1987 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

379 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion recommendations funding. Ms. Smallwood –– 379

Native Indian education. Mr. Jones –– 379

Proposed B.C. Place liquor licence. Mr. Lovick –– 380

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Sihota

Ministerial use of government vehicles. Mr. Long –– 380

Proposed B.C. Place liquor licence. Ms. Marzari –– 380

Legal aid funding. Mr. Sihota –– 381

Ministerial Statement

Teachers' early retirement program. Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 381

Mr. Jones

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

Mr. Richmond)

On vote 56: minister's office –– 382

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Cashore

Mrs. Boone

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Marzari

Mr. De Jong

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Jones

Mr. Loenen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Appendix –– 403

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, last night I had the good fortune to entertain Mayor John

Backhouse, mayor of the city of Prince George, and his wife Vicky, and

also the city engineer, Ernie Obst, and his wife Beverley. They were at

Government House along with others last night to receive an

environmental award for the city of Prince George. Would the House

please welcome our mayor, our city engineer and their respective wives.

Further,

yesterday I introduced my wife, and she wasn't here; she was out

shopping. But today she is here, and I'm delighted to have her here.

Would the House please welcome her again.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my welcome to the mayor of Prince George

and his wife Vicky. They are good friends of mine, longtime friends,

and I'd like the House to welcome them. In addition, I'd like to

welcome Dr. Bob Dykes, also from Prince George.

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage)

and the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), I take pleasure in

introducing to the House Dr. Stan Wilbee, a former alderman of Delta,

and his wife Anne, who are in the precincts.

MR. CLARK :

In the gallery today we have a community activist and strong NDP

supporter from the great riding of Vancouver East. I'd ask the House to

welcome George Lawson.

MS. EDWARDS : With us today we

have a member from my constituency and a long-time community worker,

Evelyn Mathias. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN : A friend and community worker in New Westminster is visiting us today. Would you join me in welcoming Doug Hardy to the House.

Oral Questions

ABORTION RECOMMENDATIONS FUNDING

MS. SMALLWOOD :

My question is to the Minister of Health. Further to the ministry's

policy review on abortion commissioned by the Premier, has the minister

allocated the $2 million provided in the budget to implement the

report's recommendations, in particular by developing better

educational and contraceptive programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

HON. MR. DUECK :

The money has been allocated in the budget towards that particular

issue; however, it will be looked at by committee, and we will then

come forward with exactly where it will be allocated as to the

individual items.

MS. SMALLWOOD : A two-part question: first, I'd like the minister

to specify what committee; second, can the minister assure the House that any

educational program developed by the ministry will be in consultation with pro-choice

groups, who were excluded from having input into the ministry's abortion

study?

HON. MR. DUECK : A committee has not yet been struck, so I can't give you an answer to the second.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The minister has again referred to the committee. What committee is this?

HON. MR. DUECK : I've just said that the committee has not yet been formed, so I cannot speak to that question.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

If the minister is unable to give us specific information about this

committee and who will make it up, can the minister assure this House

that there will be open consultation?

HON. MR. DUECK :

As you know, because the report is public, there are recommendations in

that report. Mr. Speaker, it's public to all. It's up to the committee

whether they will follow those recommendations and report to me.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Is the minister then saying that he is not prepared to consult with pro-choice groups?

HON. MR. DUECK : No, I did not say that at all. I said the committee has not yet been formed, and that will be looked at at that time.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Is the minister not prepared to direct this committee to consult? That

is the question. We're looking for direction from the minister to this

committee that is yet to be defined.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be evasive, but the committee has not yet been formed, and I cannot answer that question.

[2:15]

NATIVE INDIAN EDUCATION

MR. JONES :

The other day, Mr. Speaker, the Premier mentioned the Minister of

Education in his report on the first ministers' conference, and so I

have a question for the minister on native Indian education. I'm sure

the minister is aware that the federal Minister of Indian Affairs

terminated the master tuition agreement, effective June 30, 1987, and

requested that a new method of tuition payments be made which would

include Indian involvement in its development. Can the minister tell me

if the government still opposes this change to give our native Indian

communities more say in the education of their children?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

We have wanted to deal with Indian involvement, but we don't have

agreement as to what happens in September, so we've asked for the

federal people to please consider that. We have a lot of bands and a

lot of school districts involved in this province. We want the

involvement, but surely the last thing we want is chaos in the province.

MR. JONES : So much for a fresh start.

[ Page 380 ]

the minister aware that there is a native Indian body that's a

coordinating body, the B.C. first nations education negotiating team,

that would alleviate the problem the minister alludes to?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I'm aware that there's a lot of coordinating going on, but I don't know

exactly what agreements they could come up with before the end of June.

MR. JONES :

Given the June 30 deadline, a very short period of time, three months,

in which time the educational funds will be diverted from the

Department of Indian Affairs to the native Indian groups, has the

minister decided to consult with coordinating groups so that local

agreements can be established and there won't be chaos, and so that the

native Indian people can have a say in the education of their children?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

There is consultation going on, Mr. Speaker, particularly with staff

members, but again I point out that the decision was handed down

federally, sort of unilaterally. I don't think that the ramifications

were properly considered, and we're going to be facing that. We're

going to be facing some problems. At the moment we're proceeding as

though students will be coming to the public school system, and it will

be funded. Hopefully some of the people who just made these

announcements will come up with some way for this to proceed so that

none of the students suffer, because they are the ones we have to

consider.

PROPOSED B.C. PLACE LIQUOR LICENCE

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services. It's a very simple and direct question: namely, can

the minister confirm for the members of this House that no decision

will be taken on the B.C. Place beer hall application we have all read

about until the liquor review process is complete and public hearings

have been held?

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, the

proposal that was written about in the media hasn't even appeared yet

formally. There has been no application made yet formally that I know

of. Certainly under the current regulations we could not do that; and

yes, I will agree to that.

MR. LOVICK : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Just to test the acuity of my hearing, is the answer yes?

HON. L. HANSON : Yes.

MR. LOVICK : Thank you. I'm delighted to see that the Premier gave you that instruction, and that you did indeed answer yes.

MS. EDWARDS :

My question is also for the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services:

has the minister decided that he shall in fact assess the impact of the

proposed B.C. Place beer halls, with their 2,000-seat capacity, on the

rest of the licensed facilities in downtown Vancouver, none of which

could have a capacity of more than 225 seats?

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure of the question, nor am I sure of where the

hon. member got her facts. The figure 2,000 is quite exaggerated. In

fact I'm not sure that I understood your total question or what you

were saying. First of all, the regulations as they are now would not

permit that. Secondly, prior to the review of liquor licensing that is

going on, there will be no decision made on that.

MS. EDWARDS :

To the minister: as I understood, the application was to be there. If

that doesn't occur, then is the minister saying there would be no

approval of the two proposals as we both understand them so far?

HON. L. HANSON :

Well, Mr. Speaker, a very short answer to that is no. I'm still not

sure that I understand the question that the member is trying to place

before me. Certainly there has been no formal application. There was a

proposal presented, or at least made public, by B.C. Enterprise

Corporation, and it hasn't come to me or my ministry as an application

for a licence at this point. But secondly, our regulations do not at

this time permit a licence of that sort, and thirdly, we're not

considering any approval of that licence until the liquor review has

been completed.

MR. SIHOTA : On this application that

the minister hasn't received and the press has, my question simply is

this. Does the minister then agree in principle with the concerns of

the Vancouver police with respect to rowdiness and drunken driving? Or

does the minister have other information pertaining to that situation

to suggest that the police are wrong in their assessment?

HON. L. HANSON : The question seems to be a hypothetical one, and I'm not sure that w, deal with those situations in this House.

MINISTERIAL USE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

MR. LONG :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier with respect to the

government vehicles. Has the Premier taken any steps toward a uniform

policy with regard to ministerial use of government vehicles throughout

British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes, Mr. Speaker, that matter has been attended to by me and there will be a policy developed very shortly.

PROPOSED B.C. PLACE LIQUOR LICENCE

MS. MARZARI :

This is a question for the Minister of Economic Development. I find it

difficult, Madam Minister, to believe that this barbarian beer-hall

scheme fits with your conception of the theme and dream for the interim

use of the B.C. Place site. Do you really think that a facility like

this should be in a family- and children-oriented atmosphere, which I

believe you would like?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Because

the questioners on this particular news story have picked up the news

story figures, I think I should put the record straight, and I'm

pleased to have the question from the hon. member for Vancouver–Point

Grey so I'll be able to do just that. The B.C. Enterprise Corporation

has received one application, and it is for the B.C. Pavilion area

where there already are three

[ Page 381 ]

restaurants and two nightclubs. The application is from probably the most popular — in fact, it was the most popular — restaurant at

Expo 86, a Bavarian restaurant that did two and one-half times the

business of any other restaurant on the Expo site. It is very

definitely interesting and a great public pull. If you were designing

putting in a restaurant, that would be the kind of public draw that one

would probably contemplate. They did contemplate it, and they would be

using all of the Bavarian restaurant and fixtures and all of the things

in their Bavarian restaurant.

The application is dependent

upon a liquor licence being made available and it is dependent upon a

business licence being made available from the community. So both the

city of Vancouver and the liquor board would have to be consulted, and

it would not be going in if either of those bodies would not give their

approval.

In terms of the numbers, I saw a number of some

1,200, I think it was, quoted in the morning paper. I understand that

somewhere around 500 is the amount that they are wanting but will not

necessarily receive.

