1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3791 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Enterprise Corporation, Mr. Williams –– 3791

NDP pamphlet on Coquihalla. Mr. Michael –– 3793

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Mr. Harcourt –– 3793

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

Mr. Richmond)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 3794

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Marzari

ML Peterson

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Over the years we have had the British Columbia Youth Parliament meet

in the House from time to time. They are the future leaders of our

province and indeed the future leaders of our country. In the gallery

today, from the great constituency of Burnaby–Willingdon, is the deputy

speaker of the British Columbia Youth Parliament, Mr. Ian Martin. Would

the House please bid him welcome.

MR. BARNES : It

gives me great pleasure to introduce some 14 students from the Urban

Native Indian Education Centre in Vancouver, along with their

coordinator Mr. Stan de Mello and instructor Ken Woodsworth. On behalf

of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), I would ask

the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER :

I'm making an introduction today on behalf of my colleague the member

for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), who is unable to be here today.

the House today we have Mr. Bob Porter and Vicki O'Brien from Crown

Forest Products; with them from Sir Alexander Mackenzie Secondary

School at Bella Coola are Miss Jill Harter and nine students. Please

make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS : I have two friends

in the gallery today, and I'd like the House to join me in welcoming

these two people who have shown a long-term commitment to and interest

in the political welfare of the province: Harry and Evelyn Mathias from

Cranbrook.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Yesterday this House

was honoured by the visit of Premier Bourassa of Quebec. Accompanying

the Premier were some people who have stayed over and are in the House

today. Once again I would like to welcome Mr. Yves Merzisen, the

president, and Marie Bourgeois, the vice-president of la Federation des

Franco-Colombiens, accompanied by Mr. Marc Roy and Aline Chalifoux, all

related to the same organization. Will the House please give them a

warm welcome.

MR. PARKER : In the House today are

guests from the north and the central interior. I'd like the House to

make welcome Alice Chen-Wing from Terrace and Whitey Anderson from

Williams Lake, who are joining us in the gallery today. Make them

welcome, please.

MR. SIHOTA : In the gallery today is

a strong New Democrat who has been actively involved and chairs our

legal and justice affairs committee. If the first member for Vancouver

South (Mr. R. Fraser) doesn't watch it, he will soon be replaced by

this young gentleman; that's Mr. Jeff Hoskins. Members of the House,

please join me in welcoming Mr. Hoskins.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, before we start question period, the Chair

wishes to direct the attention of hon. members to the provisions of standing

order 73 relating to the presentation of petitions. In all cases care should

be taken to ensure compliance with standing order 73, as petitions not being

in proper form may not be received by the House. Hon. members presenting petitions

must satisfy themselves that the standing order has been complied with, and

members presenting petitions are answerable that they do not contain improper

matter.

The

table officers may be consulted in relation to proposed petitions, and

assistance will be given to the hon. members. There is no debate

allowable in the presentation of a petition. Members in the

presentation of a petition may read the prayer and make a statement as

to the parties from whom it comes, the number of its signatures and

only its material allegations.

The Chair hopes that this

statement may be of assistance to hon. members, and that they will

always take cognizance of standing order 73.

Oral Questions

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Economic Development. Peter Brown, the chairman of

B.C. Enterprise, learned of the Toigo meeting ahead of the meeting. He

refused to go. Did Mr. Brown not advise the minister of the meeting at

that time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I already made it clear in this House yesterday that I was not advised by anybody of the meeting to which the member refers.

MR. WILLIAMS : Did Kevin Murphy, the CEO, not advise the minister either then?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I don't know how many times the hon. member for Vancouver East has to

be told the answer to the same question. I want to make it clear to the

hon. member that I was not aware through the office of anyone that a

meeting was taking place, and I heard about the meeting the following

day.

MR. WILLIAMS : You heard of the meeting the

following day, Madam Minister? Could you explain why your concern about

this was so delayed until last week when it appeared that you met with

the Premier to express your concern about the meeting? Why is your

timing, Madam Minister, so delayed and so delicious?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

The hon. member is assuming that any expression I would have over any

meeting was only expressed in the recent hours, this last week or two

weeks. That's not true. But then the hon. member can never be accused

of accuracy and is constantly asking questions that are not only based

on assumptions that aren't correct but has done the same thing again

today.

MR. WILLIAMS : Could the minister advise the House when she met with Li Ka-shing?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I think I had the first meeting sometime last year — probably in the

spring — when the interest of Mr. Li in investing in the province of

British Columbia came to my office, not in any specific investment but

in other and many economic development projects. May I say that I was

pleased to hear of the interest in Mr. Li's investment in British

Columbia, because for some 16 or 17

[ Page 3792 ]

years

now, his corporation has had an investment in this province, and I

think that all British Columbians have benefited in those years from

his investment.

MR. WILLIAMS : And you met again,

presumably, with Mr. Li Ka-shing in Hong Kong. Did you ever meet with

Jack Poole of Bell Canada Enterprises regarding his proposals?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : The member is asking about proposals. When he says "his proposal," will he identify what proposal he is speaking of?

MR. WILLIAMS : The group based in Vancouver, which Mr. Poole headed, put forth proposals with respect to Expo lands, as we understand it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I have never suggested that Mr. Poole, Mr. Li, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith or

anyone else is bidding for B.C. Place lands. I have never named the

bidders; I have never said how many bidders there are. And to this date

I will not confirm any and I stand by that commitment; I will not be

doing so.

MR. WILLIAMS : Would the minister confirm that she met with Mr. Li Ka-shing recently, which was subsequent to proposals?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to meet with Mr. Li in Hong Kong on a

recent Asian visit and also very many of his principals regarding

business interests. At this very present time in this week, the

culmination of some of those proposals, which have nothing to do with

the B.C. Enterprise Corporation whatsoever, is coming to fruition even

as I speak. I am pleased to tell you that we think it will result in an

investment in the province in a subsidiary company of Mr. Li's.

I'm

not free to share that with the House until it is all put together, but

I was very happy to speak of various concerns that we have in terms of

development and job creation in the province of British Columbia. I did

so with Mr. Li; I did so with many Hong Kong business people; I did so

with many Japanese business people on the same trip; I did so with many

Korean business people on the same trip. It is consistent with this

government's international trade policies and its Asia-Pacific outreach

to make sure that this province realizes its great potential in

Asia-Pacific.

MR. WILLIAMS : Again to the Minister of

Economic Development. No answer regarding the meetings with Jack Poole;

many meetings with Li Ka-shing. Is it any wonder the Premier doubted

the validity of your so-called pure process, Madam Minister?

Madam

Minister, you say you're concerned about the leaks with respect to this

exercise. If you're so concerned, have you requested an investigation

as to how the leaks occurred?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : The answer to the question which was posed is no.

May

I just make a comment about what the hon. member is saying about the

Premier "doubting the validity." I haven't heard the Premier doubting

the validity of the process whatsoever. In fact, our Premier has stated

— and I'm very pleased to say so on the floor of this House — that he

upholds the process and has done, and has supported BCEC both prior to

and during the publicity that has been emanating about B.C. Enterprise

Corporation these last few days.

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Minister of Economic Development: did you advise the Premier that Mr. Toigo was going to Hong Kong to see Li Ka-shing?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

That's a matter of public record; so did the Premier. The Premier has

already confirmed that publicly, and that's no surprise to any of us.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's not clear who the source was.

the Premier, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the meeting between Mr. Toigo

and BCEC, a new proposal to take over the whole Enterprise Corporation,

not just a bid for the Enterprise lands.... Did you consider getting an

overall bid from anybody other than Mr. Toigo?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

It's not a matter of getting or considering a bid; it's a citizen of

the province — or anyone, for that matter — who's aware of the

privatization process obviously considering an opportunity that exists

with respect to a part of that which we proposed to privatize. But if

the inference is that somehow — and I've heard this said many a time;

obviously there's been much reporting about that in the last week — Mr.

Toigo, a British Columbian, a man who has considerable business

interests and, incidentally, who employs, I think, 3,000 to 3,500

people, was somehow given preferential treatment, then I would suggest

that my understanding of preferential treatment is very different from

what the NDP view it to be. If I or someone had given him information,

I suppose that could be considered preferential treatment. But to

arrange an appointment is certainly not preferential treatment. It's

something due every British Columbian wanting to do business with their

government or their agencies of government.

Frankly, I am

not at all ashamed of the fact that someone in British Columbia is

aware of what the economy of this province is doing — the progress

that we're making, the tremendous strides we've made during 1987 and

continue to make in 1988. Instead of investing in Germany, in Holland,

in the United States or elsewhere in the world, they're wanting to

invest in this province. It speaks well for our province. It shows that

we're doing the right things. I would encourage all British Columbians

to come forth and participate in the privatization process.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The Premier confirms that he did for Mr. Toigo what he did for no one

else: provided access regarding the whole package, subverted the whole

bidding process for a man that wanted inside information. That's what

he did. Don't you know what insider information is about, Mr. Premier?

Especially for your friends? I ask you, Mr. Premier: what kind of hold

does Mr. Toigo have on you.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The question is out of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Well, Mr. Speaker, can I respond to his statement? Because I could talk

about the flipping of condominiums and the purchase of pubs.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I think both members.... This House can only operate if we have free

[ Page

3793 ]

speech, and I would hope that both sides would appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Could the Premier advise the House if there was any professional review

of Mr. Toigo's proposal to take over the whole Enterprise Corporation

for at least half of its value, and throw in the stadium for good

measure? My God! Was there any professional review of his proposal in

his letter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We do have a

number of processes, in that we're selling, through a process, the Expo

lands. We have other lands that are a part of the B.C. Enterprise

Corporation holdings. They'll also be sold, either as a package or as

individual pieces; that's yet to be decided. Similarly, there are other

things available in the privatization process which will be for sale

initially to employees, if they wish to participate, or otherwise to

those who would like to make an offer on some part of this.

This

particular proposal that's referred to here was received, and it was

decided immediately that there was already a process in place with

respect to the lands and that we hadn't decided yet as to how we would

best dispose of the other lands.

NDP PAMPHLET ON COQUIHALLA

MR. MICHAEL :

I have a question for the Premier. There was recently a pamphlet with a

red front page distributed by certain members of the NDP containing

quotes from the Leader of the Opposition. One headline states:

"Coquihalla: Chronology of Corruption." Has the Premier examined this

pamphlet, and is he considering libel action pertaining to those false

statements?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I happen to have

that brochure with me, and I would like to put the hon. member from

Revelstoke's mind at ease. It says: "Coquihalla: Chronology of

Corruption." But the first headline in this red brochure is lies, so I

think that well explains what the NDP are attempting to spread

throughout this province through the use of this type of material. Mr.

