minister on some of the realities faced in

British Columbia because of previous government policies. As for family

and children's services, since 1983 child care workers in schools have

lost their funding, regional coordinators for family and children's

services were fired, special teams and coordinators of programs for

children with handicaps were eliminated and home-care services for new

mothers were reduced — and that's only a partial list. You

yourself know that family support workers were cut back and sexual

abuse teams were virtually eliminated, with a loss of jobs and skills

in this province.

As I said yesterday, in his introduction

the minister began to recognize the cost of those cutbacks, both in

human terms as well as in financial terms, to this government and has

begun to bring back some of those programs under different names.

the last year or so, the minister has been approached by several

groups, including levels of government, asking for programs to feed

hungry kids. When food banks were first organized in this province,

they looked for funding and for opportunities to talk to the ministry

about ongoing problems. Now what we're seeing is that food banks that

have initiative, that are creative in their fund-raising and that

manage to organize volunteers and support for those food banks as their

number one priority are just hanging on by their fingertips. The

question, of course, is what people are going to do when those food

banks do close.

[2:45]

The member for Langley intervened on a couple of occasions

yesterday. I wonder whether she has approached the minister as to the

support he would suggest for the people in Langley who can't make ends

meet. That food bank closed because Family Services were no longer able

to keep it running. I wonder if the minister has some advice for the

member for Langley.

On the issue of prevention, I'd like to

talk to the minister about a few numbers. I have a chart here that

indicates government expenditures on preventive programs, and while it

is very difficult to compare one jurisdiction to another, because the

categories are different, let me give you some numbers that I think are

pretty good ballpark figures.

Total expenditure in Ontario,

for instance, for child welfare is something like $207 per child. The

difference in Ontario has been that they have far fewer children in

care, and we are talking about the difference in costs of prevention

and where they put their money and the difference in how much it costs

this province to keep children in care. In Ontario the cost, as I said,

was $207. They have approximately 0.45 percent of their child

population in care. In British Columbia, by comparison, we have

something like 1 percent of our children in care. In British Columbia

the costs show something like $265, if I am

[ Page 8806 ]

correct, and that is comparing the same kinds of programs and the same kinds of costs.

would argue that the reason the cost per child in Ontario is

significantly less than it is here is that we pay so much more for

statutory services. We have that many more children in our population

that are subject to statutory services. Let me talk in particular about

one aspect of statutory services. This goes back to some of the earlier

discussion the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari)

raised earlier about the costs of poverty, the costs of keeping people

poor. I want to talk about the cost of keeping children in

institutions, particularly Corrections.

I will give you

some more numbers. Professionals can identify problem conditions in

about 20 percent of families, and about 5 percent to 6 percent show a

need for professional help. Statutory intervention rarely affects more

than 1 percent of children in any one year. In the U.K., for example,

there are 37,000 children in care; that represents 0.3 percent of all

children in the U.K., yet this figure is still considered too high.

1986-87 in British Columbia there were 5,769 children in care by

apprehension, 2,385 children in youth containment and 3,733 children on

probation. In addition, approximately 100 children were contained in

Maples. This represented at that time 1.5 percent of British Columbia's

children. I would argue that not only are we seeing now these

significant costs to the budget.... And we talked about where money is

spent in your ministry. Not only are we seeing this expensive care

being provided, but we are seeing the disruption of families. We are

seeing youth in British Columbia who have gone much further than

support services.

I would suggest that we are seeing these

large numbers and these big expenses because of this ministry's

shortsightedness back in '83 and '85, during the restraint years, with

the cutback in support and preventive services. I would argue that it

should be a goal of your ministry to provide the kind of support to

families that means that kids don't end up in institutions. A goal for

the ministry should be to reduce the number of children in care, to

provide programs that support families directly, to reduce the number

of children that are taken from their families, the kind of support

that is necessary in the early years. I recognize that the Sullivan

commission — and I have a motion on the order paper —

recommended that the ministry interface with the education system; that

they provide front-line services at schools to help identify problems

in their early stages and support kids through those difficult times.

Those kinds of services will not only reduce the number of kids in care

and in corrections but will reduce the demand on your budget as well.

The minister wanted practical suggestions. That would be my goal, Mr. Minister.

If you looked at the kind of care that is provided by your ministry; if you

would take our recommendations and do things like taking another look at the

child welfare legislation, the family services act; if you looked at the recommendations

brought forward by the royal commission headed by Thomas Berger as one example,

then you could significantly impact the budget of your ministry. In addition,

you could significantly impact the kind of pain and suffering that has been

experienced because of the years of Social Credit government and their impact

on families. I think the statistics will bear out my argument.

I'd

like to talk to you about the need to coordinate programs. Earlier in

the session we took a look at an example of severely handicapped

children and the things that their families had to face, either trying

to support their children at home or trying to keep their family

together while the child was in an institution.

I argued at that time — and I'm afraid the minister wasn't too receptive; I hope that the minister will take another look at it —

that what was needed was a far more coordinated overall approach to

family and child services in this province. Currently services to

children are handled by three or four different ministries: the

Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Education, Health and Social

Services. It becomes incredibly difficult for any family to work

through that huge bureaucracy. I have argued that there is a need to

recognize a child advocate; a need for someone to help families and in

particular children get the programs that they need and that they have

their rights recognized.

I believe that by looking at the

numbers and comparing other jurisdictions, our record in this province

is not a good one in respect to the care of children. It is certainly

borne out by the statistics that show the number of children in care by

population. I think it's also borne out when you look at the percentage

of budget, because for the most part GAIN has been fairly static as a

percentage of your budget. But the growth that we have seen is the

growth in costs to deliver services to children in care — children in institutions. As I pointed out, those different categories....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Sorry, hon. member, time has expired under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley continue her questioning on Social Services.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the member for intervening.

I pointed out, the costs are borne through several different

ministries. I had hoped the minister could comment. I think the

minister would share the concern that those costs for children in care

are substantial, and I would hope that he would embrace the wellness

concept, as has the Ministry of Health, in providing supportive and

preventive services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : First of

all, I guess I have to make a few comments so that we don't get this

one-sided view that's not quite correct left on the record.

We're very cognizant of the costs of keeping children in care and apprehending children and the

[ Page 8807 ]

needs

and how to proceed cautiously. We're very aware of the need to work

together with other ministries, and I outlined yesterday that the

Cabinet Committee on Social Policy does it very well. In fact, I don't

think there's ever been a time in the history of this government when

the social service ministries worked together any better than they do

now. It's very coordinated, and we do talk to each other.

the field of child abuse, I don't think there's any other jurisdiction

in this country that is as advanced as we are with the child abuse

handbook. It sets out the expectations and the coordination of services

that are required between ministries. It sets out all the protocols

between ministries, the police, Crown counsel, our ministry, Health,

Education, etc. We do have an interministry children's committee which

has existed for a long time. So I wanted to put that on the record,

lest anyone think that we are not on top of this and at the leading

edge of what is going on in the field of child abuse, child

apprehension, etc.

To give you an example, Mr. Chairman, last year — and this is an astonishing statistic —

our ministry responded to 26,000 complaints of child abuse or neglect.

We had to investigate all 26,000. It resulted in 3,000 apprehensions.

So I also want that on the record so that people don't think that we

just "swoop down and apprehend children." We investigate very

thoroughly. I think that's a significant number. It's a shocking number

in that there are 26,000 complaints; it shocks me terribly. We're not

alone in this. We're not the only jurisdiction that has this, but most

people aren't aware that there are 26,000 complaints a year of either

neglect or abuse of children. I do want it noted that it resulted in

3,000 apprehensions.

There are lots of families who do

continue to care for their children, and they do get the type of

counselling you're taking about. So they don't all end in

apprehensions. We send in counsellors; we work with the families. Our

number one objective is to keep families together wherever possible and

whatever that family may be. We're very cognizant, too, on this side of

the House that the traditional — I think they call it nuclear —

family that we used to accept as normal is not really the norm anymore.

The traditional family, where the husband works and the mother stays at

home and raises the children, depending on the area of the country

you're in, is between 12 percent and 16 percent of families. So the

family as we knew it is a very small percentage of total families.

[3:00]

whatever a family happens to be, whether it's a single parent with

children or whether it's an extended family, we do our very best

wherever possible and wherever practical to keep families together. I

think our goals are much the same as the member has outlined, but

they've been that for a long time, long before these estimates started

and before this member here or that member came on the scene. The goals

have been there.