MS. MARZARI : Is the minister

aware that many, many facilities have been constructed and built in our

downtown Vancouver? In fact the Commodore, for example, has just put $1

million capital improvement into its facility. A whole industry depends

on its economic projections; its bank loans rely upon a solid tourist

industry this summer. Why would the government even consider going into

competition with free enterprise?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I'm really pleased that the member is concerned. She will also be very

happy to know that my colleague, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Reid), has just received figures which show that tourism has increased

immeasurably over last year, in the same time-frame, and because of

that, there will be many more investments made such as the one she

mentioned, which has just put a million-dollar enhancement in the

Commodore. We're all very pleased about that, and I know the member for

Point Grey must be as well.

LEGAL AID FUNDING

MR. SIHOTA :

My question is to the Attorney-General. The question is simply as

follows: given that last year the actual expenditure on legal aid was

$18 million, and given that this year the allocation in the budget is

$19 million, would the Attorney-General agree with me that the actual

amount of new moneys issued in the legal aid budget will be somewhere

between $500,000 and $1 million, not the $5 million stated in the

budget?

HON. B.R. SMITH : I think these matters can

be better canvassed in estimates, but let me just say to that member

that if you want to roll into your figures for comparison with what was

spent this year moneys that were put in to pick up a deficit or used

for special purposes in a given year, as opposed to base funding, you

could certainly make the argument that the increases in the amount

allotted to legal aid were not as dramatic as they might have appeared.

There is a substantial increase to legal aid this year. Unfortunately,

with legal aid we never can pay enough to really reimburse the many

lawyers around this province who defend people under the legal aid

system.

I have always entertained the hope — maybe it's a vain one —

that most of them do this work for two reasons. First of all, they do

it because of a desire to provide a service for people who are in need;

and secondly, they do it because it is a very good form of experience.

It never was the objective of legal aid that lawyers would live off

legal aid. We try to get that tariff improved, and I would like to see

it improved more. I hope that it can be improved somewhat by this

year's budget. It may not be as much as the member and 1, when we were

practising lawyers, would like. But legal aid is designed to help the

public, not to support lawyers.

Ministerial Statement

TEACHERS' EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the government,

through the Ministry of Education, has approved an early retirement

program for teachers. There was general recognition of the need for

balancing younger people and older people in the teaching force. We

were looking ahead: because of the distortion that has been created

with seniority provisions and declining enrolments over the past few

years, we had more people at the older end of the teaching scale than

at the younger end; and with the pupil enrolment decline levelling off

and hopefully increasing in the future with economic stimulation in the

province, in the next five to fifteen years we could be facing a

teacher shortage. So we wanted to deal with that.

[2:30]

The

other thing we wanted to deal with is to provide new jobs for the

young, enthusiastic, eager and qualified teachers who were unable to

get into the teaching force. We had promised to look at that; some work

was being done on it last year. There were statements during the

election campaign last fall that we would take a serious look at it.

Since

I became minister last August, we've met with the BCTF and the BCSTA to

discuss the possibilities and benefits of this program. A few districts

had moved on their own to do this, but that did not prove entirely

satisfactory. Last December we set up a committee from my ministry, the

B.C. Teachers' Federation, the BCSTA, the district superintendents and

secretary-treasurers, and these people have looked at the numbers and

the benefits, the possible costs, the way it could be done. Despite

some of the areas that we don't seem to agree on entirely with the BCTF

and the BCSTA, I must commend everyone for the excellent cooperation on

this one. I think it indicates sometimes that when the common goal is

there, when the common cause is good, people will cooperate and work

together.

Meetings have been held to analyze the numbers,

the implications, and this has come together. There is some urgency

because if we are going to implement it this year, people need to know

before May so that people can be considering their decisions.

is possible in the teaching force because of the wide range between the

minimum salaries and the maximum salaries, so it is unique to teaching,

and we have a unique situation right now with this distortion of the

age groups in the teaching force. So what we are going to do is open a

three-year window — that's this spring and through to the end of the next two school years, to June 1989 — during which time those people between the ages of 55 and 59 may voluntarily

[ Page 382 ]

choose to retire without facing the penalty that they face under the existing program.

Many

of you know that the teachers' pension plan allows for 2 percent per

year for every year of experience. If they retire before the age of 60,

5 percent per year for early retirement is deducted, which is a

disincentive for people who perhaps wanted to retire to get out. So for

the next three years, that 5 percent will be removed.

expect that it could create up to 600 positions for new teachers that

are out there. We expect that if those teachers who are now qualified,

the young teachers, can be employed, it would also provide

encouragement for those who might be considering going into teacher

training, which takes four or five years, so that we will have teachers

coming up when more teachers are retiring so that we won't be facing a

possible shortage.

There are a few more details, and

meetings will be held, of course, with the districts and the B.C.

Teachers' Federation to explain how all this works. I might point out

what also makes it possible for school boards: if they hire a beginning

teacher, say at $25,000 or $28,000, and let a teacher go at the $40,000

or $45,000 level, that saving.... We'll account for that in the fiscal

framework so they don't lose the money and neither do they gain the

money. That money will go into the pension fund to cover the extra

pension requirements that this program will generate. Because of that,

the program is self-funding. We're not going to make any money at it;

it's not going to cost any money of the taxpayers; but what it will do

is renew the teaching force in this province.

I think all

parties involved support it. I am certainly pleased and proud to be

able to announce this initiative, and I also again commend all of the

parties that were involved in bringing this together, including of

course my colleagues in government, who were very supportive.

MR. JONES :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister of Education, good

stuff, and compliment him not only for the product but also for the

process by which that took place, which I understand was a consultative

one — one that we haven't seen very much of in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. JONES :

Certainly it's excellent that this is happening. Just relax. These are

kudos. I agree with the minister that it is an opportunity to provide

for an infusion of young people into our school system, that it is

economically sound, and that it is going to be good for the education

system in British Columbia. I again compliment him for adopting one of

our planks from the last election platform.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 56: minister's office, $216,355.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I was looking forward to hearing the remarks of the

debate leader, who's about to commence his very detailed analysis of

this vote.

MR. CASHORE : I now look forward to

hearing the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) continue with

her very fine line of questioning with regard to services in the Prince

George and environs part of our province.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Chairman, as we finished yesterday, the minister was giving me a

response regarding my request that he consider the needs of the people

in Prince George who came to him requesting some additional funding for

clothing that met the needs of the north; housing needs, taking into

consideration heating expenses; and transportation. He indicated he was

studying these. I would like to ask the minister if there is any

additional money in this budget to deal with these items.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, I believe I responded to that question yesterday, and the

response is still the same: that one of the reasons we're travelling

the province with the committee on social policy is to find out exactly

the things the member is talking about. We had some good presentations

along these lines at Prince George. We've had two out-of-town visits,

if you like, to Prince George and Courtenay, and have yet to take any

action regarding the information presented to us at these meetings. So

until the committee starts to assimilate all of the information and to

plan a policy direction, the answer to the question has to be no.

MRS. BOONE : It appears, then, that there will be no money in this fiscal year to meet these needs.

Has

the minister looked at moneys to supply another Carefree vehicle? If

you'll remember correctly, there was the need for a vehicle which

transported handicapped people. They made a special request to the

ministry for assistance because of the need for transportation. Is

there money for such a thing?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It's impossible for me to answer that specific item at this time, but

I'll find out for you. I know we took it under advisement. We looked at

it. I don't have a specific answer for you right now, but hopefully I

will have one in another hour or two, before we're finished this

process.

MRS. BOONE : I talked about support services

to the ministry. There are support services that are not directly

associated with the ministry, and at the moment many of them are

scrambling for money. The Paraplegic Association is one. A great many

of these people are going to bingo halls to find funding to supply

their services. I was interested that the minister....

You

quoted that you would be saying this only one time: that there is only

one level of taxpayer. Our people are having to go to our city, which

is supplying $80,000 to support services that are taken over by

organizations within the community. So I think we're getting dinged on

two different levels there, regardless of what you're saying. It's all

coming out of the same pocket, I know, but it certainly is affecting

our community. There's a total of $250,000 in applications, but

[ Page 383 ]

only respond to approximately $80,000. Does the minister have any plans

to assist any of these organizations? When we went to your community,

Mr. Minister, we heard from the people we talked to that they were

subsidized by the Secretary of State, which is the federal

organization; no money was coming from the provincial organization to

assist these organizations.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Chairman, we're just coming into the '87-88 fiscal year, today of

course being the first day, and we have not allocated all of our funds

for the year; that will be done over the next few weeks and months. So

it's virtually impossible to say right now where every dollar in our

global budget is going.

I wish to reinforce the statement I

made yesterday, and the member has just confirmed it. There may be

several levels of government that dish out money to various

organizations — federal, provincial, municipal, regional districts, library boards, hospital boards, and on down the line —

but I maintain that there's still only one level of taxpayer. It

doesn't matter whether the money comes from the municipal, provincial

or federal government, or the regional district; it comes out of the

one pocket. One of the things we try to refrain from doing is

overlaying funds on top of government funds, on top of government

funds. We watch that very carefully. When an organization is being

funded at a different level, and we feel it's adequate, we try not to

overlap funds.

I should add here that we encourage the

volunteer organizations. Government can't do it all for everybody.

There are a tremendous number of volunteers out there who support the

very organizations you're talking about. But to pick out specific

organizations right now and say, "Are you going to fund this? Are you

going to fund that?" it's impossible for me at this time to answer yes

or no.