Speaker, this is despicable material; it's garbage, garbage and more

garbage — NDP socialist garbage!

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, we'd like to know who's in charge here: the Minister of

Economic Development, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, the

Premier's office or Peter Toigo. That's what we're trying to find out

here today. You want apologies. You don't have to apologize to Mr. Li,

Mr. Premier. You apologize to the people of British Columbia; that's

who you should be apologizing to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like

to ask the Premier to address the public's deep concerns about the role

of his office in the disposal of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation's

lands. To assure that the public's interest is being taken care of and

protected, would the Premier now agree to a full public inquiry into

all the BCEC proceedings to date?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I would have to say as I sit here

and observe, as all of the columnists have done in the last several days after

the NDP convention in Vancouver: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you lack leadership.

You don't have it. Obviously you can't tell leadership when you see

it because you don't know what leadership is all about.

can assure you that we are in the midst of a very good process which

will, as part of the overall privatization of this government, result

not only in a booming and sound economy as we see it today, but a sound

and secure economy for British Columbians that will last and last. You

may be sitting there to watch it from the sidelines.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer questions posed in this House

yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver East and taken on notice.

The

questions posed by the member for Vancouver East yesterday were

regarding land transactions carried out by the British Columbia

Enterprise Corporation in Coquitlam. As the member is aware, the

current holdings of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation are extensive, and

it was necessary for me to get the specific information on the

transactions to which he referred.

I want to reiterate, as

I have before, that the sale processes are approved by the board and

carried out by open tender in a manner consistent with the public sale

of government lands, and this has always been consistent government

policy.

I must say that the questions yesterday displayed a

most unfortunate ignorance of the development process, and I hope that

in responding to those questions today I can help this member

understand a bit about the process. Certainly the example he has chosen

illustrates very well the reasons why this government believes that

development properly belongs in the private sector.

The

question yesterday by the member pertained to the market value of two

parcels of land. Let me just give you the value, and I want to mention

that those two points were to do with the Riverview development, which

is on the corporation's books as an agreement for sale and purchase,

with a value of $9 million; the Westwood property is on the books for

$1.6 million.

In answer to that question, the member asked

if I would confirm that the value on the books of the B.C. Enterprise

Corporation for the Westwood property is $1. I am sure the member is

aware that this was simply a nominal value used for the purpose of

transferring the property to the responsibility of the Crown

corporation when those Crown corporations had transfers of property

last year. What he may not understand is that the book value is of no

consequence in what we are seeking in our sale of these assets, because

we are seeking the full market value in the sale of these assets, which

has no relation to book.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, for those not aware, the development process is one

where investors risk their resources to convert raw land into serviced

lots and ultimately residential units. To do so they must construct

both on- and off-site services; they must obtain appropriate

subdivision and zoning; they have to manage all associated legal,

engineering and administrative services and market; and ultimately they

have to market and sell the product. This is all unserviced, unzoned,

undeveloped raw land, and this member is trying to take that

unserviced, undeveloped, raw land and compare oranges with apples to

make a point for the member for Vancouver East. It all takes time for

that developer, it takes financing, and over time it takes an

additional cost. For this cost, for this

[ Page 3794 ]

investment, the developer ultimately can expect a return on the investment of time and money.

This

is not a business which this government believes it should be in. It is

not a business we feel should be undertaken by government agencies —

taking risks with taxpayers' money. It belongs in the private sector

where the skills already exist and the capital at risk is private

capital. By selling land at market value, British Columbia Enterprise

Corporation is returning this opportunity to the private sector, while

still obtaining good value for the taxpayer who owns the resource.

Now

let me get to the Fuchsia Place parcel to which the hon. member

referred. The Fuchsia Place parcel to which he referred is an excellent

illustration of what I have just said — the principle that government

should stay out of the development business. The property was purchased

in 1986 for $474,000. The new owners then installed both major trunk

servicing and on-site servicing, and brought the lots to market at an

additional cost of $644,000. This means that their total cost per lot

averaged $43,000. The finished lots have been marketed to independent

home builders for $51,000, for a profit in the order of 20 to 25

percent, which is a reasonable expectation for the time and risk

involved. In fact, it may well be that they may never sell all of the

lots; in fact, at this point the developers have yet to sell all of the

lots, as opposed to what the hon. member stated yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. A point of order.

MR. ROSE : Are you going to sit down, or what? There's only one person who has the floor here at a time.

Mr.

Speaker, I've been dazzled by the minister's explanation, but surely in

question period we do have a limit on questions and answers, and

certainly to seize upon a question taken on notice to make a speech,

using arguments and justifying positions and setting out whole

philosophical stratagems, is abusing the business of the question on

notice.

Now really it is a ministerial statement, and if

the minister wishes to make a ministerial statement so we can respond

over here in kind, we would welcome that.

I didn't rise

earlier, because I thought somehow this thing would tail off and die of

its own volition. I was concerned about attempting to muzzle the

minister, if that were possible. That's exactly why I didn't rise

earlier. But it has gone on and on, and I must object that if we're to

have ministerial statements disguised as questions on notice, then the

right of response should be guaranteed to the opposition.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks

about an extensive answer. I refer him to yesterday's Blues, where we

have two pages of questions on this issue posed by the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). All of the questions were taken as

notice by the minister, which is appropriate, and now the minister is

answering those questions. The questions were extensive; they were all

taken as notice, as a reference to the Blues will indicate; therefore

the answers outside of question period will be extensive as well.

MR. SPEAKER :

I thank both the members for their input. The Chair does respect the

fact that the questions yesterday were extensive, through the whole

question period. Quite often, hon. members, in question period the

Chair would not allow answers of this type, but a lot of questions

taken as notice would ordinarily be put on the order paper, where you

would get extensive answers. I think the minister has to have some

latitude in these questions, but I would hope that she would be as

brief as possible so that the House could continue with its regular

business.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I was hoping, in

bringing the answers outside of question period, that I was not denying

the opposition time within the question period. I felt I was being

respectful of the House and the opposition in this regard.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the developers have yet to sell all these lands. In

fact, they've not yet even recovered their costs — a fine example of

the risk associated with this type of development. What they have done,

however, is taken raw land, used their own capital, and brought it to a

fully serviced stage to independent builders who will now invest

between $2.5 million and $3 million in construction, with all the

economic activity it brings to the construction industry.

The

hon. member referred to this process as a "flip," a term that refers to

resale of property without improvement, without any value added. I

would hope that he simply does not understand the terminology, as he is

otherwise insulting a fine company whose hard work and investment risk

have generated a great deal of value and economic activity, with only a

very reasonable potential profit for their efforts — and that yet to be

realized.

Perhaps the opposition believes, and perhaps this

member believes, that we should be in the business of competing with

these small developers. We don't. We don't believe we should risk

taxpayers' dollars. It is government policy, and the member — I would

like to finish my remarks by saying this — was positively insulting to

the people in the development business. He has not insulted this

government or the process under which we sell lands in this province;

he has been positively insulting to small business and small developers

who are putting their risk dollars on the line in order to create jobs

and investment in this province. Mr. Speaker, I will uphold their case

anytime against the one the member made yesterday.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 61: minister's office, $224,319.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, when we, as members of government and opposition, are

fulfilling our stewardship with regard to our concern for the way in

which the public resource is being used, I think there is no more

difficult area in terms of the sensitivities involved than that of

family and child services.

As the minister has

appropriately pointed out, often where there are child custody

situations, we're dealing with material so intimate and confidential

that one hesitates to even raise such issues. One hesitates because one

is dealing

[ Page 3795 ]

with

matters of pain for people out there in the community. They are matters

that perhaps cause all of us to say: "There but for the grace of God go

I."

So it's with great trepidation that I raise an issue reported in Sunday's Vancouver Province

in an

article by Don Hunter. I'm sure the minister and deputy minister

will know the case of which I speak; it concerns two children in the

Golden area.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the situation,

there was a family court decision made to take a three-year-old girl

and four-year-old boy from foster parents and to re-place them with

their family. I would not want anything I say to suggest that I

categorically do not want to see children returned to their families;

of course, I want to see such happy reunions take place. But there were

details that came out with regard to this story that are indeed

disturbing and that support contentions I have made ever since I've

been a critic in this portfolio, as have my predecessors in this

portfolio, that there are some very serious problems out there in terms

of the delivery of family and child services, the processes of

monitoring, the workload of the people who work in that field, and that

this has resulted in some very distressing circumstances.

understand, Mr. Chairman, that prior to the court rendering a decision

with regard to these two youngsters, certain documents, which had been

prepared by ministry personnel, were reviewed. But the report in the

Vancouver Province states

that a key report on the children's condition was omitted from the

court documents submitted by Social Services officials who supported

the parents' application. The key document was omitted. That has been

reported, and I have not seen any response to that on the part of

ministry officials. But if that is the case, we are dealing with an

extremely serious situation. Certain questions would be raised because

of that situation, one of which would be: why was the document omitted?

Another would be that I understand the individual appointed by the

ministry to be the child advocate did not make a presentation to the

court. I'm quoting from the Province

now: "He simply told the judge he was not opposed to returning the

children to their parents." I understand that the journalist who was

covering this story has made several phone calls and has been trying —

appropriately, in covering a matter that is of public concern — to

follow this up, but phone calls to the person who failed to make a

submission at that court hearing apparently have not been returned.

would point out also that a Dr. Wilson, an expert who was one of the

people who had knowledge of this case, a person who is subject to

medical ethics in terms of the way in which he carries out his work, is

reported to have written a private letter to the court opposing the

return of the children and calling the notion bizarre.

[2:45]

do understand, as I said before and as the minister has said — and as I

know he will say when he responds to me — that we're dealing with a

very sensitive issue which precludes comment with regard to the

specifics of the situation, but that does not preclude specifics with

regard to the process. I believe the public has a right to hear about:

1) the process that's being followed; and 2) what is being done within

the ministry to improve the process so that the alarming number of

incidents of this type of situation — believe me, there are other

instances we can cite — are diminished as much as possible.

I'll

be saying more later about the number of such instances and some of the

measures that have been addressed in the past to begin on this sort of

thing, but I want to ask the minister at this time whether he would

inform this House with regard to the process that is being followed to

resolve this situation within the ministry. I would also ask him

whether he has undertaken a high-level investigation of this case and

whether the information coming forth from such a high-level

investigation will be made available — at least tabled in this House —

so that those of us who have responsibility for the monitoring of the

way in which the people's resource is administered will be able to

review how that process is being handled. I say that in the context of

a House that has a Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and

Social Services which has met only once — to elect a chairperson. We do

have instruments, I would remind the minister, whereby we can put our

best thinking together in order to do our job and to address such

issues.