Rather than talk about 1983 or 1536 or

whatever year it was you were talking about yesterday, let's talk about

this current year of '88-89. I'm happy to say that since 1986 the

number of children in B.C. has been increasing, a phenomenon known as

the shadow baby boom. So the number of children overall in B.C. since

'86 has been increasing. Our mathematical predictive model suggests

that on the basis of the changes in population, the declining trend in

the number of children in care would turn around in '86. The number of

children in care has been declining, but the predictive model suggested

that it might turn around and slowly increase as the number of children

in the province increased.

The need for child-protection

activity is on the increase. In fact, the exact numbers are here. In

'88-89 members of the public drew 27, 059 cases of possible abuse or

neglect to our attention, up 780 from the previous year. Our

investigations revealed that 14,110 of these cases required further

preventive and protective service directly from the ministry staff. A

further 3,065 cases were referred to other agencies and organizations

for service.

We have not yet been able to determine exactly

what proportion of these agencies are funded by the ministry. I think

it's a significant number — and this is the first time that I have spoken of this number — and

I think it's significant news. A lower-than-expected level of

admissions in these recent years has resulted in a caseload that is

1,200 less than the population-based predictions. Over the years we

have been able to track very carefully the number of children who would

be apprehended in comparison with the number of children in the

province. As the number of children went up, the number of

apprehensions followed and vice versa: when the number of children went

down, the number of apprehensions did.

This is the first year in the history of the province — you can go back to the seventies, the early eighties, the fifties or whenever you like —

that the number of children has gone up and the number of apprehensions

has gone down. That can be attributed to only one thing, Mr. Chairman,

through you to the member and to the rest of the people in British

Columbia. This is a significant number, and you can attribute it to the

community-based family support programs that we have put in place. Our

careful researchers can only attribute it to that one thing: the

support programs that we have put in place through community-based

organizations. So I leave that on the record.

I would

sincerely hope that the media would pick up a number like that, because

it's very significant when you have apprehended 1,200 fewer children

than you predicted you would apprehend. Before, it has been very

predictable.

The member used Ontario as a model that we

should follow. I've had many discussions with the minister, Mr.

Sweeney, from Ontario. She quoted a lot of statistics from Ontario. The

minister there is a very competent minister, Mr. John Sweeney. I have

had numerous conversations with him and they have the same problems we

have. We don't all function exactly by the same guidelines or

parameters when it comes to ages.

[ Page 8808 ]

For

example, it's not accurate to compare the number of children Ontario

has in care to British Columbia, because they take children only up to

the age of 16, where British Columbia looks after children up to the

age of 19. Many, if not the majority, of our children in care are

teenagers, so the numbers would not be accurate if you compare Ontario

with British Columbia.

I think I've answered most of the

questions, but just let me wrap up by saying that we appreciate the

value of prevention. It's a corny old clich, but an ounce of

prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we all know that it's a lot

cheaper, more cost-effective, and better socially if we can prevent

these problems than have to deal with them in a crisis mode.

think the statistic I have just given over the number of apprehensions

going down while the population is increasing is a good one, and I

think the programs are working and we're headed in the right direction,

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to clarify a couple of things for the minister. The comparison

in numbers between Ontario and British Columbia was around the costs

for services — comparing the number of dollars per child for care from Ontario to British Columbia.

The

percentage of population was between the U.K. and British Columbia, and

those ages are, as far as I understand, comparable, and that's why

those two jurisdictions were compared. In the U.K. they saw 0.3 percent

of their child population in care and considered that too much. The

comparative dates for '87 showed 1.5 percent of British Columbia's

children in care. I am pleased to see that the numbers by population

are going down in British Columbia.

I would tend to agree

with the minister that the support services that are provided by

community groups have to receive a great deal of credit for that.

am very concerned about the minister's reorganization. I am very

concerned about the staff levels and the ability of staff to deal with

those huge numbers of complaints that the minister outlined. If the

ministry is truly investigating each and every single complaint they

get, how on earth can you be involved in anything else?

think it's appropriate for the minister to give credit to community

groups. I believe, however, that the ministry has some responsibility

in this area. It's taxpayers' dollars that pick up the costs, and the

ministry has a responsibility to ensure that the programs are there,

that they are coordinated and accountable, that they are quality

programs and that those programs are accessible throughout the province.

the minister will recall, that was my earlier request: for information

to ensure that those programs are accessible around the province. We

have evidence that they are not, that there are communities that do not

have the supports that are necessary.

I asked the minister

to consider the need for bringing all family and child services under

one jurisdiction. There is need for better coordination.

The

minister replied by saying that we have tremendous coordination in our

ministry. You have something like seven deputy ministers now heading up

different areas of responsibility within your ministry....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Okay, assistant deputy ministers, but they are people responsible for

different areas. My experience, when trying to work with the people of

my constituency and people of the province that bring particular

problems around social services to my attention, is that the only kind

of coordination that is involved in your ministry is case-specific.

a person pushes hard enough, gets the attention of the senior

bureaucracy, they can have their case brought up to that level. For

instance, we will talk a little bit later about Ryan Bonson's case. It

was a matter of pushing until you could get it bumped up to the senior

levels of bureaucracy so that you could get somebody to pay attention

and help coordinate the different ministries.

The point

that I will try to bring home to the minister is that it cannot be

dealt with in that highly centralized.... In Victoria at that high

level there must be some way of dealing with the system so that it is

more approachable by families. By the time a family has to work through

the system, whether they have a child that has a behavioural problem,

whether they have a child with a handicap and need some kind of

support, they become absolute experts.

The minister would

do well to listen to some of those families, because they can teach all

of us about the bureaucracy. I suspect that some of those families,

some of the mothers of those children, could teach some of the people

in the ministry how to work through the system. I think that it is

incumbent upon the minister to begin to deal with that reality: the

need for making it simpler, more responsive to parents.

want to emphasize that no ministry has a greater responsibility than

any other for the whole. As a result, I believe that the long list of

major family crises and conditions is not attended to in this province.

I believe that while good services are given, while you have highly

skilled people in the ministry, because the ministry's focus is not in

this particular area, some of those highly trained, specialized people

can't provide the sort of resources that they themselves would like to

provide. While there are excellent services at this particular level in

British Columbia, the system as a whole has tremendous flaws and gaps.

That means inadequate resources and, quite frankly, a lack of

accountability. There is a real need to look at the areas around

The minister talked about abuse and neglect, so I would like to take a look at that.

Interjections.

[ Page 8809 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD : I guess I'd also like to comment on some of the backbenchers' frustration.

AN HON. MEMBER : Say something nice.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to say something nice, Mr. Member, but quite frankly, it would

do you well to work on the front lines trying to deal with troubled

kids. There's not too much that is nice out there. The minister's

responsibility is a very difficult one. I recognize that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I like it better when you're mean.

MS. SMALLWOOD : All right, then I won't give you the compliment I was going to give you.

Let's

talk about sexual abuse and neglect in the province and the need for a

bit of attention there as well. The minister gave us some numbers on

the increase in reported sexual abuse in the province. Those numbers

are significant and of concern to many people. It makes it very

difficult for the system to be able to function. It makes it very

difficult to deliver services to help those people.

I have

a concern about those investigations that the minister talks about.

This comes back to the business of open government and accessible

information. I'm not talking about the details or the confidentiality

of those investigations. I'm talking about the need for access to the

information to be assured that those investigations are being done:

checks and balances that say such and such numbers were reported, so

and so numbers were investigated, and giving the outcomes of those

investigations. Without published data on the extent of the ministry's

investigative activities, it's impossible to confirm the statistical

reports that the minister has given us. The minister says there has

been that number of complaints and they're all investigated, but it's

very hard to give those kinds of comments any credence without the

database to substantiate them.

[3:15]

I want to talk about the ombudsman's report. On page 70 the

ombudsman describes the case of a mother who discovered that one of her

daughter's softball coaches had been convicted of sexual assault When

she pointed this out to the ministry, she was told that the onus was on

her to produce evidence of criminal conviction. The ministry's

officials indicated that they had no legal authority to become involved

that intervention of a preventive nature was not seen as a part of the

ministry's legal mandate, and that it was a community problem. This

mother eventually got support from the ombudsman's office, and I

believe her concern was dealt with.

I think the concern

that was raised by the ombudsman's office around the responsibility of

the ministry in this area is a considerable one. It goes back to my

argument that prevention, this kind of direct-line support, would

eliminate costs down the line. The minister gets up and spouts

platitudes about being in favour of prevention. Here's an example. Can

the minister tell us what he has done since the ombudsman's report to

deal with prevention, and to deal with the kinds of support that this

mother was looking for?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : First of

all, again and just for the record, in our ministry we have one deputy,

three ADMs and a superintendent of family and child services — just so you know.

have to take exception on behalf of the staff when the member says that

you don't get looked after in this ministry until you get right to the

top, That's not true.