MRS. BOONE : The minister has indicated that

you're not going to fund things that are funded at different levels.

The need for this has come because the provincial government has

withdrawn its funding, and therefore they're going to the local

taxpayer, to the property taxes, in order to sustain these various

services. They're also having to go.... I think it's a shame that our

organizations find it necessary to go to bingo halls, to casinos. The

Paraplegic Association, which no one can say is a frivolous

organization, has its funding in jeopardy right now because they have

some problems with regard to their bingo licences. When an organization

is so dependent upon its funding at the bingo-hall level, and when that

funding is taken away and their very existence is threatened, there is

a problem, Mr. Minister. The government must be looking at that to

ensure that these worthwhile organizations are funded and able to

maintain a level of service. That's not what we're hearing, We are

hearing that their existence is threatened.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear a question in that; I heard a political

statement. Let me reiterate that there will always be a need for local

organizations, for volunteer organizations and for charitable

fund-raising efforts such as bingos and casinos. Surely the member is

not suggesting that the government take over all of this funding and do

away with bingos, casinos, fun nights and other types of fund-raising

done at the local level. Further, the decisions on funding from this

ministry, as I said yesterday, are made as far as possible at the local

level by regional managers. They have a global budget, and within

certain parameters they make the decisions as to where the money should

go. We certainly cannot fund every worthwhile organization 100 percent,

It's impossible.

Don't think for a moment that I think that

the paraplegic organization or any other organization is frivolous.

Don't ever read that into what I'm saying. These charities are all very

worthwhile organizations. But many of them have to look to communities

and community events and charitable events to raise their funds.

[2:45]

MRS. BOONE :

As the minister missed my question, I guess what I was asking him is if

he will be looking to fund many of these organizations that currently

are not funded — and there are many out there that receive absolutely no funding from the provincial government. Is the ministry looking at that?

second one is with regard to the taxation. To assume that bingo halls

are fund-raising events is ridiculous. Bingo halls are a form of

taxation on various people, but it comes from the lower levels and the

mid levels of society, and not from the people who actually have the

money.

I'll leave you...if you could answer that question: will you be looking to fund any of these organizations in the future?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman. we look at requests that we get from organizations on a

continuing basis. The answer to that is yes, of course. We look at them

all. That doesn't mean we can fund them all. We just do not have the

wherewithal to fund everyone who comes to our door, no matter how

worthwhile they are. We even agree — a lot of times they're very worthwhile organizations, but we just do not have the wherewithal to fund everybody.

answer to the second one again, I personally don't look on bingos or

casinos as a form of taxation. It's a form of relaxation and recreation

for a lot of people, but I certainly don't think it's taxation. It's

not compulsory, the same as buying a lottery ticket is not compulsory.

People do it of their own volition, and I think they have a little bit

of fun with a chance of winning a little bit of money while at the same

time contributing to a worthwhile cause.

MRS. BOONE : The next questions are related to the health issues — I've had a series of correspondence with you regarding this —

and it has to do with the funding of nonprescription drugs through the

ministry. What we are finding is that frequently non-prescription drugs

are advocated by a physician: they are less costly, they do not have

the dispensing fee, and there are occasions when they actually act

better than a prescription drug. Yet the ministry does not fund these

for their clients. You have informed me through correspondence that it

is required that it be a prescription drug from a physician. My

question to you is: if a physician does recommend it — if they

are willing to write out in longhand that their client requires this

drug which can be purchased over the counter without going through the

dispensing fees — why will not the ministry fund these, rather

than having their clients have to purchase a drug that sometimes is not

as effective and costs more?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The very simple answer to the question is that it's a matter of health. It falls under the

[ Page 384 ]

Ministry

of Health and health care. It presumes that we would get into the

domain of the doctors, and I don't want to venture into that. So

perhaps your questions could be better canvassed under the Ministry of

Health estimates. But as far as a direct answer to what you're saying,

the answer is no, for the reasons I've stated.

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, we talk about charities, bingos, day care and people on

welfare and other things like that. I want to be assured, Mr. Minister,

that what you said yesterday is in harmony with the ideas of many of

us, simply that people do have an obligation to support themselves and

to become self-reliant.

As for charities, like the Canadian

Paraplegic Association and others, who raise money, I commend them for

that, because I don't think anybody in this world wants every

organization in the province or in Canada to become totally dependent

on the actions of the government alone. If anybody doubts that, then I

would like to hear about it, because that is not how this great country

was built. It was not built on the backs of government. It was built

with the hearts and souls and the hard work of all the citizens out

there, whether it was day care, charities or other suitable worthwhile

obligations. We had people the other day suggesting that we should be

paying volunteers. What an insult to those great people who do things

on behalf of others, who have the time, energy, commitment, will and

the thoughtfulness to help those who need a little help.

When

it comes to people on welfare and support for daycare centres and

things like that, I don't want it to ever be said that somebody is

better off on welfare when the net home pay is the same as going to a

job and paying a day-care centre, or whatever else they have to do to

keep their job — whether it's bus fare, more clothing,

transportation or whatever. I think that everybody's better off working

if the net pay is the same. I think many people are better off even if

they have a little less, because there's always the opportunity for a

better job, a better life, and a better opportunity to keep your mind

busy thinking and working and developing.

There's no end to

opportunity if people are out there. Certainly I can think of nothing

more dismal than to just imagine that what you have now with the

support of the government is the best and the top of the line for a

human being. We can all improve. Working is good, even if it takes a

little more effort.

So I want to hear that we're going to

let organizations help themselves. If they need more help and we can

help, let us do that, but there's nothing quite as marvelous as a

self-reliant society with a little help from us, but not total help

from us.

MR. CASHORE : I think that the line of questions and answers that we have heard in the last few minutes —

questions asked by the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and

the answers given by the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) — helped very much to underline the theme that is

emerging within this debate, which is that the government operates on a

philosophy of crisis intervention. The alternative that we are clearly

presenting is a philosophy of prevention.

I would like to

say something to the hon. member who just commented on the fact that we

will always have charities and the fact that we have bingos, and that

this is a very important part, in his view, of how we go about being

British Columbians — good British Columbians, perhaps.

I would

just like to tell him a little anecdote. When I was doing advocacy work

in the Downtown East Side, I had the experience of a male person, about

35 years old, coming to me and telling me that he thought that really

his only chance of getting out of his circumstances would be to win a

lottery. I say: "Well, how can you, on income assistance, afford to buy

lottery tickets?" He said: "I can't, but you know what happened?

Somebody bought me one. Somebody bought me a lottery ticket. They gave

it to me as a gift. You know what? I won $250." This was an honest man;

a man who liked to share his good news. When this chap shared his good

news with his financial assistance worker, that worker was obligated by

law to deduct that winning. He could not keep it. Mr. Chairman, in our

free enterprise system, where we count on bingos and the vagaries of

chance to support some of the very necessities of quality of life for

our citizens, where some of our citizens have to depend on the vagaries

of chance and on lotteries, those very lotteries and gambling

procedures that some of my honourable friends in the government spoke

against when they were interviewed in the Vancouver Sun recently.

When

we find that that is happening.... When the government advertises its

lotteries, we don't find the government putting a warning down on the

corner, a warning to those on income assistance: "It may be dangerous

for you to purchase a lottery ticket and to listen to our advertising,

our get-rich-quick facade that we are presenting to you, because if you

win we'll take it away from you." I don't see that warning being put in

the bottom left-hand corner of the advertising that this government

uses when it is depending on the vagaries of chance to fund some of the

very important services that people need for quality of life.

There

will always be charity; there's no argument with that. There will

always be a need for churches and community organizations, legions and

service clubs to do the work that they have done traditionally on the

cutting edge of social change — demonstration projects, projects

that indicate a vision and a way in which we can enhance the quality of

life for people in this society. They've done that in the past; they'll

do it in the future. Often government has recognized the value of what

they have done and then has become involved.

When I was a

minister in northern British Columbia, in Port Simpson.... The first

missionary there had been the Rev. Thomas Crosby, who went there in

1873. A few years after that there was a doctor by the name of Bolton

who was in medical school in the east, and he heard Thomas Crosby

speak. He decided that he wanted to come up to the northern part of

British Columbia and be able to contribute his gifts and medicine. When

he came, he had quite a struggle for several years with the Methodist

board of world mission to convince that board that it would be

worthwhile for that organization to get into the delivery of health

services. So he went there first as a volunteer, and then that

organization recognized the importance of delivering those health

services, and eventually the state recognized the importance of

delivering health services to people throughout the province.

Now

if you're saying that because of the free enterprise philosophy being a

philosophy that somehow is completely an alternative to what we're

saying.... If you're saying that you're going to set up toll booths at

the gates of hospitals in order to fulfil your philosophy, then I think

you should say that very clearly to the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 385 ]

The

issue here is that we will always have people who are called upon to do

good charitable work, but when work clearly becomes established as part

of the structure of our society and part of the delivery of quality

care, then it behooves us to maintain that level of care for the

benefit of our people. I don't think anybody here would argue with

that. I don't expect you to argue with it. I don't expect anybody to

argue with it, because that is the tradition that you have been

carrying on during the time you've been government.

I would

like to recognize that this has been a significant day in the life of

our province because several civil servants who have served this

province at a very high executive level and have served this province

well have the opportunity to move on to new areas of responsibility. I

would like to ask the minister at this time to say a few words of

introduction for Mr. Jim Carter, who will become the new deputy

minister....