I would like the minister to comment specifically

on the process with regard to the case that I've cited and on the

measures being taken so that this sort of thing will not continue to

happen with the frequency with which it has been happening.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

To answer the member as best I can, first, he says that this is an

extremely serious situation. Any case where there is child apprehension

and placement is an extremely serious situation. As he said — and I

agree with him — probably the most delicate area that any ministry of

government gets into is the well-being of children, and determining

whether or not they are at risk and then taking the appropriate action

to make sure that they are removed from any risk. I hasten to point

out, however, that the final decision in all of these cases is made by

the courts, not by the social worker or the supervisor. They make the

initial decision, but the final decision is made by the courts of the

province, and it will always be thus.

We are concerned, Mr.

Member, that we are doing the correct thing every time we apprehend a

child and take them into care, or whether we return them to their

family. We're concerned to the extent that we have an ongoing internal

investigation into these matters. We have a branch of the ministry

called inspections and standards; they are an internal investigation

team, and, as other internal investigation teams, they are very tough

and impartial, and they do an excellent job in letting us know whether

our people are doing their job. So I can assure this House and the

member that we will continue to monitor all of these situations and to

investigate them thoroughly.

This is one of the reasons why

we're reorganizing the ministry and changing the supervisory level. We

are concerned enough that we felt we could do a better job with a

restructuring of the ministry — so we are doing just that.

this specific case, I have asked for a report back as to whether there

was information omitted from the court case of which he speaks. I again

point out to the House and this minister that the decision to place the

children back with their parents was made by the courts, not by us. But

if there was information missing from that trial or that court

submission, then we want to know that. So we have asked for a report

back. When I obtain that information, I'll be pleased to share it with

the member. But beyond that, I don't wish to comment on this specific

case.

MR. CASHORE : I do understand and appreciate that ongoing internal investigations take place within the minis-

[ Page 3796 ]

try,

just as I understand, as I said this morning, that that's the case with

people on income assistance — that there are ongoing internal

investigations taking place. I do understand that, but, Mr. Chairman,

we're dealing with a situation here that has come out into public view.

I hear the minister when he says that he has asked if there was a

document missing. I would ask the minister: if the information comes

back now that, yes, a document was missing, what happens next?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

As in all cases, of course, if a member of my staff did not do their

job properly, that is one thing, and we will deal with them. If there

is new information, then I would believe that we would try to get back

in front of the courts. If the information was pertinent to that case,

then we would do everything possible to make the court aware of that.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is adequate. This indicates that this

case and others like it need a much more comprehensive review, as I

said before. Indeed, I would call for a high-level investigation of

this case, with the results of it to be filed with this House and the

individual so appointed to conduct the investigation to be independent

of this House, so that a public that is seriously concerned might have

the assurance that indeed a process is underway that is going to

clearly be dealing with this type of situation.

We still

have to recognize that while this information the minister has referred

to is coming forward, this situation, if it is inappropriate,

continues. Potentially, then, because of a decision that a court made,

lacking information that should have been made available by the

minister — if indeed that is the case, but that has been reported by

the Vancouver Province , given that answers were not forthcoming to the Vancouver Province

when they were seeking to get further details on this — it leaves an

impression in the mind of the public of a coverup. And I know that the

minister does not want to create that kind of an impression. I think it

would clear the air to have a proper, independent review of these

particular circumstances, and then I think there's a potential there

for us to come out of that with the least possible damage done.

the meantime, I understand that it's absolutely necessary to move with

dispatch if there is information that has not become available to that

judge, so that any subsequent error that resulted from the lack of

information — information that I understand was readily available —

will be corrected as soon as possible.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA : I thank the member for being so courteous.

Mr.

Chairman, in the gallery today are a number of students from Grades 10

to 12 from the best high school in Esquimalt, Esquimalt Senior

Secondary; and they're joined here today by their teacher, Mrs.

Kirchner. They're enrolled in a pre-employment program, and I would

just ask that members of the House join me in welcoming them on this

occasion of their visit to the Legislature.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned a few moments ago that one of the

ways in which the ministry is addressing this type of problem is

through the reorganization, and I must say I'm not all that hopeful

that that result is going to be achieved. I hope he is right about

that, but I think it will become apparent, given some of the

information that I wish to present to the House at this time, that

there is by far a need which goes beyond any reorganization to review

this matter of family and children's services and their delivery. We

have to go far beyond a reorganization that, given the limits that have

been placed upon it, has made some improvements; but then there have

also been the other factors that I mentioned this morning because we're

shuffling around limited resources.

Apart from the

reorganization, given some government initiatives in the past few

months and certainly in the past few weeks, I think we should point out

that services to B.C. families will not be improved by public relations

campaigns or by ad hoc program changes. When I say that, I'm not

referring to the reorganization; I'm referring to the program that was

announced last week with regard to families, and I will be saying more

about that later. I'm referring to the program to increase the number

of foster care homes, a program that has some worth; but this is not

going to bring about the substantial and basic change in the delivery

of family and children's services that is needed.

I'm today

calling for a review, as I did a year ago when I rose at the time of

estimates. It would need to be a review that looks into all aspects of

the delivery of services to families and children in this province. In

stating the scope of such a review, I will also state part of the

problem: it is that this ministry, more than in any other province in

Canada, shares the responsibility for families and children with too

many other administrative bodies; and what we end up with is too many

ministries dealing with similar situations and without the coordination

that is needed.

Now I know that the interministerial

committee — I believe on child abuse — was set up some time ago, but

obviously that committee is not able to bring about the result that is

needed. So a review is needed that covers all four ministries: Social

Services and Housing; Health; Attorney-General; and Education. Such

review needs to look to the future and produce a report on changes in

the family and how to provide services efficiently and humanely to

families in the 1990s.

[3:00]

Again, I know the minister's going to say: "Well, that's what our

reorganization is about." But let's just look at some information here,

some hard data. The seven-year-old Family and Child Service Act needs

review, because apprehensions have risen and support to families have

been cut. We can demonstrate that. We get that information from the

ministry's own annual reports. Even the measures that are mentioned

today don't begin to make a recovery over the devastation of 1983.

This

is important: three attempts by the government to undertake internal

reviews. We were talking about internal reviews a few moments ago with

regard to the Province story on the weekend. Three attempts have

produced no results. Clearly, the government needs an external opinion,

an independent opinion which would include an opportunity for public

input, and should publish a statement of family policy and a public

report so that we can really begin to address this.

The

Family and Child Service Act needs review. It has been in effect for

seven years. It has been extensively criticized by people who have very

good credentials in the

[ Page 3797 ]

field

for its vagueness in

definitions — for example, the definition of

abuse; for its narrowness of approach; for there being no statement of

rights or of prevention; for the lack of powers of supervision; and for

the lack of due process when apprehensions are needed. For instance,

there is no provision for warrants.

I think that the

ministry needs to know, and such a review would certainly point out,

that more recent statutes in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario provide good

models for a review of alternatives which adopt a more preventive,

better defined and less punitive approach.

Again, apropos

of the incident that I referred to a few moments ago, the 1986-87

annual report of Social Services and Housing indicates that 71 reviews

were undertaken. This is on page 32. These reviews were to respond to

allegations of poor staff practice or improper conduct. I would like to

ask the minister how many of these cases actually involved a situation

that followed the death of children in care, or of children known by

the ministry to be at risk. I would like the minister to include that

in his comments when he comments later.

There's no

indication in the report of the results of these reviews. Isn't this a

matter of public concern? Shouldn't we be concerned that there is no

indication of the result of these reviews? The public needs to know:

were staff exonerated or were they disciplined, and were there policy

or administrative recommendations, and have they been acted on? In

other words, did these reviews bring forward information that is

resulting in reformation and transformation and a developmental

approach within that ministry? This type of thing goes beyond

reorganization. Were clients who made these allegations given any

feedback?

So a full report on the results of the reviews of

these 71 cases that the minister acknowledges have been undertaken

should be made available. The minister knows full well that such a

report can protect confidentiality. It can be done in such a way,

however, that it is made available so that the public can be aware that

these matters are being addressed.

Why is such a thorough

review needed? Well, I think the case I mentioned earlier is one

example. The increasing number of apprehensions, the increasing concern

around incidents of sexual abuse.... The issue of the poor cost

efficiency of services, I know, is being addressed in the

reorganization, but I think it still needs to be looked at. And there's

the problem of gaps in services, the changing nature of the family,

more single-parent and blended families and the greater poverty that

exists, and the fact that there are fewer traditional families capable

of following traditional patterns.

The government has

announced reviews from time to time, but it has never provided for

public hearings and never produced a public report. It causes me deep

distress that the part of this ministry that need not be conducted in

secrecy is being conducted in secrecy.

Here are some key

facts. Number one, a review was announced by Jim Nielsen in May 1986

that was welcomed, but no report of the review was ever produced. I

have to ask the minister and members of this House: what is the point

of announcing a review and then not filing a report? Doesn't that

simply mean that the review was announced as a means of removing the

political heat? That would seem to be the case.

Secondly,

the report by Sullivan on the sexual abuse of children by school board

employees made several proposals for change in the Family and Child

Service Act and refers to the need for a review of the jurisdiction of

the office of the superintendent of child welfare. The report also

indicates how their inquiries were blocked by the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing. Again, there are definite, concrete

recommendations available in the Sullivan report, yet what can we see

forthcoming from that report? To quote from it: "Our recommendations

would, if implemented, significantly increase the protection offered to

each child from being sexually abused by school district employees."

Why have Mr. Sullivan's recommendations for changes to the Family and

Child Service Act not been acted on? That's a valid and very serious

question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I thought I would just respond to some of the things mentioned by the member before they get lost and we've forgotten them.

the specific case in Golden that the member referred to, I have quite a

bit of information coming to me in bits and pieces, and rather than

give it out in that fashion I would rather wait until we have it more

concisely. Perhaps we will have it tomorrow and I can give you

everything I have on that regarding the investigation and what has been

done and said. I'm getting it in bits and pieces, and I'd rather wait

until tomorrow, when we can get up in this House and give you a concise

overview of where we are on that particular case.

The

member mentioned.... I'm vague on this, so I don't know how to answer

this question, because I didn't get the gist of what he was getting at

regarding the death of children in care. When you get up next time, if

you wouldn't mind, would you go over that a little more explicitly. I

didn't get what you were driving at there.

The member

mentioned 71 reviews that we did internally in the ministry last year,

and should we release the findings. I have no problem with releasing

the findings of those reviews, keeping them strictly confidential and

keeping the names of cases out of it. To give him, this House and the

people of British Columbia an overview of what took place in those

reviews is, perhaps, a good suggestion, and I have no reason for

keeping that type of information secret. In fact, it's something that

we look at all the time in the ministry, and I'd be quite happy to

share it with him and this House.