MS. SMALLWOOD : That's not what I said; don't twist my words.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I don't think I'm twisting it. You made an allegation that, "if you don't get to a senior bureaucrat" — and you pointed right at Sam when you said it — "you don't get

anything done in this ministry." Well, that's not true. We're not

centralized, Madam Member. This ministry is not centralized. In fact,

we're probably the most regionalized ministry, except maybe for

Forests, in the province. Our regional directors have global budgets

for their region. They act autonomously, because we feel they know best

what's good for their region, and they set their budgets themselves.

We're

decentralized to the extent that we have 1,010 social workers in the

field, and only 30 social workers in headquarters. So that is hardly a

centralized ministry. The decisions are made out in the field. We have

nine social workers in Woodlands, which is on its way to being closed.

Twelve percent of our budget goes to operational costs.

don't want to belabour points of cost per child, and the costs in this

country or that province. But you must compare the ages of the children

they have in care, because if they have children in care only up to 16,

and we have children in care up to 19 — where the great majority of them are, and they're more expensive to look after —

then naturally the cost per child is going to be up considerably. But I

don't want to belabour that. I think we are doing an excellent job of

looking after children in this province.

I don't want to

harp on the statistics, but the apprehensions are going down. More

families are being kept together. More counselling is being done than

ever before. The reorganization in the ministry is working well,

because it has split the two primary divisions of the ministry — the financial assistance and the social work — so people now get more specialized service.

When

I quote the number of 27,000 and some complaints of sexual abuse and

neglect, I should add that of all the cases, about 20 percent are of

alleged sexual abuse, and the rest is mainly neglect. And we get

reports of it, and we do investigate every incident of child abuse or

child neglect.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm sure we'll have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to take a look at some more

[ Page 8810 ]

examples

of what happens in that whole area of investigation. But I wanted to

zero in on the ombudsman's report. I'll come back to the wellness, the

prevention and the need for a change in the ministry's mandate — if that is what's necessary —

as it's outlined in the ombudsman's report. I would emphasize that the

ministry officials indicated that they had no legal authority to become

involved, I'd ask the minister to indicate what exactly the ministry is

doing — if indeed you are interested in prevention and support In the area of child abuse —

to assist communities in becoming involved in support for families that

are victims of child abuse. What are you doing to help in different

communities to prevent this very serious problem?

I want to

keep on this theme of prevention and wellness and the whole issue of

cost. I believe that because of the actions of the Social Credit

government over the years, you're paying a much higher cost in crisis

management — that's taxpayers' dollars.

The rough

consensus is that one in three women and slightly fewer men experience

sexual abuse as a child. Every therapist dealing with sexual abuse in

British Columbia is booked with a waiting-list of six to 18 months;

these are the specialists. Many offenders were early victims of child

incest themselves. Frequently an incest offender can develop from a

male's striving for emotional self-sufficiency. Men turn to children

because they are weak and easily dominated. Ninety percent of sexual

abusers are men; 80 percent of male abusers were themselves abused as

children; 70 percent of prostitutes were abused; 70 percent of women

drug addicts were abused. It's estimated that 75 percent to 80 percent

of people in mental health treatment centres have experienced sexual

abuse. Elizabeth Fry Society states that between 80 and 95 percent of

women in federal prisons have been abused as children. Another

startling statistic is that applications to the Criminal Injury

Compensation Board because of child sexual abuse offences shot up from

18 in 1983 to more than 800 in 1988. The question remains: what is this

ministry doing? Have you rethought your position since the ombudsman's

report?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Maybe the member wasn't

listening earlier when I talked about the community groups we are

funding to do just what she is saying, which has resulted in 1,200

fewer children in care than we had predicted. I will repeat all of that

if you wish.

To me, that is prevention, Madam Member, and

that's what you are talking about. It's keeping families together.

That's where the prevention of child abuse starts — in keeping families strong.

will give you just a few examples. In 1988 the government initiated a

broad range of programs aimed at strengthening the family, and that has

worked. Twenty million dollars was allocated. I will give you a few

examples. In Victoria we have Community Options for Children and

Families and respite care for handicapped children, to provide families

with some relief. In Vancouver there are ten family advancement workers

to work in urban schools and help families fulfil their

responsibilities. Kelowna; Surrey; Vancouver.... Perhaps the member

hasn't been following what we've been doing with our program called

Reconnect to get street kids off the street, back into their

communities and back with their families. The Reconnect program has

been very successful. Mental Health has programs in the communities to

help in this regard.

To stand and quote the statistics

about child abuse that we all know.... We all read the same articles in

the same papers. We know about child abuse and the statistics regarding

abusers and how many women out of three have been abused and how many

men and the percentage of prostitutes who have been abused. We are all

very cognizant of those facts.

The point is that the family

support programs we have initiated through community groups are

working, keeping families together, keeping families strong, providing

counselling and resulting in fewer children being apprehended. I am

convinced that in the long run the way we will prevent sexual abuse of

anyone in our society is by keeping families strong.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Minister, you have a tendency to dodge questions. I will only make

one more comment in this area because I don't expect to get the kind of

information that I need.

The Vancouver Incest and Sexual

Abuse Centre daily turns away large numbers of adult survivors who

request individual counselling, because most cannot afford the fees

charged by the private practitioners to whom the organization refers.

That's only one example. We've heard repeatedly from Prince George and

from the Island of organizations that are looking for funding and

support for their programs. We hear about the eight- to 16-month

waiting-list for the professionals in the field needed to provide the

services to those people that you yourself have identified.

will move to a slightly different area, which is still under the

umbrella of family and children's services. I want to ask you

specifically about support for families with handicapped children. The

minister announced with great fanfare a program that would provide

support for families. I don't want to be misunderstood in any way: I

think that program is good. It has taken a long time, and the ministry

needs to be congratulated for understanding the need for that program.

I'd like to think that Ryan Bonson and Heather Van Egdom were part of

bringing that need to the minister's attention in a forceful manner. I

hope the member for Vancouver South paid attention, because that may be

the one and only compliment you get in this particular area.

The

people who did the most work were the people who formed the Family

Support Institute. That organization, sponsored by British Columbians

for Mentally Handicapped People, deserves a great deal of support. This

goes back to the comments I was making earlier about the expert skills

that parents develop in dealing with children that are in need.

[ Page 8811 ]

The concern I had in the minister's press conference — and I wanted to say this to you —

is that that organization had organized a lobby, a day where they

brought families and children down to talk to the government. That day

of lobbying was organized by the Family Support Institute. The families

were supported; corporations like Air Canada paid for the

transportation of the children so that they could come down and tell

the minister firsthand what the problems were that they faced in

dealing with the government — because there are several ministries they have to deal with —

to tell the minister firsthand about their experiences in hope that the

minister would hear and that any program the minister was developing

would reflect their concerns, their needs and their frustrations.

[1330]

Instead, the government came in with its pre-made backdrop, did a

presentation, a little bit of a media hit, got some nice pictures with

the kids and left. There were some parents sitting there saying: "But I

thought we were coming to talk to them. I thought we were coming to

tell the government about our needs."

I want to just

highlight some of the focus the Family Support Institute has brought to

this concern, because I need to be assured the minister has heard this.

The question is: what is good family support for those who have sons or daughters that live with a handicap?

One, family support can only be offered; it cannot be imposed. I think the ministry is very sensitive to that.

Two, family support is for everyone; you can't pick and choose. There has to be a universally accessible program.

Three,

family support in

part is an information-sharing process. This goes

back to the need for your ministry to look at how accessible it is to

these families. How accessible is government for families that have not

had to work through the system, who don't have the skills, who don't

know where to go? I would argue it is not accessible.

Four,

family support puts families in touch with each other. Family support

is realistic and honest. Family support assists parents to recognize

the importance of their involvement in the lives of their sons or

daughters. Family support recognizes that the family is often the most

important and sometimes the only consistent factor in the life of an

individual.

The most important thing in developing programs for children, as far as this particular organization goes — and I think they provide quite a model for other organizations and other families that are in need —

is that the government must respect the talents and skills of parents.

They must recognize that parents know best, and they must be responsive

to that and that no professional in the field necessarily, by the fact

they are professionals, knows better than the parents that have been

looking after those children.

That comes back to your program. The program, while it relieves a great deal of stress on families — it certainly is supportive in different categories —

falls short in that we have not heard how families will be consulted in

a coordinated, organized way, and I'd like the minister to tell us

that. I've got to respond to several different constituents. Are you

prepared to set up an advisory council of families with children to

help develop and monitor the program's progress?