[3:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, would you take your seat for just a moment. In this debate

up to this point in time, because there are so many of us here who are

new, we've been given a great deal of latitude in what people have been

talking about when they are speaking to the estimates. May I suggest to

the hon. member that we are really supposed to be speaking to the

estimates of the expenses involved with the office of the Minister of

Social Services and Housing. Now we have allowed latitude, and we've

been talking about things that fall under the two other votes which we

will be dealing with in the course of the debate on the minister's

estimates, but when we're getting into the area that you are now

approaching, may I suggest that it is not really within the realm of

relevancy that we look forward to in this type of debate.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, just continuing on the point that you've made, perhaps I

could ask for clarification. It was my understanding as we went into

estimates that, for instance, in the estimates of this ministry there

are three votes.... The advice I had was that we could discuss all

aspects that we intended to discuss under the three votes under the

estimates for the costs of the minister's office. So I had assumed that

that was appropriate, and if it was appropriate then I would also like

to ask if I could pursue that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes,

and I thought that's what I said a moment ago. That's the way we've

been proceeding and it's entirely appropriate, but we were getting into

a discussion with respect to a change that's been made in senior

members of the civil service, which to my mind, unless you can explain

to me the relevancy of bringing that subject up.... It was this

particular thrust that you were approaching that I found not to fall

within the confines of the debate that takes place on the estimates of

the minister.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, perhaps I

could just go a bit further and try to explain my rationale for this. I

understand that the individual that I was referring to is about to

become the new assistant deputy minister, and since it is in the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing, I would assume that his

activities would come under the purview of that part of government and

that therefore it would be appropriate to request some information with

regard to who this gentleman is and what background, academic and

experiential, he brings to this portfolio. This is done with respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN : It appears that the minister is prepared to speak on this.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to answer several of the points that the

member brought up, and I'm going to try to take them in the order that

he mentioned them.

First of all, he said it appears that my

ministry works on a principle of crisis intervention. Now he's

absolutely right to a certain extent, and we take that as a compliment.

We are a crisis intervention ministry, without any question. The whole

thrust of the ministry is not in that direction. We plan as carefully

as possible to do the things he said: to prevent, to anticipate, to

provide for people less fortunate then ourselves, and even to try to

provide employment for those who are employable. But we certainly are a

crisis intervention ministry; if there is one in government, we are it.

We respond daily to crisis requirements and will continue to do so.

talked about lottery tickets and winnings. There is no question that if

someone on income assistance wins a lottery it's going to come off

their welfare payments. I don't care, Mr. Member, whether they win $200

or $2 million or $10 million; it's going to come off their welfare

payments. But so does the money that someone goes out and earns. How

could we possibly, in all conscience, put a warning on or let someone

who wins a lottery ticket keep the money and continue to pay them

income assistance, and when a person goes out and earns $200 we take it

off of their welfare cheque? And we will continue to do so.

think the philosophy here is something that has gotten lost on the

member: that welfare, or income assistance if you like, is not designed

to be a way of life, especially for those who are employable. Our

intent is to get them turned around and off the welfare rolls as

quickly as possible. We do encourage them to go out and earn a little

extra income. We even increased the earnings exemption allowance last

fall to allow them to earn just a few more dollars. But that doesn't

mean that we want it to become a way of life. We want that person

turned around and off the welfare syndrome and back into the workforce

as quickly as possible. We make it very clear when clients come to us

for assistance that any time they win money or earn money beyond about

$125 or $150 a month, depending on their status, or if they inherit

money, it will be deducted from their income assistance. And it will

continue to be. I say this in all earnestness and in all sincerity to

you, and I mean it.

I think we have pursued a very

informative and amicable line of questioning thus far in these

estimates. I would hope that all of the estimates proceed along those

lines. We have had a good interchange of information, maybe not always

getting the answer that we want or the question that we would like, but

it has been very good between all of us. This is the purpose of this,

of course. This is the arena, the showplace of democracy, and this is

where we debate the spending estimates of each ministry.

But

I just caution you that when you start into some of the rhetoric that

we have heard over there, since I've been here for six years, and

before that.... When you start on "this government is now suggesting

that we put toll booths at the doors of hospitals," you go too far. You

go too far all the time, and I just caution you that if we head down

that road of your making those types of accusations, and taking things

out of context and spinning them into the surrealistic, if you like,

into some political ideology to make political points, we're

[ Page 386 ]

going

to head down the wrong road in these estimates, and we're going to end

up hurling political insults back and forth at each other.

remind you that most of the medical institutions, educational

institutions and programs we are talking about were put in place by

this government. So for you to suggest again that the only people who

have a social conscience — which seems to happen all the time —

are those of the socialist bent.... The two are not synonymous. I say

that for some of the young people who may be sitting in the gallery. Do

not equate a social conscience with socialism; the two are not

synonymous.

Take a look back at the history of this

country, as my colleague from Vancouver South said. This country was

not built on the back of government. This country was built by a

pioneering spirit and by individuals doing their thing. But yes, we do

help those less fortunate than ourselves. We always have. At the

moment, Mr. Member, and for the edification of the rest, the social

service ministries in this government spend upwards of 70 percent of a

$9 billion budget, and it is rising every year. In fact, the biggest

increases, I am proud to say, this year came in my ministry.

I just make that point so that maybe we can keep these estimate debates

on a level without getting into political rhetoric. I am happy to

accommodate you. If you wish to make your questions a political

statement, you will get a political answer.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the bingo halls a little bit. There

is a situation that is happening in this province that is disturbing

many of us, and that is that we are encouraging and promoting gambling,

the playing of bingo and casinos in order to support our organizations.

Now

the minister may say that that is well and good, and that these things

should be promoted. However, there are offshoots from this whole thing

that have a social price. The native population in our area mention

bingo in the same breath as they mention alcohol. They see it as being

the same problem. Actually, in the same breath they say: "We must deal

with this. We must deal with the problem of alcoholism among our

population, and we must deal with the problems of bingo."

That

may seem strange to many people, but we do have that problem. We have

people traveling as far as from Burns Lake to Prince George in order to

participate in bingo halls, which operate on an ongoing basis. Those

people are spending money that they can't afford to spend. They are

addicted to bingo; there is no doubt about that. It is gambling; it is

an addiction. They are spending their money, they are leaving their

children at home, they are leaving their children in cars, and the

population out there is disturbed and worried about it. What we are

doing is that your ministry then goes out and has to pick up these

children. Then we have to deal with that situation.

question to you is: why are we not providing some funding for these

organizations so that they are not out there promoting bingo, which is

causing problems that you then have to turn around and deal with?

Surely your ministry should be trying to deal with things on a stop

basis — trying to stop them from happening, not encouraging

problems out there. We don't want to create more problems in out

population; we want to prevent them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I know that the member's heart is in the right place when she talks

about this, because, yes, there are people who do have a problem; they

get their priorities mixed up. But they would get their priorities

mixed up, Madam Member, whether we funded their organization or not; it

would have nothing to do with it. If we opened up the bottomless purse,

which some seem to think exists — and a lot of people out there do feel that —

and funded.... Your original question was: why don't we fund all of

these organizations instead of making them rely on bingos? Even if we

funded them, Madam Member, they would still go to the bingo hall. You

may be right — I think you are — that some of them are addicted to it, as some are addicted to other things.

don't try to pretend that we can solve all of those problems. Many

people in our society have their priorities all mixed up; we have many

of them on our welfare rolls who have their priorities totally mixed

up. We do try to give them counselling whenever possible.

think I can give you an answer now to your other question regarding the

Carefree bus. B.C. Transit funds the Carefree bus; they have no

contract with our ministry. They do transport handicapped people, and

they do charge for each trip. I don't know the amount; I think it's a

modest amount.

I can't read the next one, because my

deputy's writing is not the greatest in the world, but.... My

ex-deputy's writing is not the greatest.... But the community project

funding for the Canadian Paraplegic Association was $231,451 last year.

I assume that came from our ministry. Yes, the funding that went to the

Paraplegic Association from our ministry was $231,451; they also get

funding from the Ministry of Health, but I can't give you that figure.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, the minister has problems reading his deputy's handwriting; I have problems reading my own handwriting.

would like to ask the minister.... I thought when he stood up to

respond to my last series of questions that he was going to respond to

the question that I was discussing with the Chairman.

[3:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Mr. Minister, I've been referring to Sir Erskine May here, and it would

seem to me that there's certainly no requirement under the discussion

of your estimates that these kinds of questions be taken into account.

If it were a question relating to the moneys paid to someone, that

would be a different matter. Certainly I don't suppose there's any harm

in your responding to the question; however, it would seem to me that

this is probably not the forum to discuss matters of personnel

management within a ministry.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to answer somewhat along those lines —

not to shut down discussion on it, because the moves that were made

today are very important to the running of government. I think we

should just discuss it for a moment, because from a philosophical angle

I think it's one of the best moves that have been made in government in

a long, long time. I think it will shed a whole new light on a series

of things, because good administrators are good administrators, and can

move from one area to another. The expertise will always be in the

ministries, but the administrators are the working arm of government.

They are the people who carry out the policy

[ Page 387 ]

laid down by any government, whether the government were to change — heaven forbid! — and you should become government....

MR. MOWAT : Never!

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

You might find difficulty, Mr. Member, if you became Minister of Social

Services and Housing, in carrying out your policies if you had an

administration that never, ever changed, and I think other governments

have found that. So we're looking forward to this, as are all of the

deputies whom I've talked to. Maybe it's a good time for me to pay a

special compliment to some of our senior deputies who've been here a

long, long time and dedicated themselves to their jobs. They've put in

long hours; they work very, very hard. We, the people of British

Columbia, owe them a vote of thanks, and we'll forever be in their debt.