There are numerous

suggestions coming forward from Mr. Sullivan's report, which you

mentioned. We will be dealing with some of them in the very near

future. Without being any more specific I'll leave it at that. But we

are not ignoring the recommendations in that report and will be dealing

with them. As you said, it covers many ministries, not just this one.

The

other statistic I'd like to leave with the member is the number of

children in care. It has gone down since 1985. I'll give you four

numbers. In December 1985 the number was 7,183 children in care, in

December 1986 it was 6,709, in December 1987 it was 6,433 and in

January 1988 it was 6,396. So the number of children in care is

decreasing. I just want him to be cognizant of that fact.

MR. CASHORE :

With regard to that last point, I will be bringing forward statistics

from the ministry's reports which indicate that, while the total number

of children in care is decreasing, the instances of children being

apprehended for child sexual abuse and similar situations is

increasing. We don't want to get into playing a numbers game here, but

I think we can readily agree that there is a very serious situation out

there with regard to certain categories that result in the need for

child apprehension. That is a reflection of the

[ Page 3798 ]

policies

I am dealing with here in saying that we need to have a very thorough

and comprehensive review that results in filing a public report which

enables the public to speak to hearings with regard to such a review.

It would have to be a review that has an independence.

should point out that when we're talking about the Sullivan report,

we're not talking about the present royal commission. We're talking

about a report.... Unfortunately I'm having difficulty finding the

actual date the report was published, but I think it was about two

years ago. So there's some scathing criticism of the Ministry of Social

Services, which was the Ministry of Human Resources at the time. There

is some very serious criticism in that report of the policy and

practice of the ministry with regard to family and children's services.

Not to have acted on them for that length of time, I think, indicates

that it is a really serious problem.

The minister asked me

to clarify what I meant by the death of children in care. My question

was: Of the 71 reviews, how many of those incidents involved the death

of children?

I've mentioned two reviews that have been

conducted. One was the Sullivan review; the other was announced by Jim

Nielsen and again evaporated. We never had anything whatsoever to show

for that. The Premier's office announced a review in December 1986, but

again there were no hearings and no report. Are we to conclude that the

PR campaign recently announced is the product? I don't know, but again

we have a serious problem if we have a ministry that, when the public

becomes concerned or outraged about an issue, announces a report. Do

you see the point that I'm making? The government announces a report,

and that somehow takes off some of the public heat. Then we don't see

the report, or if there is a report it's not acted on. I don't think I

can make it any clearer than that.

The former

superintendent of child welfare attempted to bring change internally by

questioning, looking for options. About a year ago at this time, Mr.

Minister, as you know, that resulted in his dismissal. In the estimates

a year ago I said, and I'll say again now, that I think the public

service lost a fine and honourable public servant who was quite capable

of providing tremendous leadership in the improvement and development

of the delivery of social services in this province.

[3:15]

I would like to turn more specifically to the issue of the

superintendent of family and children's services in the province. I

would like to ask the minister to give a brief explanation of what the

position of superintendent of family and children's services entails

and to whom she is responsible. Would he just give us an overview with

regard to what that position is and what its responsibility is and what

the procedures are for accountability for it? I'd be willing to take my

seat now and hear the minister's answer to that question.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I think, with all due respect to the member and to the superintendent

of family and child service, that the best thing I can do to answer

this question is to read the Family and Child Service Act. I don't

happen to have it with me, but if the member wishes I will send for a

copy and read it to him.

MR. CASHORE : I happen to

have a copy of the act with me, so I'd be glad to read it. I won't read

the whole act, but under the number 3, "Officials," it states: "The

minister shall designate as superintendent of family and child service

a person appointed under the Public Service Act, and the superintendent

shall be responsible to the minister for the administration of this act

and the regulations and be the superintendent of child welfare." So we

see certain factors implicit within that statement that the

superintendent of family and child service is appointed under the

Public Service Act, is responsible to the minister — I think that's

quite clear — for the administration of the act and is called the

superintendent of child welfare.

I wonder if the minister

would tell the House if he agrees with the words of the Premier during

question period in this House on both March 1 and March 2, when we were

fielding some questions about the responsibility of the superintendent

of family and child service in the province with regard to children who

may require abortions.

At one point the Premier, in response to a question that I asked.... If you have a copy of Hansard

there, it was on page 3202, March 1, 1988. My question was: "When a

child in care has an abortion in a hospital in this province, who will

pay for that abortion?" The hon. Premier responded: "That will be a

decision for the superintendent of child welfare."

We went

through a couple of other questions, and then the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) asked a question which he concluded

with this: "Will the superintendent of child welfare be using

taxpayers' funds to pay for those abortions? Yes or no." The Premier

replied: "I really can't tell what source might be obtained by the

superintendent of child welfare. If the superintendent of child welfare

deems a particular service necessary for a child in care.... I can't

answer that. The superintendent of child welfare works independently of

government."

So that was what the Premier said — the superintendent of child welfare works independently of government.

The following day we proceeded to ask some more questions. This is on page 3224 on Hansard ,

dated March 2, 1988. I concluded a question with: "Will the Premier

confirm that the superintendent of child welfare has an arm's-length

relationship with this government — that the interests of a child in

care are of paramount consideration and are not to be tampered with by

the government?" At that point the Premier responded: "Mr. Speaker, the

superintendent of child welfare works independently of government. "

found that exchange interesting, and at the time there were other

matters that were of great urgency in the House and so I decided I

would follow up on that question during the estimates. I find that this

creates a very difficult dilemma for me in terms of trying to

superintendent of family and child service in the Family and Child

Service Act states that the superintendent shall be responsible to the

minister. In response to my question with regard to the superintendent

of child welfare being at arm's length, the Premier responded that the

superintendent of child welfare works independently of government. Mr.

Minister, I would like an explanation. I'm wondering if somehow the

Premier — perhaps inadvertently, based on incorrect information —

unwittingly misled the House. I would like the minister's response on

that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Let me make it clear that

the position of superintendent of family and child service is a

statutory position created by

an act of this House. Whoever holds that

position at any particular time is responsible for upholding this act.

In that sense, he works independently of

[ Page

3799 ]

any political interference; he's responsible to uphold this act. Let me read from

section 1. I won't read the whole

preamble.

"...'in need of protection' means, in relation to a

child, that he is (

a) abused or neglected so that his safety or well

being is endangered, (

b) abandoned, (

c) deprived of necessary care

through the death, absence or disability of his parent, (

d) deprived of

necessary medical attention" — which I think is the

section that comes

closest to what the member is getting at — "or (

e) absent from his home

in circumstances that endanger his safety or well being."

I just reiterate for the member's

benefit that the superintendent is responsible for enforcing this act,

and it's a statutory position. In that sense, while he or she is

responsible to the minister, his or her first duty is to uphold and

enforce the Family and Child Service Act.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister just to state where in the act he was reading from; I couldn't find it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Page 1.

MR. CASHORE :

This is page 1,

chapter 11, 1980, Family and Child Service Act? I think

possibly you're reading from a consolidated version that I don't have

in my hand. Okay, that's fine.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It's the Family and Child Service Act,

chapter 11, assented to August 22, 1980, page 1, and it's all right there.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the version of the act that I have has the

same information, but it's not the consolidated edition that the

minister has there. But I don't think I heard him say anything in what

he read that gives me any confidence that the basic point being raised

here is being addressed. Clearly,

an act that states that the

superintendent of child welfare is responsible to the minister is

different from an independent authority responsible to an all-party

committee, for example.

Take the office of the ombudsman,

for instance. To me, the ombudsman would be an example within the

statutes of British Columbia of an office that has been set up at arm's

length — at least to a significant extent — and is independent of

government. I would like to ask the minister to reflect on that

particular example. Would he tell me — given that the ombudsman is

independent of government — how he would, in comparison to the

ombudsman, explain that the superintendent of child welfare, who

reports to the minister, is independent of government, the minister

happening to be a member of cabinet, and cabinet happening to be the

government of this province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I don't think it could be much clearer, Mr. Chairman,

that it's

an act of this Legislature, the same as other acts that are enforced

by certain people. The superintendent is a statutory position created by that

act to enforce that act, and while the superintendent may be responsible to

the minister, the law is the law and he or she must abide by the act, no matter

what the minister or any minister of the Crown may say. This minister, I can

assure you, has no intention of trying to tell any superintendent of family

and child services that they can ignore or circumvent

an act of this Legislature.

I read that

section out specifically because it mentions "in need of medical

attention," and that's a decision that has to be made by the superintendent

under that act.

MR. CASHORE :

But since the superintendent must report to the minister, is it not

true that the minister, as part of his function, has a political

agenda, and in reporting to that minister she is aware that the

minister has a political agenda as part of his function?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm sure there are very many — in fact I know there are many — acts

that come under the Attorney-General's ministry, to quote a better

example than the ombudsman, and many people under the Attorney are

responsible for enforcing those acts because they're legislated by this

Legislature, as is the Family and Child Service Act. So whether there's

a political agenda.... I imagine there always is, whether you are the

minister, Mr. Member, or whether I am the minister. But that doesn't

change

an act of this Legislature that must he upheld and enforced by

the superintendent.

MR. CASHORE : Yes, Mr. Chairman,

it is

an act of this Legislature. It's

an act of this Legislature that

is not designed with an arm's-length relationship; and it is not

designed independent of government, I think that's very clear. I think

we have an example in the firing of Andrew Armitage one year ago.

Let

me put the question this way: should it be deemed that the

superintendent of child welfare was not performing her responsibilities

properly, whose responsibility would it be to deal with that and

possibly bring about that person's firing?

[3:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It's

very clear, Mr. Chairman, that the superintendent is ultimately

responsible to the minister, and if he or she is not performing his or

her duties as they pertain to the act, then of course the minister

would have to take appropriate action.

MR. CASHORE :

That, then, brings us to the issue of the superintendent of child

welfare being an advocate for children. If any individual in that

position felt that it was the opinion of the minister and the

government that child advocacy, in the sense of working vigorously

within a ministry to alter and change the circumstances, say along the

lines of the recommendations of the Sullivan report that we referred to

a few moments ago, was not appropriate on the political agenda of that

minister, wouldn't that person then feel, if that person did not want

to be fired, that he had better be aware of that minister's political

agenda?

And again, in point of fact, is that not the case

that resulted in the firing of Andrew Armitage a year ago — that in

seeking to perform the mandate that he thought had been given to him,

he was found to be trying too hard and too well to perform his duties

in a way that would benefit the future delivery of family and child

services in British Columbia?

So the question is: if the

minister does not really believe that the superintendent of child

welfare should be an advocate for children in an active sense, would

that influence the person in that position, and indeed that person then

de facto would not be independent of government?