Secondly,

the areas that are not covered by the program, areas of renovations and

making homes accessible to children with handicaps. As far as I

understand it, the program explicitly leaves that particular need

aside, and I'd suggest that the minister, through his responsibility

for housing, could very well deal with some support for families in

that area. The minister talked to us at that time and said that this is

where the community comes in, that families with children with

handicaps must go to the community, must get communities to help build

the ramps, make the bathrooms more accessible, add on that extra room

if an attendant is needed. I suggest that that's unrealistic. First,

the minister doesn't recognize that service groups do not provide for

that kind of service. Secondly, very often families are fully extended

just looking after the kids. They cannot engage in the kinds of

campaigns that are necessary to bring their problem to the attention of

service groups in the community. Thirdly — and I'll get back to the specifics of individual cases in a second — the other area of this program that isn't dealt with is transportation.

The

minister says no extraordinary transportation will be provided for

families. There are a very small number of families in this province

where the children are completely dependent on life-sustaining

technologies. The example I would bring to the minister's attention is

ventilator-dependent kids. Those families need the security of their

own transportation. The transportation provided by groups is provided

only for groups of children. It is not secure transportation for

ventilator-dependent children or other children who are dependent on

machinery. I have talked to the minister about this before. There is a

need to recognize that difference, as ICBC has done, for instance.

There is a need for some help for those families specifically. Perhaps

the minister can provide some further information and, I hope, some

comfort to those families.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It seems that we have to listen to 15 minutes of

motherhood on every subject, explaining things we've all known for years.

The member seems to want to get on the record all the things that everyone in

the field knows, especially the professionals in the ministry who deliver the

services. We can drag these estimates out until midnight if we listen to 15

minutes every time we introduce a new topic. I get a little tired of it.

For

this person across the way to say that we are not supporting these kind

of people is totally erroneous. We are leading the way in North America

in our programs for handicapped people. We don't say that

[ Page 8812 ]

lightly,

and we don't say it ourselves. We get told that by other people. In

other countries I've visited in Europe and other places in the world,

we're ahead of most of what they are doing as well.

The

member brought up the program that we announced in Robson Square and

how the people came down and visited with me. Yes, they did. They came

at my invitation. But you say the minister didn't answer this and

didn't answer that, I stayed for about an hour after the press

conference — maybe 45 minutes — and I answered as many

questions as I could before I had to leave. But way beyond that, I've

met with these associations for the last three years. I've met with

every association there is to deal with the handicapped, people

suffering mental illnesses, the profoundly mentally and physically

disabled. The Cabinet Committee on Social Policy has met with them in

every area of the province, which was never done before by any

government, whether it was the three years when we had the socialists

in power or before or since.

The Cabinet Committee on

Social Policy traveled to every corner of this province to listen to

just the kind of people you're talking about. We feel that the program

we introduced that day is an excellent one, and it didn't come about

just because we decided this is the way it's going to be. We consulted

with the B.C. Association for Community Living — formerly British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People — the

Arbutus Society in Victoria here and the Pacific Association for

Autistic Citizens. We consulted with everybody before we put our

program together, and by and large the people involved were more than

pleased with the program. I said the day we introduced it that it isn't

a program that's going to solve everybody's problems. There isn't a

program around that will do that. But it will go a tremendous way to

making a difference in these people's lives.

The member

said they now have to pay for some alterations to their home and

perhaps some transportation, and maybe that's so. But they will now

have a chance to have the disposable income, because we've taken the

burden of looking after the child off them — over $2,000 a month

in some instances. It will free up the necessary funds so they can do

some of the renovations needed in their home themselves, or they can

have it done. It will also allow volunteer groups and agencies in

communities to become involved.

I can't stress too much the

need in our society for volunteer organizations. As I have said, I have

seen societies where the volunteers no longer exist because the state

has moved in and been all things to all people, and it has taken a

great chunk out of the heart of society. Not only that, it has driven

the costs out of sight and placed a burden on their taxpayers that the

taxpayers simply cannot afford.

I wanted to spend a moment talking about that day we were in Vancouver announcing

this program. I wasn't going to, but after listening to the motherhood again

for 15 minutes, I feel compelled to paint a perhaps more accurate picture of

what happened there that day than was portrayed on BCTV. I pick on them particularly

because they have the most powerful newscast in this province and they have

a responsibility to the people. Every night at 6 o'clock when you turn on

BCTVs news, there are 600,000 other people turning on their TV sets to watch

it. It's the most-watched newscast in all of Canada, so they have tremendous

responsibility to the people.

that occasion they did a real disservice to the people of this

province. They've done it on other occasions, but I single out that one

because this was a very significant program announced by the

government, at a cost of nearly $15 million. There were roughly 200

people in that room with their handicapped children. If you could have

seen the looks on their faces, they were overcome with delight, joy and

pleasure for the program, except for one person in the room who was

unhappy, and the cameras happened to zero in on her.

The woman who was unhappy with the program was there with the member opposite —

the same person you brought here and humiliated on the lawns and in

these buildings to get some TV coverage. I don't condemn you for that.

That's your political style. You can do it as you wish. You can drag

the Bonson child and the other ones in here in their wheelchairs, and

you can use your style to do things you wish. But I do criticize BCTV

on this occasion, because they did a real disservice to the province.

They zeroed in on one person in the room who didn't happen to hear

everything she wanted in the program, and that was basically the

substance of what they carried on their news. I watched very carefully

that night. They didn't show the Premier making the announcement. They

didn't show the 200 people in the room or the fact that people were

overjoyed at the program.

But more than that, they did a

disservice because they didn't carry the information. It was a very

significant program where I outlined.... You asked how they are going

to access the program, and I outlined two pages of how we're working

with the families. We're not doing this in isolation. We don't operate

in a vacuum. We're doing it with the families and the organizations,

and I could read into the record two pages of how we're going to

implement this program, if you wished.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I've asked you some specific questions. You're not answering them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : You asked me how we were going to implement this program. Would we be working with the families? I've two pages —

and I said it that day. But none of the good stuff was carried by BCTV

that night. Thankfully, some of the other media did carry the story and

carried it more completely, so the news is getting out. Later I'll be

happy to give this member a copy of how we're going to implement the

program.

I just want to wrap up this little monologue of

mine by saying that we're very proud of the program. I think it's again

leading the way in the country, if not in North America. It's been well

thought out and will

[ Page 8813 ]

be of tremendous benefit to families who have a tremendous cross to bear.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The minister says that each question is introduced by 15 minutes of

motherhood. This is my third session; I'm no longer offended by

comments like that. But I am offended when the minister says that you

know all of the information that I am providing you, and yet I still

cannot get a specific answer from you to specific questions.

[3:45]

I'll go on. The minister says that this is a wonderful program. We

have not yet seen in the Legislature a bill that would correspond with

that program to make the delivery of such programs statutory. The

minister can still mess around with that. The minister can decide next

year that you'll no longer provide that program, much like the

Strengthening the Family program. We saw the vote in the Premier's

estimates last year, great foofaraw, all kinds of publicity, lots of TV

advertising — and I can't find the vote. It's not there this time. Is that what's going to happen to this program?

Very

clearly the families that depend on this kind of service need security

for those children, because the kids cannot afford to be tossed back

and forth from institution to home. Those families cannot afford to

bring those kids home from institutions unless they can be assured that

the programs will have some life-span; they must be assured that those

programs will continue so that they won't have to tell Heather that she

has to go back to an institution because the family can't meet the bill

anymore.

We have a history of that in this province, where

families that have gotten ICBC settlements have gone completely

bankrupt trying to look after their kids at home. Those stories,

unfortunately, are all too common.

I ask a specific

question to the minister, and I won't take 15 minutes to pose it. Are

you considering making those programs statutory at any point in time?

Can you tell us why there was no bill in the Legislature this session

to make the delivery of those services more secure?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

There are two things the member should know. It doesn't require a bill,

because it's covered under the GAIN Act; secondly, we have made a

commitment to those people; thirdly, we've been deinstitutionalizing

people since 1981. We have no intention of putting people back into

institutions. And I repeat: we're leading the western world in that.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

These programs are not statutory requirements in the GAIN Act. That is

why your government could gut the social service network in 1983:

because they were not statutory. You can do it again, because the only

statutory requirement is your crisis management program.