Perhaps

I could take just a little latitude and compliment my deputy minister,

Mr. Noble, who ceased to be my deputy minister this morning, who's been

in this ministry since 1976, has done a tremendous job, and will be

sorely missed in this ministry; without any question, he will be

missed. But I know he will be welcomed by his new ministry and do an

excellent job there, as will Mr. Carter be welcomed into this ministry.

I know they'll both bring a fresh approach to their new duties. I wish

them all well. I would say one more thing. At some future date, once

the new deputy has had a chance to take over his responsibilities, I

will make sure that he meets with your caucus so that you can get to

know him; and you can talk to him and, I'm sure, establish a good

working relationship.

MR. CASHORE : Thank you, Mr.

Minister. I too would like to offer my best wishes to Mr. Noble in this

transition, and also to Mr. Carter, as he takes on these

responsibilities on behalf of all the people of British Columbia.

don't want to get too far back into the discussion we had a few moments

ago, but in all seriousness I would like the minister to comment on the

fact that unfortunate people of low income in our society are

susceptible to some of the very, very astute and clever advertising of

provincial lotteries. In all seriousness I'm asking you whether or not

you would consider some kind of warning or recognition in that

advertising that there are people susceptible to that advertising

within our society, who nevertheless, because of the requirements that

you outlined a few moments ago, are not eligible to receive the

benefits of it if they end up putting some of their limited income into

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I call on the minister,

hon. members, I must say the question is a very difficult one. First of

all, the Minister of Social Services and Housing is not responsible for

the administration of lotteries within the province, so it is not

within his purview to respond to that particular question. Perhaps the

last part of the question the minister might wish to respond to. Or

perhaps the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would like to continue.

MR. CASHORE :

I would, insofar as the purview of the ministry relates to the care of

the persons for whom it cares who are on a limited income. I would hope

that at some point we would hear some concern or consideration from

that minister, because I think that here we have two parts of

government relating to the circumstances that....

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I will answer that to the best of my ability. It's a very difficult and

wide-ranging question to answer. As I said earlier, in the limited time

I've been in the ministry — which is since last August, with a little time out for an event in October —

it's come to my attention, of course, that many people who are our

clients have trouble managing their money. Some of them do not. Some of

them, Mr. Member, along the lines you're talking about, have such

trouble managing their money, and their priorities are so mixed up,

that we literally move in and handle it for them. We don't have the

staff or the facilities to manage the money of everyone on income

assistance. Nor do we want to. We don't want to dehumanize people to

the point where we not only give them income assistance — or welfare; let's call it what it is —

but also tell them how they can spend it. I think that would be going

too far. It would be a very dehumanizing thing if we were to give

people, let's say, tokens whereby they could spend this on food, this

on entertainment, this on cigarettes, this on alcohol and this on

bingo. We don't ever want to get into that.

Yet I know what

you're saying. A lot of them have difficulty adjusting their

priorities. Some of them have an expensive smoking habit when they

shouldn't have, or maybe a drinking habit. Others, as you suggest, may

have a bingo or casino fixation, or maybe they go to the racetrack —

I don't know. But some of them do have problems with their priorities.

I know their financial assistance workers try, whenever possible, to

counsel them along the proper lines. With the exceptions that I

said.... I believe there are about 900 of our clients who are real

down-and-outers. We do manage their money for them simply because, Mr.

Member, if we didn't we would give them their cheque today and tomorrow

it would be gone, and they'd be back to us for a crisis grant, or

whatever. So we do manage it for some of them, although we try not to

get into that. We don't have the staff, for one thing, nor do we have

the desire. But I understand what you're saying. And there are some who

do have their priorities mixed up. I think that's a problem, though. If

it wasn't a problem with buying lottery tickets, as you say, it would

be a problem with something else. So that's the best answer I can give

you. We try to counsel them but, by the same token, we don't want to

dehumanize people by telling them where they can spend their money.

MS. MARZARI :

I think the critic, the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone),

was trying to say that casinos are not only not fun but they can

undermine community fabric. I think what I should probably say is that

it is not a question of administration of welfare cheques; it's really

a question, if I can put it to you, of the philosophy of the government

and what kind of philosophy encourages the voluntary sector, which is

worried about the fabric of their communities, to go into casino

nights. I've twirled a few of those discs myself, and each agency I've

done it for has agonized over how they should be doing a casino night,

when, in effect, the problems they're trying to solve with the people

are partly caused by the mentality and the spirituality and the

philosophy that goes towards lotteries, casino nights and bingos.

For

me, political statements don't have to be thrown back and forth across

the House. For me, the politics is in the numbers themselves. The

numbers on the estimates themselves are, for me, political statements,

and I'm sure they are for you. Yesterday I talked a little bit about

child care as a

[ Page 388 ]

preventive

measure in the community. When I'm discussing a little bit about women

and social services today, I wanted to turn my attention to a few

things just as symbolic of the total purview of agencies and services

that exist. Transition houses are symbolic; they are an emergency,

crisis-oriented service. Secondly, I want to look at family places,

which are in effect just the opposite. They are a preventive, soft,

community approach that tries to prevent family breakdown and bolster

family life in communities. In turning my attention to both of these

kinds of services, I feel badly that I'm neglecting the huge range of

services that bolster family life in the community, but this is what I

think I can do in the few minutes I have.

Yesterday when we

talked about planning of community services, Mr. Minister, you

suggested that there was in fact a good and a decent planning capacity

within your department. In fact, I know some of the people in that

capacity, and I admire and respect them. I would suggest, then, that

there would be some planning around special issues regarding women and

children. I would assume that there had been special measures and

special plans in this year's budget for transition houses, as an

emergency measure for women and their children when they can no longer

remain in the home because of physical abuse. We all know what the

numbers are.

In Vancouver right now there are 12 beds at

the Kate Booth House; those are the real emergency beds, where women

can go 24 hours a day. There are 115 general beds where people can

go — men and women and families that are in crisis. I would

suggest that those 115 beds represent a bed to-population ratio in the

greater Vancouver area of one bed for every 11,304 people. If I can

compare that to Toronto, which has 680 equivalent beds, the

beds-to-population ratio is one to 4,402 people. In other words, we lag

far behind. In fact, other statistics suggest we have the lowest

beds-to population ratio in the country in terms of transition shelter

and accommodation. The Victoria women's shelter society has, I gather,

12 beds. I also gather that this government has, in effect, instituted

a number of primary emergency beds and safe-housing beds — that's a second-stage transitional facility — throughout the province, and the government is to be commended for that.

But

I would ask if this government has plans in process to expand the

number of beds in metro Vancouver specifically. As you know, many women

come to Vancouver when they are in trouble. Finding accommodation in a

small town when there is an abusive husband around is not the way that

many women wish to find their accommodation. They come to Vancouver,

and sadly, Vancouver lacks beds. Vancouver city council has requested

the Ministry of Social Services for an additional facility and an

advocacy function that provides social services for women when they

leave home in an emergency situation. Has the minister planned for the

expansion of such facilities in metro Vancouver?

[3:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I have some statistics on transition houses, but only for Vancouver and area —

well, for British Columbia, but mainly for the lower mainland and

Vancouver, so I cannot comment on statistics from Toronto, etc. I don't

have them, so I take your statistics at face value. But I just want to

point out a few of the things we're doing in transition houses. For

example, back in 1979 this ministry funded seven transition houses in

B.C. at a cost of $500,000.

In 1986-87 this ministry will

spend in excess of $3 million to fund 33 facilities and eight safe-home

programs. Obviously the need has increased, but obviously we've come a

long way since 1979.

Let me go on just for a moment and

talk about Vancouver specifically. My ministry funds five resources for

battered women and their children in Vancouver. They are: Kate Booth

House, which has 12 suites; the Act II house, with nine suites; Munroe

House, with six; Owl House, with 12 suites; and Powell Place, with 28

suites — for a total of 67 suites in Vancouver. I won't read you

all of the statistics on transition houses, but suffice it to say that

most of them operate at approximately 80 percent capacity on average.

Sometimes the resources are full, but on an average they operate at 80

percent. The majority-again, 80 percent-of referrals to the Vancouver

transition houses come from my ministry district offices or from my

ministry's emergency service offices.

Another important

point is that a very large percentage of persons using the transition

houses are single women who have been beaten by boy-friends or other

persons, or they're off the street. I throw that in just so that people

don't get the impression that they all come from family situations or

from homes. A great percentage of them are single women. Although I

guess that, as in many things, the facilities we have throughout the

province for battered women are not perfect, we have come a long, long

way. We have 67 suites in Vancouver that operate at about 80 percent

occupancy.

From travelling around the province I have

learned that in some of the outlying communities we have a pressing

need for safe homes and transition houses. Now in most communities we

do have what we call sat homes, and I'm sure you're very much aware of

them. They're not a transition house per se, but they are a safe haven

that we can, in a emergency situation at 2 o'clock in the morning, put

a woman and her children into. I realize that in some of the outlying

areas there is somewhat of a need to improve these situations, and

we're looking at them on a continuing basis. It's another aspect of

traveling around the province which has been driven home to us and

noted, and we are taking a close look at it. Without going into a long

statement on transition houses — I have pages and pages on it — I'll leave it at that, so that what we're doing is on the record.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MS. MARZARI :

I'll take that as a positive response, Mr. Minister: that in fact you

are in active stages of planning for the expansion of these facilities.