MS. MARZARI : I'm rising for a few minutes — 30 minutes to be precise — to talk to the minister about child

[ Page 3800 ]

care and day care policy, that being my contribution to this particular estimates debate.

I'd

like to start my discussion by saying that it feels like a quiz show on

television, "Same Time Next Year," and the spin of the wheel then sets

us up this year, as it did last year, for me to ask you, I must say,

Mr. Minister, the very same questions I asked last year.

Last

year I asked you: why didn't you split up these estimates? Why can't I

look at this book, and at this book, and find a breakdown for child

care? Why can't I see the actual number of dollars — not going into

handicapped children's services and into child care, but a separation

between those two numbers — that tell me emphatically and definitely

what I'm dealing with here? Would you be good enough to answer that

question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Would the member perhaps like to continue for a moment while the minister is getting the information?

MS. MARZARI : Yes, I would love to continue for a moment.

Then

I would like to ask: where is the recovery? The $26 million you put

into child care last year ostensibly received a substantial recovery —

perhaps a 50 percent recovery — from the federal government under the

Canada Assistance Plan. Since 99 percent of the dollars you put into

child care goes into the subsidy of usually single-parent families to

make sure they can pay their child's way into a child care setting,

those families are receiving so little money in the first place in

order to receive the subsidy that they are certainly eligible to

receive the Canada Assistance Plan recovery. I don't see the recovery

figures in these documents either. Perhaps you can help by referring me

to the correct column so that I can see how much money this government

actually retrieved from the federal government for child care services

— not residential treatment care, not handicapped children's care, not

special needs care, but child care; the kind of care that my kids have

had; the kind of care that 60 percent of mothers need right now in this

society of ours in order to pull in the extra income for the family. I

want to know what the recovery is. What kind of track record do you

have on pulling that money in?

I'll put forward another

question. Last year at the same time — probably the same day — I asked

you about the federal government coming forward with a child care

package. In fact, the federal government did come forward with a child

care package, a seven-year package which we all can now sit back and

wait for. I asked whether the minister would be good enough to bring to

this House his negotiating position with the federal government so that

we as a House — as a Legislature or a committee — could take a look at

the validity, the strength of this negotiated package, of this deal

that you're going to strike with the federal government. That has not

come back to this House. Would the minister be good enough to outline

what that deal looks like now and this year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, the member is quite correct that the day care dollars are

not broken out; they are lumped under rehabilitation and support

services, a net of recoveries. There is day care training and support

for the handicapped in that number. If the member wishes, I'm sure I

can get her the day care numbers.

MS. MARZARI : She wishes.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'll endeavour to do that, and I'll get it to you.

The

recovery dollars are listed on page 6 under the financial section.

About the third item down is the $623 million that we share with the

feds under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Federal day care: we

are still negotiating with the feds on that, as you have stated. We

haven't made our position public as yet, but suffice it to say that we

are going for our fair share under federal-provincial cost-sharing

arrangements based on population. I can say that to date the

negotiations have gone very well and we hope to be concluding a deal

with the federal government some time this summer. Last year we had

hoped it would be earlier, but for whatever reasons beyond our control

the process has become slowed down, so it will probably be this summer

sometime.

MS. MARZARI : Before I ask my next

question, I just want to throw out on the floor once again the comments

that I made last year, without going into a long preachy speech.

you realize the opportunities that you're missing by not using the

opposition to help you negotiate with the federal government? You must

be aware that the federal government is putting forward a package which

does not increase spaces substantially even to begin to meet the need

in this province. You must be aware that the federal government is only

offering us maybe 20,000 spaces in British Columbia over seven years.

You must be aware, if you listen to your own critics and to your own

side, that there are at least 200,000 children in this province right

now who could use safe spaces — safe, licensed child care. You must

know that. We talked about it last year, and nothing has changed. It's

the same time next year, right? The statistics remain the same. The

number of spaces has not grown in this province, but the number of

children is in fact growing. It diminished between '83 and '86; it's on

the rise again.

We've got to plan now. You could be using a

provincial day care consultative committee that you, with the stroke of

a pen, with all goodwill, could instigate tomorrow, could invite to sit

at your boardroom table in the Belmont Building, and help you develop a

strong bargaining position with the federal government, and not just

accept what they're throwing in our direction, which is probably 10

percent of the day care spaces in this country over the next seven

years. We have special needs in this province. We aren't Ontario. We

need to generate jobs, and we need to get women into the workforce.

There are many different arguments that can be used, but I encourage

you, I implore you, to use the support that exists on this side of the

House, and to use the support that exists in the community, to help you

in your bargaining position with the federal government to do that, and

to generate more than 10 percent — if I can assume that B.C. will get

10 percent of those spaces; maybe 11 — so that B.C. can present its

case as strongly as possible, so that it won't be just you sitting

there but a consultative committee of people who have worked on child

care in this province. Many of them have worked for 30 years in this

field. Many of them are looking for a way in, to assist you.

Considering that your bargaining with the federal government will

largely revolve around 50-cent dollars, possibly even 25-cent dollars,

then I would suggest to you that it behooves you — and it would be a

smart political, strategic move — to take advantage of what exists.

Would the minister be good enough to talk a little bit about what the federal government has offered British

[ Page

3801 ]

Columbia to this point? I don't expect firm

answers. But could you talk just for a few moments about what the

federal government has offered in terms of numbers of spaces, a

percentage of that $5.4 billion pie?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, without trying to seem trite to the member, because I

know it wasn't offered in that spirit, we do have good, strong

bargainers on this side of the House — and people and expertise at the

staff level, I should add hastily, who are very knowledgeable. We do

work with groups involved with day care. We know what is required in

the province. We know — within certain parameters — what the feds are

about to give us, no matter how hard you bargain. You can stamp your

feet and jump up and down and be political if you want, but you're only

going to get, within certain parameters, your share of the pie.

have about 11 percent of the population of this country. Without

divulging any numbers, I think it would be fairly obvious that we would

be going after that as a starting point for our day care. With our

recent announcement of infant day care, we have now gone beyond that

number. We're still bargaining on that. We don't have any promise of

cost-sharing on that. We're bargaining with the feds on a lot of items

right now, not just child care, and we do bargain pretty hard. We do

listen to the people in the field who are involved in the business of

day care.

So with all due respect to the member and the

opposition, we feel that there wouldn't be much to be gained — as much

as they would like to sit at the table — by having them there. We feel

that we do have the expertise and the ability to bargain with the

federal government.

MS. MARZARI : Let me talk a

little bit about the need, once again. I've already suggested that

there were over 200,000 children that could use safe spaces. The

minister last year talked a great deal about parental choice in

determining what kind of care their child would receive. I'd like to

refer to the minister a recent document that I received, the Decima

quarterly report, from a polling agency that did a rather deep poll

into child care need in the country. I am sorry I cannot tell you who

actually contracted or paid for the poll, but the questions asked

revolved around perceptions of day care. What comes through to me, more

than anything else, is the British Columbian responses to the poll. I

will make sure that you get a copy, if you don't have one already.

The

question asked was: " . . . I'd like to talk to you for a moment about

the issue of day care. Thinking about day care ... would you say that

it's excellent, good, only fair or poor?" British Columbians, generally

speaking, thought day care was only fair; 53 percent answered in the

"only fair" category. In the other provinces, most felt that we're on a

better range than that. They generally felt that day care was pretty

fair. I know for a fact that British Columbia and other provinces are

on a bit of a par; we're not tenth of ten across the country in day

care, as we are in post-secondary education. I give the department some

credit for that. But I'm saying that the public perception of child

care is that it's not as good. By talking about these other questions,

perhaps it will illuminate this fact.

[3:45]

This is a quote: "When people talk about day care in Canada, they

often identify problems. From your perspective, what is the most

serious problem with day care in Canada . . . the quality of day care

services available, the cost of . . . services or the amount of day

care services available?" Would your believe it, British Columbia

actually said, 41 percent.... By far the largest majority said it was

the amount of service available that they were most concerned about.

These are the same people who said the quality of care wasn't what they

would like. They were also saying that the amount of service isn't all

that great. More people in British Columbia talked about the amount of

service than in any other province, so what does that mean? Does it

mean that we've created a larger need, or does it mean that people in

British Columbia are actually saying, "We want more service; we've made

a choice in our minds, as parents, and we've decided that we want safe,

quality licensed spaces," or that we are having difficulty finding

people to leave our children with that we feel safe with, that we feel

are qualified? Other provinces concentrated much more heavily on the

cost of service; only 32 percent of our people were concerned about

cost of service.

The last question: "...government should

be doing something about the day care situation in Canada." Actually,

people in British Columbia were interested in both public and private

day care. There was an even split on that, and you should note that. I

am particularly concerned about nonprofit spaces. Even commercial

operators that I know don't make enough of a profit to be called

profiteers in day care. In fact, the ma-and-pa operations that I know

about — the small, independent, private day care operators — really do

run non-profit day cares. They really don't make enough of a profit,

but that's their choice. They want to go that route. Even those private

operators, I should add, are very frightened of franchised day care

coming into British Columbia, and I should put that on the floor right

now, Mr. Minister.

There's one last question. "Another

issue being talked about is providing day care or child care . . . for

people who work. Who, in your opinion, should assume primary

responsibility for paying for and providing child care services for

parents who work — government employers or parents themselves?" In

British Columbia, 27 percent of the people answered that government

should be responsible; employers was 11 percent and parents themselves

was 61 percent. So that does bolster your notion that there should be

choice and that parents should have choice. But I would suggest that

the other questions that have been asked suggest that parents want a

real choice — not just a choice of which neighbour is going to mind

their child, but a real choice between having somebody come in, taking

the child to someone else, taking the child to the place of work or

having the child in a nonprofit, licensed, safe space.

If I

can turn for a moment to another topic around the area of child care, I

would like to ask the minister about this very politically contentious

infant care program that the Premier has announced as part of a

family-strengthening program, but which we basically see as part of a

rather questionable program intended to provide so-called choice for

women who might otherwise be seeking abortions. I would like to ask the

minister to what extent he's been involved in the ongoing discussions

about the development of this infant care program.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Just to answer some of the concerns of the member, with regard to the

standard of day care, which is a concern to us, of course, as it is to

everyone, we are putting in place a committee made up of people from

the private sector who are interested in child care and who

[ Page 3802 ]

will

monitor all child care facilities in the province, whether they are

offered by a non-profit society or a proprietary child care centre. So

the standards are very important. We will have a committee in place to

monitor that. It will go far beyond the monitoring that's done just for

safety, health, fire standards, etc. This will go on to the quality of

day care that people will be receiving, so that we are convinced in our

own minds — so that we know for a fact — that children will not just be

plunked in front of a television set and left for eight hours a day or

whatever.