The

minister says that he has a commitment. Again, before leaving this

particular area, the programs are few and far between throughout the

province. They are effectively rationed by long waiting-lists, and for

some programs like the respite program that was announced here, there

is some means test. I use that language in the broadest terms, because

the minister said when announcing the program that there would be an

income test to respite programs. I will be very interested to see the

specifics of that. As far as I know, people haven't seen any specifics.

We've seen nice press releases. We've heard lots of rhetoric, but we

haven't seen much in the way of specifics.

I want to talk

about one specific family. I want to talk about Ryan Bonson. The

minister has met him, and the minister sees what a keen kid he is. I

think the minister would agree that Ryan needs to be in his community.

We are slowly trying to work through that process, and it's not going

to go away until we get Ryan home. I want to tell the minister that

Ryan's not home yet, and I want to make the commitment to the minister

that after the next election when we are government, we will make

certain that there is an invitation to the minister — both the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the Minister of Social Services —

to come and have a welcome home party for Ryan. Even though we have not

seen the progress that I believe we should have seen, I think the

minister's intentions are good. The fact that we have a program in

place now that begins to deal with some of those needs has to be

credited to Ryan and his brave stand.

I have some more

information on Ryan's case. The minister says that community

organizations should provide support. Very few organizations will cover

ventilators, and this is from an expert. The Kinsmen, the Lions and the

B.C. Lung Association will not supply ventilators, feeling that the

government should be involved in supplying these particular items. I am

hoping that this program that the minister indicates will cover medical

supplies and equipment will recognize the need to cover ventilators.

The Variety Club telethon did provide two ventilators. A

ventilator-dependent child needs to have two, because if one breaks

down, there has to be another machine there right away to help that kid.

should be remembered also that the family needs to qualify for

assistance according to their guidelines connected with income. A

maximum net income of $1,600 a month and two children or more in the

family is the general qualifier for a community group to supply this

equipment.

Let's talk about transportation. This is the

most immediate need for Ryan. Ryan will need specific transportation.

Heather Van Egdom, the other child who was here to meet with you, has a

van that was supplied as a given by ICBC. When they were developing the

settlement from that car accident, one of the givens was that this

family is recognized as needing a van, and they got their van. The need

for transportation to transport the child from school, back and forth

from hospital and from medical appointments — there needs to be a

secure mode of transportation. I ask the minister if there is any

progress in that area and if the family can look

[ Page 8814 ]

forward to some support. No community group supplies vans to individuals.

already talked about the need for support for renovations. The federal

government, through grants, supports families who are renovating their

house. There is $5,000 available for people with handicaps to make

their homes more accessible. We need a commitment from the provincial

government to do the same.

Does the minister have any more information on Ryan Bonson's case?

would like to make it very clear that everyone in British Columbia who

received a newspaper on Ryan Bonson's visit knows that the minister

made a commitment to do whatever is necessary to get that little boy

home. We intend to follow through on that. I'll also tell the minister

that is the message I gave Glenda Bonson, Ryan's mother, when she heard

the announcement of your program. I'm just informing the minister that

I brought to Glenda Bonson's attention that you had made that

commitment, that we intend to hold you to it and that she should not be

concerned — she should continue to work through the system,

through the process. It's very hard to keep your resolve going when

you're facing such....

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Let me

just quickly respond to that. I made a commitment to the Bonsons that

we would do everything possible to get Ryan home, and I will live up to

that commitment. I don't make commitments lightly, and when I make

them, I live up to them. But you must bear in mind — just to put it on the record —

that there are many problems in Ryan Bonson's case; you know that. He's

very medically fragile. His family has to be brought up to speed. They

bought a new home, I understand, or they are buying one. It has to be

modified, etc.

You're right, community organizations

shouldn't have to buy ventilators and medical equipment, that's what

this program will do. I didn't infer anything else. Community groups

can help in other ways such as home renovation, transportation, etc.

just want to get it on the record that I made that commitment, and so

did the Minister of Health, that we will do everything in our power to

get Ryan Bonson and others like him.... I've visited many little kids

like Ryan; he's not the only one. I've seen dozens of them, and they

touch my heart very deeply, I can tell you that. I think probably the

most difficult thing in this ministry is dealing with kids who have

tremendous handicaps. It really gets to me deeply. So you have my

commitment, and so does Mrs. Bonson, that we will get Ryan home as

quickly as we can.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I want to be

very brief, but I want to address a question to the minister in

relation to his housing responsibilities. I guess it's a question and a

suggestion. There is no doubt that we have a need for more and

different varieties of housing stock in British Columbia. I think one

of those needs might well be fulfilled by a phenomenon which is old but

which I think is gaining some more recent currency: that is,

constructing on residential lots within cities what we euphemistically

refer to as granny suites. I think there is a tremendous opportunity

for those kinds of units to do a lot of things: to provide housing and

to fulfil some of our policy goals as a society with respect to keeping

families together — and, not coincidentally thereby, providing more housing.

want to commend the minister for pulling together the people from the

private sector in the very innovative way that he has, because I think

they will be able to respond well to some of the needs out there, and

to do so creatively, innovatively and perhaps in a very timely way. I

would ask that the advisory group be asked, if it hasn't been already,

to consider ways in which the ministry could provide some form of

incentive or some other device to encourage municipalities, through

their zoning, to allow for granny suites to be created in residential

areas to provide another form of housing stock, and to do so in a way

that enhances the family unit.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We have asked Mr. Thomas and his advisory group,

made up of some 27 or 28 people, to look at all aspects of providing housing

for all of society — seniors and everyone included. I am sure that they will

look at the proposal that has been tried elsewhere called granny flats, and

if they haven't already, I will make sure that they do so.

you closed your comments, I am sure you are well aware that the final

decision on whether to allow granny flats would be a municipal one, and

one that councils and regional districts would have to deal with. But I

will bring it to their attention.

[4:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I would just like to wrap up the whole area for handicap support for

children, and I would like to bring a couple of cases to the minister's

attention. I again want to state that I don't want to take anything

away from this program. It is well needed. There is a desperate need to

coordinate programs throughout the province — back to my point on the need for family and child services brought under one umbrella.

May the Victoria Handicapped Recreation Society announced that it was

closing its doors. No extra funding was available. They felt they

couldn't continue without permanent funding. Also the government

rejected an increase in funding for handyDART, which was needed to meet

an estimated 20 percent increase in ridership by elderly and

handicapped people.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Rejection of a $300,000 proposal to provide bus services for preschool handicapped children in Vancouver —

that's from the Vancouver-Richmond Association for Mentally Handicapped

People. They say that the rejected budget will mean that some children

will not be able to get to a preschool education.

Families with disabled children will finally receive some assistance for extra costs and respite, but

[ Page 8815 ]

there

is a need to ensure that other programs are not paying for this

particular program. We need a coordinated approach to support families

and children in their communities. Without that, the cost to the

province will be phenomenal, and the cost to families will be

phenomenal.

It's most unfortunate, and I hope that we can

get a commitment from the minister that his estimates next year will be

first up. Then we can do service to some of these very valid, important

concerns that are all too obvious in your ministry.

We have

touched on the issue of program supports for women in the community,

for transition houses, violence and so on. I think there is a need to

recognize another very vulnerable group which needs to be supported in

the work they are doing. Those are the groups that are working for

disabled women; one in particular that I think has a tremendous record

is DAWN.

DAWN provides information, in a survey that they

did of 245 women with disabilities, that 40 percent had been raped,

assaulted or abused, and 64 percent had been verbally abused. They

comment that girls with disabilities have a less than equal chance of

escaping violence. Women with disabilities have little access to

service for victims of violence Women with multiple disabilities are

multiply abused. We need to say that for the record to give voice to

that organization and emphasize to the minister that those programs are

in need of support and recognition for the work they do.

Finally,

I have conducted a bit of a survey myself. This was through the

Canadian Mental Health Association and one group of that organization.

I asked them to provide me with information of concerns that they had

in facing difficulty in servicing their clients I want to share those

concerns with the ministry in the hopes that we will begin to address

some of those concerns.

The organization says that the

majority of people they work with are diagnosed as having

schizophrenia, which is a permanent and often extremely debilitating

illness. In their attempts to deal with these people — many of them are on GAIN for the handicapped —

the organization faces repeated problems. The

interpretation of the

regulations is read in such a way that they are restrictive. It is very

difficult to get these people classified as handicapped. They would ask

the minister to direct the front-line people in such a way that they

don't face that repeated difficulty.

To summarize some of

the concerns around the need for the allowable earnings rate to be

higher and more flexible, to allow for more successful gradual re-entry

into the workforce, people need medical and health benefits in order to

survive. They must be guaranteed that these benefits can be either

retained or provided for when they are not covered by employment.