Planning is going on. You're looking at the demographic needs of the

community and responding to them by finding agencies that will in

effect be able to meet these needs. Am I correct?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Just let me respond. I thought I made it clear, but if I didn't, I apologize.

Yes,

we're looking at this on a continual basis. We monitor it very closely

on a continual basis. This is how we know what the occupancy is, where

they come from, the needs of the community. At the moment, as I said,

in Vancouver there doesn't appear to be a pressing need for increased

transition services when the facilities there are operating at about 80

percent, but we do monitor it on a monthly basis in every region of the

province. So the answer to that is yes.

[ Page 389 ]

MS. MARZARI :

Perhaps the minister shouldn't assume that an 80 percent occupancy rate

suggests that the other 20 percent means there is not a need. I would

like to suggest that in fact the need is there, and it's a crying need,

and that the more beds that are open, the more facilities you'll find

that have an 80 percent occupancy rate. Just because one or two

beds.... When we have 12 real emergency beds — all the other beds are second stages, as you yourself have suggested —

in the whole of the lower regional mainland in Vancouver.... I think

you must know that the need is outstanding when all the statistics tell

us that abuse in families is on the increase. The police and the social

agencies are requesting more and more assistance by the day.

The

other area I wanted to turn our attention to for a few moments is not

the crisis intervention level; it is the community support preventive

level. In that way I wanted to look towards the family places in

Vancouver — both the East Side Family Place and the West Side

Family Place. My estimates are taken from the '83-84 and '84-85

budgets. In the last number of years both family places have declined

in terms of the number of provincial dollars put towards them. Once

again I'm rather hamstrung, Mr. Minister, because the 1986 numbers are

not out yet, and I would hope that when we do estimates next year,

we'll have those '86-87 numbers in front of us. It would make a big

difference, and we wouldn't have to be phoning over trying to get

numbers. In fact, I couldn't get the numbers for these because your

report isn't out yet. You don't have the '86-87 numbers of the actual

dollars given towards West Side Family Place. As I said, I see a

percentage decline in the amount of provincial dollars put towards

preventive social services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I've

just received the 1985-86 numbers on some of the community projects

that we fund. B.C. Council for the Family: $116,540; Burnaby Family

Life Institute, $15,642; Mount Pleasant Family Centre, $65,215; West

Side Family Place Society, $17,328; Victoria Single Parent Resource

Centre, $29,568.

Let me add one thing I overlooked when I

was talking about the amount of money that would be spent this year on

transition houses. An additional $278,000 — over a quarter of a million dollars —

has been planned for resource development in 1987-88. One final word on

transition houses, and I'm going to quote somebody much more

knowledgeable than myself. This is from Mrs. Gutteridge who runs Powell

Place in Vancouver, which has 28 suites. She says, in talking about

transition houses: "We have to keep things in perspective. We know

we're not God, but the social services available in British Columbia

are as good as anywhere. Criticism? It's mostly political."

MR. DE JONG :

Mr. Minister, we have quite a sizeable budget, at least as far as I

read the numbers. We have a big job in the province as far as services

to people go, in particular to those who are in real need.

also know that besides the dollars which are directly provided by the

provincial government through your ministry, there are many other

organizations. I had the opportunity last week to meet in your office

with yourself and one of those organizations which provide a lot of

money toward those in need in the province, of one kind or another. We

know there are a lot of benevolent societies in the province and in

every community, service clubs that provide various types of services

to the handicapped and to all kinds of people. I think we ought to take

our hats off to a lot of individuals and service clubs throughout

British Columbia as well as to the various benevolent societies. The

fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister, that all of these societies

provide service and dollars.

It would be very hard to put a

price on various services provided, but I'm sure that there must be

some statistics available that would tell us approximately how many

dollars are provided in terms of service by such organizations and by

churches and so on. So in addition to what is already in our budget,

Mr. Minister, is there any figure that we could get where the

combination of money provided through your ministry and by those of the

individuals in British Columbia, being all British Columbia tax dollars

really.... Are there such statistics available so that that information

could be supplied?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Madam

Chairman, I don't have a number to give the member on the value of

volunteer services in British Columbia. I don't think one has ever been

done across government, but I know of one figure that was put together

a few years ago — I think two years ago — by the Ministry

of Health, and that's the only one I can quote you, and that is that if

they had to pay for all of the volunteer services just for that one

ministry, it would be somewhere between $2.5 billion and $3 billion a

year. So that gives you some idea of what volunteer services in the

province are worth. If we had to pay in this ministry for all of the

services that are now provided by the organizations you mentioned — societies, organizations, service clubs — and all of the hours of work put in by volunteers, there is no way that we as a people — and government, which is the people —

could afford that. So that's the best answer I could give you. I'm sure

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) will listen to this: the

deficit in this province would be something that would be unmanageable

if we had to pay for the volunteer services in this ministry, the

Ministry of Health and other ministries.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Minister, I can see from our exchange over the last few minutes

that the emphasis on transition houses that you did establish in

'86-87, which you quoted at $3 million, has been de-emphasized this

year in the books to $278,000, and I would imagine that that would be

to cover the per diems of the houses that you've already established. I

also glean from what we've discussed in the last few minutes that your

support for these community services that in fact bolster family life

and create a preventive approach has not increased substantially. The

decline over the past few years, it suggests to me, might be repeated

in '87-88. I know that you suggested that preventive services for

families are going to increase by 9 percent this year. I do not see the

breakdown in the estimates as to how that's going to occur, and into

what kinds of services you'll be putting these dollars.

would ask you to prepare the books next year so that we can actually

crack out these numbers more easily, so that those community services

that are there to bolster families be separated in the grants portion

of your estimates and of your reports, and that transition houses be

singled out and that their per diems and their capital construction

grants be singled out, so that we know exactly — without having to phone over — how to read these numbers, without having to cause the public costs in order to retrieve public numbers.

[ Page 390 ]

One

last question, Mr. Minister, on the soft side, the community prevention

side. In my constituency there is a great deal of distress because

child care workers have been removed from our schools. These child care

workers were there because Social Services put them there. They were

relied on by the school board and by the teachers. In effect, they

helped mitigate some of the disastrous effects of the cutbacks in the

education budget. Will these child care workers in the schools be

returned to Vancouver?

[3:45]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Again, I get a little exasperated, Madam Member, when you can sit there

and hear me say that we have increased a budget of $3 million by

$278,000 — increase; I clearly said that — then get up and

say that we have reduced a $3 million budget to $278,000. That is

totally incorrect. So I have to set the record straight. I don't know

why you did that.

MS. MARZARI : That was unintentional.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

If you did it unintentionally, I'll accept that. But I made the point

that we had added $278,000 this year to a budget that was already $3

million. I think it is important that I put that on the record.

The answer to your last question, in one word, is no.

MR. CASHORE : Madam Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions at this time with regard to the JobTrac program.

first question is this. The budget announced $81 million for JobTrac.

This was targeted to employables. Is this funding coming through the

Canadian job strategy program of the federal government? How much of

the $81 million is federal money and how much of it is provincial money?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I've got a page of statistics here on employment initiatives for income

assistance recipients. It may be a little difficult to follow, but for

1987-88 the provincial employment and training programs total $43.6

million, while the federal employment and training programs total $34.2

million. The total is $77.8 million. On top of that there is a

provincial job preparation and support of $12.62 million, for a total

expenditure of $90.42 million. So that is how it breaks down federally

and provincially.

MR. CASHORE : Given the federal and

provincial dimensions of this, who initiates the projects? As a JobTrac

project is entered into, from which...? Could you track us so that we

would know who initiates it between those two jurisdictions?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Boy, to stand here and to take you through a road-map of all that....

First of all, I don't know if I could do it without making a mistake;

and secondly, I don't know if it would solve anything. It's an

intergovernmental thing between the federal and provincial governments,

and it's intraministry. For example, it involves the Forests ministry,

the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, the Ministry of Advanced

Education and Job Training, the Ministry of Social Services and

Housing, and the like ministries in the federal government.

to answer your question right now, no, I can't stand up here and give

you an exact road-map of how everything fits together. I could, though,

given a little time. I can get a paper together for you and would be

happy to provide you with that information.

MR. CASHORE :

We do intend to ask a few fairly specific questions in this area, and I

understand that it may be necessary to take some of those questions

under advisement, although we would hope that if that was necessary we

could come back to it tomorrow. We would still like to put our

questions on the record.

I would ask the member for New Westminster now if she would ask some questions.

MS. A. HAGEN :

My questions to the minister, as my colleague has noted, are on the

JobTrac program. I can appreciate the comments that he has just made

about trying to explain the program, because it is complex. It is

complex, too, for us to try to sort things out in terms of the budget.

We are seriously trying to understand the initiatives here, because

clearly, in respect to your ministry, it is a major initiative around

the issue of providing both training and employment for people who are

in receipt of social assistance.

So I hope you will bear

with me with some of these questions. Again, it may be useful to try to

deal with them one by one, and I'll try to stay clearly on track with

the information I am looking for. On page 75 of the booklet that

accompanied the hon. Finance minister's budget presentation, there is a

section called "Federal-Provincial Cooperation." It notes, as the

minister has stated, that the two levels of government, federal and

provincial, have "been working closely in the delivery of employment

and training programs."