The member mentioned franchised day care. I

haven't seen any evidence of it yet in British Columbia. There may be;

I don't know of it. I don't know all the concerns about it and the type

of service they offer; but the reason I say "standards" is that whether

they're franchised or not, they would have to come up to the standards

we set.

I did see somewhere some of the study that the

member is quoting from. I don't have a copy of it and I can't recall it

all, but she did hit on two key points: where possible the parents will

pay for day care, where they can afford to pay; and there should be

choice. So we do agree on that.

The last question I got I didn't write down. You'll have to ask me again — the memory is the second thing to go, I guess.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : No, you asked me a specific question at the end, and now it's gone somewhere. Austin can tell me where it goes.

MS. MARZARI :

It was about infant care. Have you been involved in any kind of

planning process? Or has this program been as hastily put together as I

fear, as almost a public relations package? And would the minister

confirm that the subsidy rate for the infant care program, which is

being put forward through the Premier's office, is $400 a month per

child?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I can't confirm the

figures yet. We did have some tentative figures, but they are not

confirmed. We said that they would be announced by the end of this

month, and I think we will make that deadline. The answer to the

question is: yes, we were involved in putting the program together and

have been for some time. It's been an ongoing process that we've been

working on for quite some time; various members at the staff level and

I have been involved for quite a while.

MS. MARZARI :

Can we delve into it a little bit, since it seems to be well underway

and well planned? The reason I ask is that $400 is the number that

seems to have filtered through to my desk, and I'd like to remind the

minister that a traditional three-to-five-year-old day care space now

only pays in the order of $262 a month, I believe, which does not even

begin to meet the real costs of day care. The real cost of the

three-to-five space happens to be about $350 a month right now in the

lower mainland. That is for a safe, licensed space with good-quality

teachers who stay; there is no large staff turnover, and you can

reasonably expect to get a consistent quality program. The going rate

is $350 a month, yet $262 is basically what the subsidy rates pay. What

it means, Mr. Minister, is that people who genuinely qualify for that

subsidy haven't a snowball's chance in hell of being able to make up

that additional $90 to get their child into a $350 space.

Now

take that number and talk about the infant. We know there are now only

177 of those infant care spaces in this province, and they cost $550.

If you have teen-age girls.... We used to call them "homes for wayward

girls." They seem to be empty right now. So there is some serious doubt

about the nature of this whole project, but I'll leave aside for now,

Mr. Minister, the need for these homes for wayward girls, and we'll

talk about this $400 subsidy. When these children's children are born,

who is going to mind these children and get that $400 a month? They

won't qualify for safe, licensed space, because those spaces cost $550

a month. Or did I hear you right this morning when you were making your

opening speech? Did you say that the full costs would be provided for

infant care — in other words, $550 a month?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Just to reconfirm, we haven't settled on the exact amount that will be

paid. But I must separate the toddler day care that you talked about —

three to five — from the infant day care, which is up to 18 months. I

can give you the exact words that I said this morning, I guess, if I

look through my opening remarks to see what I said. I will do that so

that we get it accurate:

"A new infant day care subsidy rate will be introduced to assist women

to maintain their independence by returning to work or school after the

birth of their child. Estimated cost of this program is $6.1 million.

"A new teen support program developed in cooperation with local school

boards will help young mothers finish school by offering child care as

well as parenting and life-skills training."

think the operative words here are about helping young mothers finish

school and assisting women to maintain their independence.

MS. MARZARI :

So basically the program is going to be paid for in cooperation with

school boards. That's my best guess. The majority of these young

children producing babies themselves will be going back to school. My

concern here — and I will repeat it — is that the real cost of a safe,

licensed space for an infant is $550 a month in this province at this

time, because our standards happen to be high and deservedly so and

should remain high. If the young mother doesn't go back to school and

chooses to seek a job, she's not going to qualify for the spaces that

exist. She will undoubtedly be hiring someone. My experience, from

having known some of these situations, is that very often the

grandmother will mind the child. Will money be made available to

grandmothers — the mothers of the children producing children — of up

to $400 a month? Is that a possibility, since I know that your

subsidies are often given to individuals and neighbours in the

community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The extended family

that you peak of is something that we have been examining for a long

time. I hesitate to give you a definitive answer on it, but you’ve hit

a good point. We're looking very seriously at grandmothers or, if you

like, extended families — mothers of mothers looking after children. We

haven't said that we will do that yet, but we're looking very seriously

at it because in most cases — or in many cases — it is the logical way

to go. It

[ Page 3803 ]

the person who probably should be looking after the child, so it's

something we're taking a hard look at; it's something we've put an

awful lot of thought into. I can't give you an answer today.

MS. MARZARI :

You can see though, Mr. Minister, that there are some serious

difficulties in this program. One is the fact that very often

taxpayers' subsidy money is going out there in the community without

the monitoring we would like to see. The kind — or not-so-kind —

neighbour down the street might be receiving subsidies. I would think

this government might even be legally liable if something serious went

wrong using government subsidy money. So I'm concerned about that.

have to talk about standards. There's not time today to talk about

standards, but let us make sure that we maintain our standards and

develop new standards for this new informal kind of care that you're

talking about and we seem to be experimenting with.

The

second concern is about an infant receiving care for 18 months, and

then that care drying up, and the quality of that care drying up. An

infant reaches 18 months old and approaches a care system which, once

again, has only a few hundred licensed, safe spaces that meet our

standards — most of them in the lower mainland — to cover children from

18 months old to 3 years old. Although it's rather nice to see money

being put towards child care, we've got to worry about the standards

and create new spaces, and we've got to worry about what happens in 18

months. That's something we should be worried about right now, because

18 months is going to go by much too quickly.

[4:00]

The third concern is the sheer number of spaces for the

three-to-five-year-olds and then the number of spaces for the

five-to-twelve-year-olds for after-school care. Those are all spaces

that need to be developed within the framework of a plan which I would

like to see this government working on. You could have three or four

committees working right now, Mr. Minister, advising you on how to

increase child care spaces.

For example, why not do

what Ontario is doing and write into the legislation that any new

schools built in this province should have child care built into them?

We know that throughout the province, not just in the lower mainland,

we need after-school care. Why not build it into any new schools being

built anywhere in the province? Rather than you and your ministry

paying for the self-contained unit in the school yard, why not

incorporate it into the actual capital costs of new school construction

and maybe pay for a share of that and get cost-shared for it? You'll

get your 50-cent dollar on that. I'm sure CAP or the new child care

program would be willing to help build schools if they knew that two

rooms — one for the three-to-five-year-olds and one for the

five-to-twelve year-olds — were going to be built in. We have enough

communities building new schools now that it would be a worthwhile

piece of legislation. Why not beef up this licensing task force that

you've got going around and really make it a public enterprise? I

haven't really heard about it. I've only got a couple of letters from

people inquiring about it. I would like to see notices in the local

papers so that people could get more involved with the maintenance of

community standards.

Maybe there will even be some

differences about different regions and what their standards should be.

We should develop our base line of standards and then look at the

regions and see if there are specific areas in which they might want

slight variations on those standards.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

There

are ways we can do it, Mr. Minister, and all I'm trying to tell you in

this brief time we've got is that there is a lot of community support

for this program, and all you have to do is add the priority of your

own ministry to a crying need for child care spaces. We don't need the

rhetoric about parental choice and family strengthening and special

little programs for pre-born babies, as one of your side talked about

yesterday. We don't need that. We just need the dollars, the priority

and the investment into safe, licensed child care.

Last

question — and I guess I'm just asking this because I'm going to ask it

every year that I'm in opposition, which I hope won't be for too many

more years. The privatization plans — I asked this question last year,

so I'll ask it again and I'm sure you can give the same answer. I don't

want to see day care and child care privatized. I don't want to see the

standards or the education requirements for supervisors driven down. I

don't want to see early childhood education farmed out into the private

market where it's not monitored or supervised.

I want to

see those child care programs in community colleges, and I want to see

them being two-year programs. You know that they've been reduced to

ten-month programs. Please talk to your Minister of Advanced Education

(Hon. S. Hagen) — I will do the same, since that's my critic area — and

try to ensure that in every community college there is a two-year early

childhood education program, not a ten-month one. It's crucially

important, because that's one area where we drive down standards.

Another

area where standards could be driven down is the actual physical

standards of a centre, the physical requirements. If those standards

get driven down far enough, day care in British Columbia will become

cheap enough to attract American franchise corporations, people who can

come in and figure that, cost per head, they can deliver a service for

$100 a month per child and charge $250 per child. That's not what we

want to see in B.C., and it's happening in Ontario. We don't need it.

So I say: keep the standards up.

Is the minister at all

contemplating encouraging large-scale, private child care in British

Columbia or the privatization of existing child care?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Well, I dwelt a few minutes ago on standards and the committee that we

will have in place to ensure that standards are kept at the highest

possible level, and we mean that very seriously. As I said, we'll go

far beyond the physical requirements of the building, which is really

what is monitored now under the Ministry of Health. We want to bring

this under an umbrella of concerned people — people in the business,

people who work with children — so that we will have more than one

committee traveling this province monitoring the level of day care to

make sure they're not plunked in front of a television for eight hours

a day and left there. That's not child care.

We have no

intention of interfering with or privatizing the college programs. I

will pass on your remarks to the Minister of Advanced Education

regarding a two-year course.

The other thing I was going to get at was that if we do subsidize child care in the extended family, such as the

[ Page 3804 ]

grandmother's

and mother's home, then the standards will also be monitored. If we're

going to put taxpayers' dollars into child care, whether it's in the

grandmother's home or not, the standards will be monitored so that we

make sure we maintain the standards.

On the subject of

schools and child care space, a great deal of that would fall under

another minister's jurisdiction, but I would hasten to say that with

the new teen support programs, if we enter into this with school

boards, it naturally follows, I think, that we're going to have to

provide for child care or day care spaces. I would think that that will

follow as a matter of evolution. As far as building them into schools,

that would be an interministerial thing, and the final decision would

be with two places: the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and

the federal government, which would perhaps cost-share on it.

just want to assure the member and this House that we are very

concerned about the standards of any day care spaces that are provided,

whether they be non-profit or proprietary. You mentioned Ontario; I do

have to say that I talked to the minister from Ontario, and the largest

percentage of their spaces are proprietary day care spaces. They're

quite pleased with them, according to the minister. They seem to be

doing as good a job or better than the non-profits. So there's great

division philosophically on this. I know the former minister from

Manitoba thought otherwise; they wanted to go strictly non-profit

society. We happen to believe — and we know — that many of our best day

care centres are run by entrepreneurs.

MR. PETERSON :

I'd like to take a few minutes to discuss the adoption procedures in

the province, in particular our current eligibility rules for

individuals or families to adopt children.