People must be able to accumulate savings so that they can become

financially self-sufficient.

There are other specifics that

I don't think I necessarily need to read into the record. I think the

minister has heard on several different occasions from groups like this

that there is a need to increase the amount of money to top up income

assistance for the handicapped. I will provide for the minister a

summary of all of their concerns and look forward to a response in

writing. Hopefully that will help to improve that particular system.

would like to talk about the reorganization. I know that other members

want to ask the minister some questions, but I'll just put a couple of

questions to you.

Through the reorganization, Mr. Minister,

where you actually ended up opening different offices, you provided us

with a chart that outlined the number of professionals in each office.

Has there been an increase in clerical support to those offices? It's

my understanding that the clerical support to the field offices has

remained static. That is causing a considerable bottleneck, frustrating

not only the professionals, the people who are trying to provide

service, but also the clients, because the whole paperwork system is so

extensive and takes up so much time that people are perhaps not getting

the service that they should.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The

Victoria Handicapped Recreation Society unfortunately came to us

halfway through the budget year. We are looking at finding a way of

funding their program, but I'm sure the member appreciates that we

cannot fund every program that comes along. There are times when

government has to say no.

We've increased clerical support

by 30. We're also increasing the number of desktop computers to cut

down on the paperwork and give the workers more support in that way.

the other point that you make, Madam Member, I want you to look back in

the Blues from either last year or the year before, or both. The last

two years in this ministry I have gone first in estimates, and I was

criticized by my critic for going first, who said it was too important

and I should have waited. So this year I waited, and now I get

criticized for going last.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Well, I've tried it for the first time this way, and I don't like it. Let's do it first, okay?

Another question.

AN HON. MEMBER : I thought you were finished.

MS. SMALLWOOD : No. We will be finished very soon. As I said, one other member wants to ask a question.

want to close by again stressing the need for a royal commission, both

on income assistance and on services to children and youth. The

resolution that I'm sure has been forwarded to the minister from the

British Columbia Association of Social Workers outlines some of the

concerns that are shared by church groups, by clients of your ministry

and now by the professionals.

[ Page 8816 ]

The

BCASW code of ethics contains a commitment to pursue the goals of

social justice. Because of that commitment, they passed a resolution

that urges the government to establish a royal commission to look at

the entire area of income support programs and to provide public

hearings in communities throughout the province. The guiding principles

of the royal commission include those used by the Ontario Social

Assistance Review Committee in developing new income support more

responsive to the needs of the recipients. The royal commission should

develop a system that mandates client advocacy and the provision of

professional preparation and continuing education opportunities for

staff.

For the component for social services to children

and youth, they ask that the commission examine and make

recommendations with respect to the preventive social services needed

to serve families and children at risk and with respect to specialized

professional services to emotionally disturbed and behaviourally

disordered children; conduct full examination of current structures for

delivery of services to children and youth in view of recommending a

new system designed to avoid fragmentation in service delivery and

promote the concerted collaboration of government ministries, volunteer

agencies, professional disciplines and the services of children and

youth to examine and recommend with respect to the range of advocacy

mechanisms both within and without government to ensure the needs of

children and youth in the province.

I would submit to you,

Mr. Minister, that you have heard from a broad range of interests

throughout British Columbia calling on you to organize a royal

commission looking at the services and the state of families and the

poor in British Columbia. It's been my privilege to again bring them to

your attention, and I add my call to those I have already outlined.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Prior to reorganization in the ministry we did extensive surveys of

clients, staff and community groups, and we will be doing it again soon

to get their opinions on how things are working.

I have a copy of the resolution the member read out. We've had it for a while, and we take it very seriously.

The

other thing is, we're not totally reinventing the wheel here. We are

looking very closely at the Thomson report from Ontario. That was very

extensive, and we're looking at their findings very carefully.

I thank the member for her comments.

MR. BARNES : I know the minister will be pleased to see me take my place, because I'm usually very brief and get right to the point.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : And very good too.

MR. BARNES : He's says I'm very good. I hope he will feel that way after I've made my remarks.

all seriousness, I want to say this about the minister. We've worked

behind the scenes as much as in front in trying to help constituents,

and I've been pleased with the success in doing something constructive

in a very difficult ministry.

There are a couple of

questions I want to ask the minister. The first is: is there an

agreement between your ministry and the Unemployment Insurance

Commission with respect to collecting overpayments to people who were

on UI but are now on social assistance? The reason I ask that question

is that it's my understanding that UI staff are quite energetic and are

in fact encouraged to collect these overpayments from people on social

assistance. While there's no issue with respect to their owing these

moneys, in many instances clearly — and I'm sure the minister would agree —

they have no extra money to make the payments, and that's a problem. As

you may have in your ministry when people are overpaid, there has to be

some special arrangement or consideration with respect to those

repayments.

[4:15]

I raise this because I had a phone call recently from a former

employee who was under so much pressure to collect this money that she

resigned rather than use strong tactics and intimidation to get the

money from people in your ministry who were unable to make payments.

The

other question is with respect to the social assistance workers in the

ministries. I'm not going to mention any of the branches specifically,

but as a registered social worker myself it always disturbs me when I

hear reports of abusive or insensitive comments and treatment with

respect to clients who come to your ministry. I'm sure in many

instances social workers are provoked by some of the characters they

have to deal with, and certainly they're overloaded with caseloads, and

working conditions may not always be conducive to being up every day to

deal with stress and difficulties. Nonetheless, it still disturbs me

when I hear what happened in one specific case where a woman who is a

chronic alcoholic but managed to abstain for about 14 months recently

was given notice when she went off the wagon and found herself drinking

again. She spent the rent money, which was some $400, went back to her

apartment with her room-mate, and when they were unable....

What

happened, to make it quite precise, is that they had the money in the

bank to pay the rent, but the landlord was slow in cashing the cheque,

and during this relapse period the woman spent the money and received

an eviction notice. As of July 19 she had to be out in five days. She

went to the ministry with this story. The ministry is dealing with

matters such as this all the time, and this is why I talk about the

social worker's attitude, which was very abusive and non-confidential.

There were a lot of altercations taking place in the open area where

there were other people listening, and the woman was made to feel less

than deserving of any consideration.

I don't defend her, to the extent that she hadn't exercised the restraint she should have. Nonetheless

[ Page 8817 ]

here

is a typical problem where the ministry reprimands on the one hand and

then tells this person: "Go ahead. When you're evicted, find another

place and we'll give you the first month's rent, we'll pay the security

deposit, we'll help you relocate. But we're not going to intervene in

this eviction." I find that incongruous. It's not rational that they

would probably spend more money to help this person relocate than to

assist them in the place where they are. It's a hard one to handle in

terms of regulations, but it's a human situation. The disturbing thing

is that this woman is obviously sick, because she spent her rent money.

She was very remorseful, very apologetic, and submitted herself to the

ministry, but the ministry wasn't receptive on that particular day. I

think we have to continue to work at these things. It's a very

difficult problem for the social workers, but it's even more difficult,

I feel, for those people who feel that the bureaucracy is not capable

of being human enough to deal with these problems.

Could you address those two questions? I hope you would give the types of answers that we could move that your vote be approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

In answer to the first question, no, we do not have an agreement with

UIC for recovery. Since the Finlay case in Manitoba, which is

now being appealed, we are really not at liberty to recover any

overpayments from anyone on social assistance. The case is being

appealed. Until we hear the results of that appeal, we are not

recovering any overpayments, even if it's our error. That's the whole

other side of it. But we do not have an agreement.

Secondly, I agree with you that no matter how much stress the social worker is under....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : To the best of my knowledge, no, I don't think so.

I do agree with you that no matter how busy a person in government is, whether they're a social worker or not — we all have good days and bad days —

they shouldn't be insensitive to clients. If you know of an instance,

and obviously you do, why don't you give me the name outside of the

House, and we'll deal with it. We'll deal with any staff person who is

less than sensitive to our clients, no matter how troublesome they may

be. We know some of them are very difficult to deal with, and they come

in for crisis grant after crisis grant. There still is no need for less

than humane treatment and for being insensitive. So if you'll tell me

outside of the House, we'll deal with it.

I'm told by my

deputy that you cannot garnishee anyone who is on income assistance.

GAIN, welfare or whatever you want to call it is not garnisheeable.

MR. BARNES :

I just want to say that it seems to me that it would be worthwhile to

communicate that fact to UIC, because they have a policy now where

they're instructing their staff to collect this money aggressively. I

think it's inappropriate. First of all, the money isn't there, and it

just doesn't make sense. I think it would be worthwhile if there could

be some communication on that.