It's my understanding that the main

focus of that delivery now is something called the Canadian Jobs

Strategy, which is in the second of three years of joint

federal-provincial funding and management. That, of course, is noted

here, and it's noted that each of the two levels of government has

committed $15 million to that program — and I would presume that that's in each of the three years —

for a total of $90 million. The statement goes on to say: "The doubling

in provincial funding for these programs in 1987-88 is made in the

expectation that the federal government will also want to increase

funding for its matching programs proportionately."

Now I'm

trying to deal with two things here: first of all, the minister, in

answer to my colleague's question about dollars from federal and

provincial jurisdictions, quoted $43.6 million provincially and $34.2

million federally. The budget document refers to $15 million each year

presently being committed and suggests that perhaps there are

negotiations still going on. What I would like to ask the minister to

elaborate on is, in fact, the figures that he has given in the context

of the information in the budget booklet — $15 million annually there; and $43.6 million and $34.2 respectively, provincially and federally.

I'd also like him to explain whether in fact the JobTrac dollars —

which he now says total something in the order of $90 million, and

which the Finance minister has said total something in excess of $80

million — are conditional; whether there are still negotiations

taking place between the federal and provincial governments around

dollars that are going to be flowing into this program. What is the

meaning of the condition that the Minister of Finance noted in his

speech, and that's noted in this

section on JobTrac? Can the minister

give us some clearer understanding of the dollars that are

[ Page 391 ]

there, those that may be there, and where those dollars come from?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Madam Chairman, in my capacity as House Leader, I just want to make a

point. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) took the

opportunity, when he had finished his remarks, of directing the Chair

as to whom the Chair should recognize and in what order. That is not a

precedent that I think we should have established in the House. The

rules of the House clearly state that it is the Chairman's prerogative

to recognize the first person standing. I think the member perhaps did

it in error, but in my capacity as House Leader, I think I should point

out that it is up to the Chairman to recognize that person he sees

standing next in debate. It is not meant as a criticism but merely a

procedure. But I noticed that we have been crawling into this. It

happened two or three times today, and it happened yesterday. So

perhaps for that point of view, I bring that to your attention, Madam

Chairman.

MR. G. HANSON : On a point of order, I

think that the debate leader, out of courtesy to the Chair, because of

the layout of the House floor, is attempting to just indicate to the

Chair where the questions might be coming from in the minister's

estimates. I don't think the concern raised by the member is that valid.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

In answer to the member for New Westminster's question, I just want to

point out that the numbers I quoted are only a part of the provincial

funding. Let me go back to last year and show you the difference in the

province's funding. In 1986-87 we spent $15.23 million on provincial

employment and training programs. This year that number is up to $43.6

million. The federal government, on the other hand, spent $35.33

million on their employment and training programs last year, and $34.2

million this year — a very slight decrease. We are negotiating at

the present time with Ottawa to get them to boost their amount in a

like manner to ours. So to point out the discrepancy between the

Minister of Finance's figures and mine.... The $43.6 million and $12.62

million total $56 million, which is for income-assistance recipients.

When you add in the $25 million to non-income-assistance recipients,

you get $81 million of provincial money being spent in this coming

year. That does not include the federal contribution.

answer your other question, the federal funds that I quoted are all

committed. We are, though, to repeat, negotiating with them to get them

to increase the amount of their contribution as we have done from last

year to this year.

MS. A. HAGEN : I am not sure

whether anyone else understands what we're about right at this precise

moment. I am going to try to ask a very simple question that will get

at an issue that I want to confirm in my examination of the estimates.

I may in fact repeat what you've said, but I want to try to confirm

this. I think that what you have just said is that the $81 million

presently in the JobTrac program in the budget is fully committed at

both the federal and the provincial levels, that there are no dollars

in the proposed $81 million of spending that are subject at this time

to negotiation with the federal government. There is a push to increase

federal government funding for JobTrac activities; but I want to

confirm that there are no dollars in the amount presently encompassed

in this budget conditional on federal-provincial negotiations.

[4:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I thought I ended up by making that fairly clear. I'll do it again. The

$81 million is provincial money only, and it is committed in the

budget. The federal contribution on top of that is $34.2 million, and

that amount we are trying to negotiate up. But every figure I have

given you is fully committed money.

MS. A. HAGEN : I

was not taking into consideration there the $25 million that's not

targeted to social assistance recipients, so that has clarified that

issue for me at this point.

I would simply like to note at

this time, and it may require a little latitude, that because the

JobTrac program is so heavily committed to social services and housing

recipients, I think it's appropriate to deal with this issue under the

ministry's estimates, and again to echo the kind of difficulty that we

are having at times in following all of these various items through the

ministries. In some of the estimates JobTrac is clearly identified, as

it is in your ministry at this time with an increase of about $6

million. JobTrac items are also noted in the Advanced Education and Job

Training estimates and in the Environment estimates to a total of just

over $43 million. We have no reference in the documents that have come

to us for $20 million in Forestry that is targeted to income assistance

people, or $17 million in the Forests JobTrac program that is targeted

to Social Service income assistance recipients either. I think one of

our concerns here is to try to understand how these figures match up,

and some of that may simply mean that we need to do some further

questioning. I am concerned that we are sure that those dollars in fact

are entirely committed at that time, and I take the minister at his

word that there is within this budget $81 million of provincial money

that is contributing toward the JobTrac program.

I'd like

to just inquire about one further matter regarding the JobTrac program,

because it is such a significant initiative in the documentation that's

come both from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), and in the

minister's own estimates. I think the Minister of Finance commented

that something in the order of 5,000 jobs would be created through the

JobTrac program in terms of the targeting to the people who are

assisted by your ministry. I wonder if the minister would care to

comment about whether any of that particular amount is reflected in the

amount in his direct community services estimate of $108,177,304, which

is up only about $5 million from last year.

In planning to

implement the JobTrac program, is the minister anticipating that the

dollars that will be required for social assistance this year will

decline? Is the minister able to give some indication from his

estimates about what amount he thinks may in fact not be required for

social assistance coverage as a result of this program.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Madam Chairman, I'll do my best to give you an overview of what we

think might happen to the income assistance rolls. First of all, as I

said yesterday.... We can track it very closely. The people on income

assistance — or welfare, if you like — track very, very

closely to the employment or unemployment statistics, which ever way

you want to call it. So if the economy improves, the caseloads and the

welfare rolls go down. So I can't predict to you what the economy is

going to do to the income assistance

[ Page 392 ]

recipients

in my ministry. But I can give you some numbers that we have projected

on the employment initiatives for income assistance recipients under

the JobTrac program, and I'll itemize them as quickly as possible.

Firstly,

provincial. Under the forestry JobTrac, it should create 2,100 jobs; on

the JobTrac employment subprogram, 1,800 jobs; on the forestry

tree-planting project 1,100 jobs; on the community JobTrac, 2,400; the

JobTrac in Environment and Parks, 200; for a total of 7,600 jobs.

the federal level in job development: 2,962 jobs; job re-entry, 766;

job entry, 706; and innovations is unknown. The subtotal there is

4,434. When you total the two together, it's 12,034 jobs, which, of

course, should reduce the rolls of the people on income assistance in

my ministry. I don't have a dollar figure that I can put on what that

will do to my budget, but just to repeat, that side of the budget is

very much demand-driven, and hopefully this will decrease the demand

somewhat, and hopefully the economy will decrease the demand somewhat.

Just to elaborate a little further on JobTrac details — this might sound like a paradox but I hope it doesn't —

the government has simplified access to programs by training staff of

ministries so that they are aware of programs offered by other

ministries and by the federal government through Employment Canada

offices. Brochures and advertisements have been prepared to assist both

clients and employers. There have been two major innovations: one-stop

service centres and the Working Network. A pilot one-stop centre has

been opened in Prince George, and at least two more will be opened in

1987-88. The Working Network will use the facilities of the Knowledge

Network to link together employers, employment professionals and

clients. I can go through a breakdown of the dollar amounts for each

aspect of the program if you like. I don't know if it would serve any

purpose to you, but the total, as I've said before, for income

assistance recipients is $56 million, broken down into one, two, three,

four, five, six programs. The total in programs not restricted to

income assistance recipients is $24.7 million, and that's where the $81

million comes from.

All this, of course, sounds a little

bit confusing, and it is, there's no question, until you get it written

down and see it in front of you, and we are doing that for our staff

and for the clients by preparing brochures and, as you say, a road-map

of how to find us, and by simplifying it so that they can come to a

one-stop office and find out all this information.

Now

since I'm on my feet, I want to take just a few moments to talk about

the pilot project that we instituted in Kamloops and in Surrey-White

Rock. The purpose of this project was to computerize the very thing

that we're talking about — to get into the computer age so we

could match up employable people on income assistance with possible

employment and/or training programs. I can give a brief report at this

time on the progress of those pilot projects. I have just yesterday

received the first report from the Hewett Group, and the figures are,

to say the very least, most encouraging. I want to say before I get

into some of the figures that the program was entirely voluntary.

People on income assistance were encouraged to come forward and

register for the program so that they could have their job skills and

aspirations evaluated so that we could match them up with any available

employment and/or training programs and so that they could go away with

some sort of a personal resume that many of them have never, ever had

before in their lives. I'll try to go through this and make sense of

it, having only just seen it yesterday. I just got a copy of it from

the Hewett Group.

Let me emphasize again that the program

was voluntary; these people came forward to register. There is nothing

compulsory about it, contrary to reports that I'm sure many of you saw

in the morning newspaper in Vancouver, the Province ,

where they alluded to the fact that if you didn't come forward and

register in this program and take a job given to you, the mean Minister

of Social Services and Housing would take your children away. How they

convoluted that into that headline is totally beyond me, and I will say

to this House and in front of everybody: it is most irresponsible

journalism. So I'm going to try to clear up that point right now.