I wonder if the

minister could answer a couple of questions. First of all, are we going

to undertake a review of the eligibility of people who can adopt

children in the province? Specifically, I wonder if we could address

two things: (1) is a single individual eligible to adopt a child in

this province; and (2) will you take the age cap off the ability of an

individual to adopt, which I believe is either 39 or 40 right now?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

1 thank the member for his questions on the adoption procedures. In my

opening remarks this morning I did say: "The Adoption Act will be

reviewed to ensure that it reflects the changing social attitudes and

practice regarding adoption." So we are going to review the entire

Adoption Act, Mr. Member. It hasn't been changed for a long, long time.

The act that we currently operate under was, I believe, written in

1920. It has only been changed twice. Once was last year, when we

instituted an adoption registry, and once before with some minor

modification. So there's no doubt in my mind that the Adoption Act is

out of date. It's not serving the needs of people in the 1980s and into

the '90s simply because it was written too many years ago.

The

two specific questions regarding singles and age. We are already being

a lot more flexible on the age matter simply because we find that even

people on waiting-lists for adoptions have gone past the age limit

before they get to the top of the list. So we are taking a more lenient

view of that at the moment. These specific questions will be addressed

when we review the act. We're going to review it completely because, as

I said, it is not meeting the needs. We will look at the two items you

mention of singles and the upper age limit for adoptive parents.

MR. PETERSON :

I had the opportunity to speak to the annual general meeting of the

Women's Institute in my own constituency this Monday morning, and that

very topic was brought up to me as a concern. One of the points you

brought out was that by the time an eligible child becomes available,

people who want to adopt are too old under the current rules to be able

to take.... They've lost their eligibility is what I guess I'm trying

to say. So I thank you very much for that response.

One

last question to you, Mr. Minister: could you give me a time element?

Do you have any objective in mind in terms of when this review will be

completed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The review has been

commenced. As you can understand, I'm sure, it will take some time to

go through the complete act. I would like to see it completed by the

end of this calendar year, so if we're going to change it and introduce

a new act, which is really what's required, we would attempt to do it

in next spring's session of the House. Don't take that as a firm

commitment, but something we will aim for is to have it reviewed and

rewritten in time to introduce it next spring at the next session of

this Legislature.

MR. STUPICH : I want to talk a

little bit about perhaps the second most serious problem that I've had

to deal with over the years as an MLA. Certainly Workers Compensation

Board comes first. But those who have trouble getting along on

assistance levels, such as they are, must be second. I'm sure all of us

have had individuals, families, into our office from time to time

complaining, expressing concerns and just having great difficulty in

making ends meet.

The minister takes some satisfaction or

pleasure from the fact that the number is going down, but it is still

at unacceptably high levels — there's no question about that. In June

1983 the number was 230,132. That was just before restraint started. Of

course, with restraint coming in, the number ballooned upwards very

rapidly, reaching a high in 1985 of 261,485; and that, incidentally, is

the year in which the amount provided for GAIN was underestimated by

$150 million. People talk about the $100 million overrun when the NDP

were in office; they forget the $150 million overrun which the Socreds

really brought on with that program of restraint. There can be little

question about that.

[4:15]

Now it

is coming down. We all hope it continues to come down, but still, with

240,000 or whatever, it is an unacceptably high level in British

Columbia. The figures, I think, hadn't been changed since 1982, until

this minister introduced some changes last year. That means that over a

period of some seven or six years the cost of living went up an average

of 4 percent a year. So it's up around a 25 percent increase. I think

last year the two increases raised the support allowance by something

like 10 percent — certainly no more than a third of catching up to the

increase in the cost of living since the last change in the amounts

available for support and shelter allowance.

This just

isn't good enough in a country as rich as Canada. With the resources we

have in British Columbia, we should be able to do better for those in

our society who, for

[ Page 3805 ]

whatever reason, have found it impossible to look after their own needs.

Since

I've been a member, we've changed the name of this department at least

three, perhaps four, times, always because there was felt to be some

stigma attached to it. And there is a stigma attached to welfare or

assistance — GAIN, whatever we call it. We all know individuals who

have appealed to us: they don't want to go on welfare; they don't want

to go on GAIN; they don't want assistance, because they feel it's not

right to be accepting charity. Perhaps that's one of the things that's

wrong with this program.

We all live in an environment that

has been created by generations of human beings going back over many

years. The fact that we're in the surroundings that we're in today,

wearing the clothes that we are, is not because we've been so good but

because many people have gone before us and have all left something

behind them. Simply by being born as human beings we have a right as

individuals to some share of that. We also have an obligation and an

opportunity to participate, to create more ourselves and to leave

something behind us.

If we could change this program

somehow . . . . Increase the amount, yes, because these people are

going to spend the money in their communities, in the province or in

the country. But if we could change it so people felt they were simply

drawing on money that's been deposited or on resources that have been

deposited by generations long gone, and still coming, if we could feel

that we're simply drawing on those resources and that we're going to

put back in when our circumstances change . . . . But for the grace of

God, a lot of us could be in the same position.

Accidents

happen, situations develop; it can happen to anyone. Fortunately it's

the minority, but it can happen to anyone. But really, I think we have

to change the whole philosophy of this GAIN program. I've said this

before and I'm trying to say it again this time: people have to feel

different about it — the ones who are collecting it.

The

government's attitude, as I hear from different members on the other

side, is that people are there because they are too lazy, because they

don't want to work. Well, Mr. Chairman, I've been around longer than

you and longer than the minister, and I can recall during the war, when

we had a million people in uniform, that a large part of our population

was busy developing and building munitions and all kinds of other

things that were to be sunk in the north Atlantic — in the vain hope

that we would fill it up one day. In spite of all that, we were all

living better than we were before that and everyone was employed. I say

everyone; I'm not saying right down to the last individual, but

certainly there were job opportunities for people if they wanted to

work, and there weren't people around who were too lazy to work. Now

there might have been some who chose a different lifestyle. There

aren't people now who are too lazy, but there are people with broken

spirits, people who, because of the circumstances they are in now and

because of being asked . . . . Their only way out is to appeal to

charity. They are people who have lost their spirit, have lost their

ambition. That's our fault, not just theirs.

We have to

change that somehow. We have to change our society so that people will

feel they have a right to draw on the resources that have been

deposited by generations before them, and also an obligation and an

opportunity to contribute to what is going to be left when they go,

left for generations yet unborn.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Just let me address a few remarks made by the member. I guess I'll

start by saying yes, we have realized the overall picture and maybe

tried to take a look at new methods of providing assistance to people.

We're looking at the tax credit concept at the moment and we will be

discussing that with the feds. We are a ways yet from being there, but

there are a lot of pluses to a tax credit concept whereby a person

could even get to negative income tax, etc. I think you're probably

quite familiar with it. We're looking at that, and maybe the time is

approaching for a change in the way we deliver welfare.

happen to agree with the member on some of the things he said. I agree

that most people don't want to be on welfare; I know that. If I had to

peg it at a figure, I would say about 96 percent of the people on

welfare do not wish to be there. As near as I can pin it down, that

would be the figure.

I do disagree with him when he says

people on this side say that people on welfare are lazy. I've never

heard anyone on this side say that. We have meetings in caucus and we

talk about it; we talk about it in cabinet; and I've never heard

anybody say that you've got people there because they're lazy. I hear

people from that side saying that we say that, but I never hear anybody

here say it. It's certainly not the philosophy of this minister or my

colleagues, as far as I know. We do all agree, I think, that there is a

very small percentage of people who will probably always be there, and

it's something less than 4 percent, but most people genuinely want off

of welfare — and let's call it what it is; it's welfare.

looked at the figures the other day to see what other provinces pay —

to address your first concern about assistance levels. Yes, we would

probably all like to see them a little higher. We have had several

increases since I've been the minister — two last year, as the member

kindly mentioned. But when I looked at the figures and compared them

with across Canada, in most categories we are almost right on centre.

We are about number five across the country. It does vary when you get

into some of the various categories, because there are some 22

different categories: single, employable, unemployable, with

dependents, etc. But when we look at all the figures across the

country, we are about in the middle, which is not a bad place to be. We

are not the highest and we are certainly not the lowest. In some

specific categories we are quite a bit above other provinces, and I

must admit that there are a couple of categories where we are quite a

bit below. We do monitor where we sit with the rest of the country, and

I think it's important, so that we do keep some perspective on where we

are.

I agree with the member also that the numbers are

unacceptably high. I feel the same about unemployment figures: whatever

they are, they're too high and we must work to bring them down. I don't

take any great joy that the numbers are coming down, because they're

not coming down as fast as I would like. But it is a good sign that

they're coming down. I guess we could get into a political argument

about why the numbers rose when they did. The member says because of

restraint; I happen to disagree with him. I think they rose for

economic reasons. But this is probably not the time or place to get

into that political discussion — unless the member wants to, and then

we could eat up the clock, as the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam

(Mr. Cashore) says.

I think I've addressed most of the

things. I appreciate the member's comments, and as I said, on some of

the things he has said I agree and on some I disagree.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) having introduced this

[ Page 3806 ]

section

of our questions that deal with the GAIN act. I always find his input

on these issues supportive, because it comes from an economic

perspective.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : A short break; I'll be right back.

MR. CASHORE :

I understand. Mr. Chairman, we're into a phase of some of my questions

being written down, and the minister will return to the House fairly

soon.

When the minister responded, I appreciated his tone;

he too would like to see the number of unemployed decrease, and he

would like to see the number of people on welfare decrease. I'm sure we

all would. But there is a fundamental difference in our way of coming

at that. The first member for Nanaimo was pointing out that when we as

a society decide to address poverty as vigorously as we have addressed

other calamities that have visited themselves upon our society, such as

in time of war . . . . We were able to do so in such a way that the

collective community pulled together and unemployment was at an

absolute minimum.

Many of the points we make in our

critique would be that we believe the ministry is in too many instances

addressing symptoms. What we need to do is get at root causes.

Mr.

Chairman, I move on to some information that has become available

today. If I can just reiterate a bit, this morning the minister rose

and we felt that he was about to announce the reorganization of the

ministry, which he did; but there was a part of what he had to say that

I was kind of seeing as part of the announcement of the reorganization,

but which, it seems to me, was really an announcement of some changes

in the way that GAIN was to be administered. I think those

announcements could have been forthcoming whether or not a

reorganization had been announced, although I'm sure he'll say that

that reorganization helps to facilitate some of this.

have been trying to get a grasp on some of the initiatives that have

been mentioned with regard to changes in income assistance. Both from

the media backgrounder and from the news releases that have been issued

— and I also made notes when the minister was speaking — it's very

difficult to try and assimilate all of this and really come out with an

incisive perception of it. But in reading through this, there are a few

points that I really want to address.