Vote 64 approved.

Vote 65: ministry operations, $1,577,739,736 — approved.

Vote 66: British Columbia home program, $10 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 90.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 90; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. SIHOTA :

I just wonder exactly what the remedy is here. In dealing with the

family and child service provisions and disclosure, what exactly were

you trying to attend to?

HON. S.D. SMITH : There are

a number of reasons. One might be a medical matter; another might be a

situation where, in the superintendent's view, it might be appropriate

that a previous relationship continue. Under (b), in the instance of a

person who is a status Indian, the native community has requested on

several occasions that the information be made available so that

members of bands can be reunited.

MR. SIHOTA : What

was wrong with the current legislation that would prevent individuals

and bands from being reunited? Was there a provision in there that

prevented that from happening?

HON. S.D. SMITH : Yes.

MR. SIHOTA : Was there one in the previous legislation that denied any of this information, or is this something that's totally new?

[ Page 8818 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH : There simply wasn't authority for it.

MR. SIHOTA :

This matter of the superintendent disclosing information under the

first subsection where he considers the disclosure would be in the best

interests of the adopted person.... Is there a process where one makes

an application in that regard or makes submissions as to what may or

may not be in the best interests?

To make the point clear,

I'm thinking of a situation where someone may want to make a submission

after he has ruled that they don't consider it to be in the best

interests.

HON. S.D. SMITH : There will be a process. I don't have it at my fingertips to give to the member.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. SIHOTA :

In dealing with

section 3 of this legislation, was the ability to make

regulations not present in the earlier legislation, or is there

something else we're trying to remedy in terms of cleaning up the

legislation?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I understand that previously there were powers, but this simply cleans it up and makes it more understandable.

MR. SIHOTA : What was the problem with the earlier legislation?

HON. S.D. SMITH : There was some question as to whether the wording provided for assisted adoptions.

MR. SIHOTA : That's fair enough; that answers my questions.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. SIHOTA : Could I get some clarification in terms of what's being requested here, and what the intent of

section 5 is?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

It simply provides for the power to collect interest on taxes being

collected by the municipality on behalf of the Assessment Authority,

but which have not been paid to the Assessment Authority by August 1.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. CLARK :

I gather this is to change something from legislation to regulation. Is

the purpose of this to increase the fees for fur farms?

HON. S.D. SMITH : There's no increase simultaneously provided with it. It is simply to provide the authority for that to be done by order.

[4:30]

MR. CLARK :

In principle it is always better, it seems to me, to have these kinds

of details in legislation rather than regulation. I understand a

concern that putting a fixed fee into legislation may render it

obsolete over time. So if it's going to regulation, and the minister

says there's no change in the fee, it seems to be a completely

redundant section.

The minister says there's no change in

the fee. These three sections seem to be completely redundant. Surely

the government wants the power of order-in-council to raise the fees. I

don't see any other rationale for it. Is there another rationale?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

No. The fees may very well be changed at some time. The rationale is

very simple: it is to provide for that power to be done by regulation

rather than to have to amend legislation.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm not too sure I understand this. Could the minister just explain to me what the. intent here is?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The Crown has vested in it certain riparian rights, be they at the

foreshore — for instance, the right to develop a dock or a wharf or

some access out onto the water, or even to access the water itself in

those locations, which are very few in British Columbia, where you may

have riparian water rights still residual rather than the system of

licensing. What this does is retain for the Crown access to that

foreshore to be able to assert its riparian rights while at the same

time allowing the owner of the property to carry on with its

development.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. CLARK :

These are changes to the Mineral Tenure Act. I'd just ask the minister

to explain precisely what is to be accomplished by these next few

sections.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, 14

clarifies the responsibility of a free miner who locates a claim, and

alters the definition of "mineral" to include the administration of all

industrial minerals under the Mineral Tenure Act. Previously that had

been divided between the Mineral Tenure Act and the Land Act;

industrial minerals were under the Land Act and the rest were under the

Mineral Tenure Act.

Section 15 repeals the current

section 6 and clarifies the rights and responsibilities of a free miner.

[ Page 8819 ]

Section

16 grants free miners and their agents the right of entry to explore

for minerals or for placer minerals. It asserts that more fully.

Section

17 clarifies that a counterclaim may be located on mineral lands which

are already occupied by a claim, and it standardizes the commencement

time for all claims at 7 a.m.

Section 18 provides consistency of wording in the act.

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister could explain what the practical implications

of these changes are, moving the definition from the Land Act to the

Mineral Tenure Act. If that's all it does, that's fine, but it seems to

me that this perhaps enhances the rights of free miners in British

Columbia.

HON. S.D. SMITH : The moving of it out of

the Land Act into the Mineral Act is so that the free miner will deal

with the Mineral Tenure Act and not with the Land Act. It puts it in

one spot, so they know their rights and responsibilities, and they can

look to one piece of legislation to determine what they should do or

what they cannot do.

MR. CLARK : I guess the question

is whether there's something in the Land Act that free miners object

to, or something that this facilitates, or whether it is essentially a

bureaucratic change which simply moves it over to the Mineral Tenure

Act and has no practical significance for free miners.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Very much not a bureaucratic change; it's a wonderful expression of the

notion that we should only put in one simple piece of legislation that

which miners might have to look at in order to know their rights and

responsibilities. So when you're out staking your claims and grubbing

around for mineral, you will only carry your Mineral Tenure Act around

in your mackinaw pocket and not the Mineral Tenure Act and the hugely

complicated Land Act.

Sections 14 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

MR. CLARK : I wonder if the minister could simply explain the practical significance of this amendment.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I'll defer to the Solicitor-General, whose legislation this is.

HON. MR. REE :

It's quite simple really. It's felt that the present timely appeal

period is too short a period for someone making an appeal to a decision

of the director, and it's extending it to 30 days. Also, it's moving

the payment of fees to the appeal board because it has its own budget.

It's more of a bookkeeping legislative amendment than anything else.

MR. PERRY :

Just one brief question for the Solicitor-General. Does this

section

have any implications for the unauthorized possession of videos such as

the AIDS video from the Ministry of Health? Would it have implications

for the display of the video in the Legislature which occurred a couple

of weeks ago?

HON. MR. REE : I think if the member

would read the original

section in the legislation plus this amendment,

he would see no reference to that at all. It's dealing with an appeal

procedure and has nothing to do with any videos.

MR. PERRY : I may be confusing the section. It's perhaps in 25 or 26. Maybe he could comment on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We can only comment on that when we get to it.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

MR. SIHOTA : I take it there's no search warrant or anything like that —

that you can just go in and seize. Is that the way it works, or is this

tied in with some search warrant provision? It allows someone to go in

there and, I take it, seize any adult film. I take it you must define

adult film, but you don't have to get a search warrant or anything, do

you?

HON. MR. REE : The general law will apply on

this, but at the moment the only method of seizure of any tapes is by

the laying of a charge or seeking a civil injunction. It's

time-consuming and expensive and quite often the evidence may have

disappeared. The notes I have here are: to provide authority to seize

approved adult motion pictures and video from an unlicensed distributor

or retailer; someone that is not licensed. Currently the only methods

for proceeding against unlicensed persons are to charge them with an

offence or to seek a civil injunction. Both these remedies, as I

stated, are costly and time-consuming and therefore not very effective.

A problem arises in adult videos being distributed in family video

outlets, and the proposed amendments are limited to those situations.

MR. SIHOTA :

What are you trying to remedy here? Are you saying you just never had

that authority before, or that you had the authority but you had to go

to court and so now you'd just like to get it? Then, if someone wants

to take issue with you, they'll take you to court as opposed to you

having to take them to court. Is that basically how you expect it to

work now?

HON. MR. REE : One of the difficulties that

have been experienced is the police not being as readily available,

shall we say, or as interested in prosecution in this type of offence

where we have some retailer with a family licence distributing adult

movies. In

[ Page 8820 ]

those

situations this will make it simpler for the staff of the motion

picture branch to do the seizures. In essence, it's mainly in respect

to a breach of licence where one doesn't have the licence to sell the

product or distribute it.

MR. SIHOTA : I have a situation in my riding — which the minister may or may not be aware of right now —

in the municipality of Esquimalt where individuals in that community

have video stores. They have now made application to set up booths

where one can walk in, pay a fee and watch the film. You can also — and I could be mistaken on this part — preview a video prior to its acquisition.

Needless to say, there's a lot of concern in the community — I think correctly, because the material is sexually explicit —

and the view, which I concur with, is that this type of material ought

not to be made available in these types of stores in that fashion.

Certainly part of the concern is that it's degrading to women. That's

not what we're trying to remedy here by this section, but there's a

concern that there is very little one can do through the regulatory

process through law to try to prevent this type of thing from

happening, and you get into real extenuated debates about whether you

can grant people business licences.

Really, the problem

isn't with business licences granted municipally; the problem lies at

the provincial level in terms of regulation of this kind of stuff and

seizing of the material if indeed there's no licence. I am just

wondering, in the case of one of your standard licensed video stores

that exist in the community, would this

section apply to allow you to

seize the material that is being shown in the booths or do you have to

require a licence first under the Motion Picture Act to even show the

stuff in booths? Then this

section would only deal with it if you

hadn't got your licence and you're showing it in a booth.

Does

it deal with the situation that I am raising, which is people that have

a booth and don't have a licence to show movies but have a business

licence to sell a pornographic video? I don't know if that remedies the

situation. If it does, I would welcome it, because there is quite a

concern in my community about it. If you don't know, that's fair enough

too.

HON. MR. REE : I concur with the concern of the

member. I have the same concerns with respect to these outlets that

have the secluded booths and what not. I believe this would certainly

allow the seizure of videos that are not approved by the director, or

if the establishment has not been licensed for adults and they were

displaying adult films, it would allow the seizure of the adult films.

[4:45]

What you're looking for is possibly in the next amendment. It would

not completely answer your concern, but it might go a little along the

way. I don't know just how far that next amendment could be applied to

booth situations.

MR. PERRY : Can I just briefly

rephrase that question I put earlier, which appears to apply more to

section 25(2). Would this have any implications for the non-commercial

demonstration of a video like the AIDS video, such as was held in the

Legislature recently? Can the minister clarify that for me? Because in

reading the language here, it implies that anyone authorized may seize

any film that he believes will be exhibited and has not been approved.

Reading that with the layman's eyes, it appears that it might apply to

a film like the Colin James AIDS video. Can you clarify that that is

not the case?

HON. MR. REE : I know the second member

for Point Grey has an inordinate interest in the distribution of

condoms and that sort of thing, and I can appreciate that him asking

this question before.... He does so at any opportunity to raise the

issue.

It would not be restricted unless that film was

being licensed for retail commercial purposes. Then if it was licensed

it would be fine, but if it was an unlicensed one for educational

purposes, as it is, this

section would not apply.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

section 27.

MR. LOVICK :

I remember vividly that it was only a very short time ago, in 1988,

that we had the Privatization Benefits Fund Act introduced, and some of

us on this side of the House at the time wondered whether that had been

done with indelicate haste and whether the ministry perhaps knew

entirely what it was about. Curiously, we now discover an amendment to

that act. Apparently what was done with great care and concern and

great understanding was inadequate, and therefore we have this

amendment brought before us less than a year later.

The

obvious question to pose is why is this amendment offered? What is

intended, then, by changing it, by altering the process in terms of

when those moneys should be returned to general revenue?

am sorry the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) isn't here to

answer the question, but to the Attorney-General: what is the reason

for this change? It is passing strange to us that there should be a

need for a change in this short period of time.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I agree entirely with the first member for Nanaimo that this

legislation was, indeed, fetched in 15 or so months ago with great care

and much concern and reflecting an inordinate amount of due diligence

that had been done to perfect and bring the best possible legislative

package before members here that was then available. But even as we had

all opined about the excellence of that legislation in this chamber, we

have been able to improve upon it. As difficult as that is to imagine,

given how excellent it was when it came in, indeed it can be improved

upon.

So what we are doing here is simply providing.... For instance, if a fund or an investment is in a certain

[ Page 8821 ]

form

and the time provided by the current legislation to move it to

consolidated revenue fund comes about, you can, in fact, leave it in

that form of investment, because it may very well be attracting a

better rate or a better return for the taxpayer. That's all it does. It

allows you to maintain that flexibility so you can preserve the asset

in a form that attracts the best return for the taxpayer.

MR. LOVICK :

Of course, we on this side have no argument with the logic of that.

What I would point out to the Attorney-General, however, is: where was

that logic 15 months ago? Are you telling us that at that time you

weren't thinking about the best interests of the taxpayer? I can't

resist making the point, Mr. Attorney, and I'm sure you will appreciate

that you are, indeed, hoist by your own logical petard and you will

grant to all of us in this House that perhaps the original legislation

was not as carefully crafted or as well thought out as it ought to have

been.

With that, Mr. Chairman, we'll let that

section pass.

MR. CLARK :

I'm just moved to respond. I might note, for the benefit of the House,

that what the government has done with the finances is something that

we've discussed at great length. I won't take the opportunity to do

that today, except to say that what this amendment does is allow the

government to retain any theoretical earnings — or real earnings — of

the privatization fund in the fund until it becomes politically more

desirable for them to extract from the fund and put moneys into an

election fund or anything of that manner.

What this does is

gives the government another handle. The government said: "We're not

going to spend the capital on the privatization benefits fund." But

what they can do now is retain the earnings in the fund and then take

them all out, say, a couple of months before an election, or something

like that, and use them for whatever they deem fit.

This

gives the government more flexibility, as the Attorney-General said, to

use the fund in what they deem as their best political interest. Let's

be honest. What is the fund for? It's simply an attempt to convince

people that there are benefits to privatization — that no one is convinced of. It's an attempt to use the funds — the capital, the selling-off of the assets of British Columbia —

for current-day expenditures, for current-day programs, for election

programs to try and get them elected. That's what it's all about.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Gracious me, Mr. Chairman I've never seen that

cynical side of the second member for Vancouver East before. I'm surprised.

I can only add that perhaps we could have got this improvement in the legislation

15 months ago if legislators, if all of us.... That is our job, and we see legislation

as making suggestions for improvement, and we worked hard on this legislation.

There was a lot of debate. I don't recall the first member for Nanaimo at

that time, among the many improvements he had, suggesting this one. Perhaps

he did.

The

second member for Vancouver East is on the wrong tack. It's very

simple. It provides an opportunity for the taxpayers to get the best

rate of return, because it provides the authority to preserve the

assets, the investment, in a form that attracts the best return to the

taxpayer. It's that simple and that complicated.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I don't want to prolong this debate. This, after all, is one of the

most innocuous proposed amendments and hardly justifies lengthy

discussion. However, I do think it's very important for us to put on

the record for the House that, contrary to the misleading comments by

the second member for Vancouver East, the privatization benefits fund

is the morally correct and fiscally responsible way to record the

proceeds of privatization in public accounts.

The effect of

this is to ensure that every single generation of British Columbians

receives a benefit from the decision to privatize. That's contrary to

the principle that has been applied in every other jurisdiction that I

know of, which has taken the proceeds of privatization and used them to

balance a current year's budget.

I have sat in this House

and heard irresponsible comments by members of the opposition, in which

they allege that we have been using smoke and mirrors to deal with

public accounts, and that we are misrepresenting the actual statement

of affairs of public business in a financial sense. I can tell the

House categorically that the best refutation of that misrepresentation

by the opposition is the existence of the privatization benefits

account.

That is the very proof that this administration is

dedicated to not using smoke and mirrors in terms of using public

money. When we say we are going to balance the budget, we do it without

using proceeds from privatization in any one fiscal year. That is the

fiscally responsible way to report public expenditures and public

revenues, Mr. Member. This government is very proud of the fact that we

are the only jurisdiction that I am aware of in the western world that

has had that sense of moral integrity and disciplined mental approach

in terms of how we husband public money, and in terms of how we manage

it.

We are the only jurisdiction that has shown that kind

of leadership. It's about time, on the eve of this House adjourning for

the session, that the members opposite had the generosity of heart to

at least concede that this method of dealing with the proceeds of

privatization.... Irrespective of how it's calculated, the principle

established by the existence of this bill and this fund I think speaks

for itself. It puts the lie to all of the misrepresentations that we've

heard over the last four months in this House about how public money is

managed.

MR. CLARK : I won't be drawn into debate on the government's finances at this late date, but I want

[ Page 8822 ]

members

of the House to know what the minister says is an innocuous clause

does. The previous Privatization Benefits Fund Act required by law that

the interest on that fund went into general revenue.

This

gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the option of not putting it

into the general revenue and then, at a later date, taking out more of

the money into general revenue.

It does allow them not to

take it out for a period of time and then, just before an election, to

draw out all of the accrued earnings to use for electoral purposes.

That's what this innocuous little

section does.

MR. LOVICK : The only place in the western world.

MR. CLARK :

This is the only place in the western world that has a BS fund and a

privatization benefits fund, and that minister