There seems to be a

process taking place here whereby one initiative doesn't seem to

philosophically fit in with others that are taking place. I would just

like to mention one of them. We understand from this information that

has come forward that the designation of "employable" will be limited

to situations involving the health of recipients or their dependents.

Therefore, for example — and I find this absolutely preposterous — a

single mother with two children under the age of 12 who is presently on

GAIN will now be considered employable. It also indicates that

following the birth of a child, this is now limited to 15 weeks,

whereas it was half a year before.

I find this absolutely

astounding, coming forward at this time. This is clearly in

contradiction to the rhetoric we were hearing last week from the

Premier, when he announced his family life program. What we have here

is an absolutely unnecessary announcement that I think is at very best

insensitive; it is simply going to heap pressure onto the backs of

people who are out there struggling. If a single mother who has a

15-week-old child needs to go out and find work, certainly the

circumstances that will make that possible will be what result in her

going out to find work, not putting this type of pressure on her.

[4:30]

I cannot emphasize enough how terrifying it is for people in

this category when this type of move is announced. Why this

announcement would be put forward at this time, seeming to disintegrate

and demolish any public relations gains that have been made by the

announcement of the Premier's initiative last week, is beyond belief. I

would like to know just how much that particular mother, who would now

be defined as employable after 15 weeks, would lose once she loses that

designation "unemployable." I'd also like to know just how many of

these individuals there are. How many single mothers are being targeted

in this category? I would like to know what the ministry expects to

save by doing this. Is this part of the reason for the reduction of $42

million in the projected amount for income assistance?

Mr.

Chairman, I would also like to point out to the minister that unless we

have available child care spaces out there, it's going to beg the

question. Even though there are announced supports that would make it

possible for such people to go out and look for work, if the child care

spaces don't exist, this is going to place additional pressure on the

number of spaces that exist now. So this is not contributing to a

situation that is going to result in an improvement out there in terms

of that.

Also, if there is not the availability of decent

jobs, it raises the spectre of these women, 15 weeks after their child

has been born, being forced to go out and pick berries at great travel

expense, to leave their domicile and their child. Possibly the work

only lasts for two or three days, and then they have to travel

elsewhere. It does not conjure up the support for the family — I hope

we can include the single-parent family in that — that we were hearing

about last week, with all the sanctimonious talk about how the Premier

of this province was going to come around and support the family.

That's a need that we've been calling for for a long time: consistent,

responsible programs for the delivery of services to families. I would

like to ask the minister for his response to that, and then I'll get on

to some other aspects of the announcement.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm pleased to respond to the member, and I trust he has carefully read

the news release that I put out this morning regarding changes to the

GAIN program, because it does go into some detail explaining the

philosophy behind what we are doing. I think the key is that we're

trying to move people from a philosophical mindset of being

unemployable to being employable; to get them off that semi-permanent

or permanent designation of "unemployable" and make them believe they

are employable.

To answer the specific question as to how

many dollars a client loses by losing that designation, it's $50 a

month. Let me go into what we are adding at the other end to make it

possible for that single parent to return to the workforce. We have

increased day care subsidies. If you look at

section 9 of the news

release I put out, Mr. Member, it says: "Payment of the day care

surcharge for one year for single parents who become employed. The

surcharge is the difference between the actual cost of day care and the

maximum subsidy provided through the day care subsidy program." We have

included transportation allowances. We've increased the infant day care

for the woman you talk of who has a child who

[ Page 3807 ]

more than 15 weeks old; that is similar to the maternity benefits

policy of unemployment insurance. We've removed the existing

waiting-period for those who are truly unemployable, so they are

immediately eligible for a higher rate. We want to move people from

that category of unemployable as quickly as possible.

It's

the same as the handicapped. You asked this morning: and, yes, we did

consult with groups who represent the disabled, and the vast majority

of them don't want to be labelled that for the rest of their lives.

every one of these cases will be done on an individual basis. That's

why we have provided more workers. We have provided some 200 new

positions dedicated to the income assistance program, and they will be

established so the staff have more time to assist clients to

independence. The key is independence, so that if a handicapped

person's status changes or technology changes, and they are able to get

full and gainful employment, they will lose that stigma of being

labelled as handicapped; so that unemployable people can lose that

designation through counselling, because we have more people to do

counselling. Instead of doing paperwork, they'll be counselling people

and moving them towards independence.

I think, Mr. Member,

contrary to your remarks that it is not consistent with strengthening

the family, that it's just the opposite. The vast majority of these

people want off GAIN or welfare. They want to get back into the

workforce, and we can help to strengthen the family by raising their

self-esteem and their opinion of themselves, and break the syndrome and

the cycle that we have going in some families in this province. I don't

think I have to tell the member that in some families we're into

third-generation welfare cases. We are putting this program into place

to try to break that cycle, and to get people back into the workforce

and independent as quickly as possible.

MR. CASHORE :

There is no question that when you take these announcements that were

made today, some pieces of them have some value, and I certainly am not

denying that. But to go back to the philosophical point the minister

just raised, we still have the problem that we do not have the stock of

jobs in reasonable employment that these people would find available.

It really makes it very difficult to say that these people who the

minister says want off GAIN . . . . I agree they want off GAIN, so why

do they have to be pushed? Why does this type of thing have to be

placed there, like a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads? If

they find they are not able to leave, perhaps for reasons of a child in

the home requiring a great deal of supervision, then they're stuck with

this loss of $150 a month.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has

said that people have been consulted with regard to these issues. He

mentioned that the disabled had been consulted. It sounds to me like

there has been a very selective kind of consultation. I find this

extremely disturbing. If the people want off welfare, as the minister

says, then they already have that incentive; they don't need to be

pushed. And at the same time as those kinds of supports for

transportation and day care are in place, that's well and good, but if

we're not creating the new stock of affordable day care spaces in

properly supervised settings, then we can't really accomplish that much.

Let's

take a look at the announcement with regard to the "handicapped"

designation being reviewed periodically. It will no longer be a

lifetime designation. I would expect that this announcement would

strike fear into the hearts of a great many handicapped people. I would

recognize that the minister is concerned about many handicapped people

who have demonstrated their outstanding capability, in terms of being

able to live fulfilling lives and participate as fully as possible; all

of us want to celebrate that and enhance it in every way we possibly

can. But the question is: are those people going to get into that very

positive framework as a result of being pushed or as a result of there

being positive policies and procedures out there that make it more

likely that they will be able to develop and to find employment, and

that they will be more likely to find employers out there whose

consciousness has been raised with regard to the services that they are

able to provide, etc.?

I would have to ask: why this

periodic review, as a blanket thing? Could the minister give some

indication of what those periods of time would be, so that those people

out there who are designated "handicapped " will have some idea how

often they are going to have to go through that procedure? Is the

minister aware that when somebody receives the designation of

"handicapped," he already goes through a very difficult process? A

medical doctor, subject to the responsibilities and the ethics of

medicine, is involved in substantiating that application for

handicapped status. So when these designations are made, Mr. Chairman,

they are not made lightly. I would ask the minister to clarify why it

is necessary to announce this initiative in this way at this time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, we all realize that there are varying degrees of

disabilities, and we also know that there are some who will remain in

that category for their entire life. There are many who will not. There

are no formal expectations that recipients participate in the workforce

or pursue independence. We're not pushing people, Mr. Member. Those are

your words. We're not pushing anyone; we're trying to assist people to

become independent.

Medical science and technology has

advanced such that lifelong disabling conditions are becoming less

common. Many people who were probably considered severely handicapped

and totally unemployable a few years ago are now in the workforce and

have meaningful jobs and are sustaining themselves. So there is no

timetable laid down as to when people will be reviewed. As I said,

there is no formal expectation that some of these people will ever be

in the workforce, but we are here to assist them. What we're saying is

that the designation of "handicapped" will not be there for life;

likewise the designation of "unemployable."

Because there

doesn't happen to be a job available for someone at this moment really

has no bearing on whether that person is employable or unemployable.

There may not happen to be a job available. That doesn't make them

unemployable; it just makes them unemployed. We're saying that we must

break that psychology of people thinking themselves unemployable. Once

they've been on welfare for a certain length of time, they then lose

any desire or drive to go out and become employed again. The figure,

just to correct you, is $50 a month — not $150. You asked me a specific

question: how much does a single parent lose? It was $50 per month.

think the important thing here is the psychology of not saying to

somebody: "You are unemployable just because you do not have a job at

the present time." It's the only way we're going to be able to assist

people back into the workforce to improve their self-esteem and get

them independent and off welfare. I still stand by what I said: the

vast majority

[ Page 3808 ]

of people do not wish to be on welfare. We're not pushing them; we're assisting them. Some of them do need some assistance.

[4:45]

MR. CASHORE :

When you talk about assisting them, you use terms such as "break the

psychology." That sounds to me to be a fairly aggressive way of going

about that. I think that you can achieve the ends you're seeking to

achieve by making sure that there's the availability of jobs out there

on the one hand, and on the other hand, by providing the kinds of

supports — some of which the minister has been referring to — that make

it more and more possible for people to get out there. For instance,

you could provide support in getting to job interviews with bus fares

and those kinds of expenses.

In the information that came

before us today with regard to the changes in GAIN administration, I

understand that there's an enhanced earnings exemption — the term

"enhanced" is a term I'd like to have explained — and that it's going

to be extended to include those receiving GAIN for the Handicapped. It

will be limited to one year for all recipients. I can see something

positive in that, but at the present time with regard to the earnings

exemption, everything over $50 earned by a single recipient is taxed at

the rate of 75 percent. I know this question of the earnings exemption

has come up on many occasions with regard to being an incentive. The

minister is talking about incentives. We're talking about incentives

here that don't push people, but encourage people. I think it would be

timely to provide further encouragement by addressing that issue of the

earnings exemption and taking a look at the fact that after that

initial $50 for a single person and $100 for a person in a family,

those earnings are taxed back at the rate of 75 percent. That's quite a

high rate of taxation for a person who is in poverty. But I do

recognize and acknowledge that in extending that to those receiving

GAIN for the Handicapped, that's a step in the right direction. I would

also like to have the term "enhanced" explained.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

To go back to the topic we were on a few moments ago, I also want to

point out that medical coverage will be continued for single parents

who become reclassified under the new rules as employable. So the only

thing they will lose is the extra $50 a month given to those classified

as unemployable. It's an important point that they do not lose their

medical coverage.

To answer the one about enhanced earnings

exemptions, the program has been in effect for some time to allow

anyone on GAIN to enhance his earnings by a certain percentage beyond a

basic $50 per month. The program hasn't changed in essence, except for

two things: we are extending that benefit to those in receipt of GAIN

for the Handicapped; and we've put a time-limit on the program of one

year for recipients. Singles are allowed the basic