There were 2,943 income assistance recipients invited to participate in the project —

1,143 in Kamloops and 1,800 in Surrey-White Rock. Forty-five percent of

the clients accepted the invitation to participate in the program — 54 percent in Kamloops and 40 percent in Surrey-White Rock. Sixty-two percent were classified as job-ready — 88 percent in Kamloops and 38 percent in Surrey. So an interesting statistic starts to emerge right off the bat — 62 percent classified as job-ready.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Thirty-one percent were assessed as requiring training in order to achieve employment goals —

10 percent in Kamloops and 50 percent in Surrey-White Rock. Over 90

percent of the clients were assessed as having realistic job and income

goals. Over 75 percent did not like being on income assistance and

wanted off, and saw the program as a way to help them get back into the

workforce and into meaningful employment.

The response by

income-assistance recipients who participated in the assessment and

referral pilot project has been overwhelmingly positive. The people

feel good about the program, about coming in voluntarily and

registering; it's been overwhelming. We have a number of quotes by the

people. I won't take the House's time by reading them all into the

record; I'm just going to hit the highlights of this first report. One

hundred percent of the income-assistance recipients who participated in

this pilot stated that they would recommend it to others who were on

income assistance. One hundred percent went out feeling good about the

program and about themselves.

Although it's early in the

life of the program, some of the statistics are as follows. The

referral of clients to jobs.... Active marketing of job-ready clients

to private sector businesses has just started. Bear in mind, Mr.

Chairman, that the program has just barely got underway. The number of

job orders and clients placed increases daily, and we're going to be

getting updates every week. In Kamloops, 39 jobs have been identified

to date and 22 clients have been placed in jobs; in Surrey, 38 jobs

identified to date and 18 clients have been placed. And we just started

the program. We'll be updating this weekly.

[4:15]

Owing to the positive initial results, the pilot project will be

extended to further test-marketing of the clients to private sector

businesses in Kamloops and Surrey. Implementation of the assessment

phase will begin in Vancouver in April. Based on the success of the

project in Kamloops and Surrey, we are going to expand it into

Vancouver in April.

[ Page 393 ]

The

Hewett group believes in the potential of income assistance recipients

and has demonstrated that they have the necessary skills to obtain

employment. The Hewitt group have hired six income-assistance

recipients as key staff at their Surrey and Kamloops offices. So people

on income assistance, Mr. Chairman, are participating in the actual

project itself, in both Kamloops and Surrey. I'm very pleased with the

initial results of this project that we have started. We are going to

expand it into Vancouver next, and if that is successful, then as phase

3 we will go on to expand it to the rest of the province.

think it fits in very nicely with the JobTrac program that the province

has embarked upon. We're into the computer age with it and will be able

to match up clients with jobs in a matter of minutes, which used to

take some time.

MR. CASHORE : I would like to thank

the hon. Minister of Social Services and Housing for having that

information available within the House at this time. Because we do have

some further questions with regard to the JobTrac program, I think it

could facilitate our process if, given the modem technological age of

computers and duplicators, etc., we could ask the hon. minister to

table that report so that we could study it overnight. It may assist us

in questions we don't have to ask. I would like to ask the hon.

minister if we could have a copy of that report. I'm not sure if it

means asking you to table it or just what the proper process would be,

but I'll just ask the simple question: may we have a copy of that

report at the earliest possible time, hopefully within the next hour?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of hiding any of the detail in the

report from the opposition, but I've barely had a chance to have a look

at it myself What I will do is take out the pertinent information as

quickly as possible and get it to your caucus research people.

MR. CASHORE :

I appreciate your willingness to do that. I would hope that the

information that you consider to be pertinent is what we would both

agree is pertinent, I think I'd feel best if we could have the entire

report, but I'll leave that at this point.

MR. JONES :

I was in the House a few minutes ago when the minister I think

criticized this side of the House for trying to score political points.

I want to assure him that that's certainly not my intention; that as a

member in this House I think you have a very important ministry. It's

commendable that you take on the onerous task. I think it affects all

of our constituencies.

I have some questions that I would

like to raise with the minister. I hope the Chair and the minister will

grant me some latitude, because there are areas where there may be

overlapping; they may not be specifically within your jurisdiction, but

I hope you'll do your best to try to respond, at least in telling me

that.

The first question relates to the area where I have some knowledge — that's education, but I think it does pertain to your ministry as well —

and that's in the area of dropouts. I'm sure the minister is aware that

there are something like half a million students in our public school

system. Half of those students are between 13 and 18; something like

14,000 of those drop out every year, and 8,600 fail to complete grade

1 had a very interesting experience recently in the

minister's riding of Kamloops. I had an opportunity to visit the Henry

Gruber alternative school, which I'm sure the minister is familiar

with. I think it's an excellent program; outstanding teachers are

working very hard with students trying to fit back into the system.

Despite how good a program it is, in discussions with people in the

area I got the feeling that they were dealing with a small percentage

of the problem; that a large percentage of students were becoming

street kids, were in the malls, were wandering the streets. There

seemed to be a real sense of despair on the part of the community. The

comment I heard was that your ministry cannot do anything unless these

kids get into trouble.

I think it's a real shame that we

have this tremendous number of young people out there, the future of

our province. They're probably people who, unless we do something with

them, are going to cost your ministry and this province many, many more

dollars down the road than what we could invest in them now. I think

you're aware that it costs something like ten times as much to

incarcerate a person as it does to keep them in school. I know it's a

difficult problem, a hard one to get a handle on. Does the minister

have any plans to try to address this very serious problem?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Let me back up just one moment. Yes, I did talk about political points,

but far be it from me to lecture the opposition about not scoring

political points. I think it's great. Both sides should try to score

political points in here; we should lob grenades back and forth. I just

think that when we're discussing a ministry's spending estimates, we

can sometimes learn a lot more if we keep it on a question-and-answer

basis. But I'm perfectly willing to get into the political arena, and I

would never want to shut that off in here, because this is the place

where we do that.

On the teenage problem, I can tell you

that it's a problem I recognized a long time ago, as I guess we all

have, but I truly had it driven home to me when I got into this

ministry, the social side of government. Last fall I went into it in

great detail with my people in the ministry, and there's no question

that it's a serious problem, as you've alluded to. I guess it is more a

problem in the larger urban centres, but even in the smaller urban

centres it is a problem, the extent of which I don't know if anyone has

a real handle on. But you are quite correct that a lot of these

kids — as I refer to them, having raised three of my own —

will end up in the streets, and I guess a certain amount of that is

bound to happen. But what happens in governments, in this one and in

others, is that they seem to fall between the stools. They seem to

fall, as you said, unless they get into trouble. Then, of course, they

come under the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith'

s) ministry.

But

a lot of them do seem to fall between jurisdictions in government. To

that end, I have recognized the problem, and yes, we plan to do

something about it. It would be premature of me to talk now about what

we're going to do, because I'm not ready yet, but we have been working

on a plan to address the very serious problem that you are speaking of.

Your member for Vancouver Centre — I think he's the first member for Vancouver Centre —

spoke eloquently on it in this House. I was very much aware of the

problem, but I appreciated his comments. I have spoken to him in

private in the halls since, and he understands that I'm very much aware

of the problem. We've discussed it. In fact, when we get to the point

where we're ready to bring a proposal or a program to this

[ Page 394 ]

House,

I fully intend to involve the first member for Vancouver Centre,

because it's very high on his agenda, he's very concerned, he happens

to....

AN HON. MEMBER : Second.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm sorry, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). It's

high on his agenda, and he's very, very close to it, being in the

riding he's in. I can't say much more on it than that: yes, we are

aware of the problem; and yes, we are addressing it and you will be

hearing from us very soon.

MR. JONES : Just a very

quick supplementary question to that one. I very much appreciate the

minister's recognition and his commitment to try and address this

problem. I don't expect details of your plans, except to ask if the

Ministry of Education will be involved and if it will be a joint

ministry approach.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Thank you for

that. I should have added that we're addressing it at the Cabinet

Committee on Social Policy, which involves all of the social service

ministries, because it does cut across ministry lines. It involves my

ministry and the ministries of Health, Education, Attorney-General and

Job Training. It involves all of us, so yes, to your question: it is

being addressed at the social policy committee of cabinet, which cuts

across all of the social service ministries.

MR. JONES :

My second area of questions for the minister is along similar lines,

and it's even more serious and more shocking than the street kids, the

kids who are getting into trouble. It's another one that I'm sure the

minister is aware of and is concerned about, and that has to do with

teenage suicide. I'm sure you read the report recently in the Province

suggesting that the number of B.C. teenagers killing themselves in the

past two years has jumped about 30 percent. The chief coroner suggests

that this number is totally unacceptable, that these suicides have

tripled in the last 15 years. In 1971 we had 15 youths taking their

lives, and in 1985 we had 39. There are constituents of mine that have

been involved in these tragic circumstances, and a reaction of the

family is that there is a very high possibility that the individual

would be alive today if the system had been more willing to help them.

think you can read into that the kind of implications it has for your

ministry. I know that in recent years there were over 200 family

support workers who are not in the system now. To me this is a crisis

kind of problem, and I'm wondering if the minister has sort of a crisis

approach to deal with this very serious problem.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Yes, indeed, and of course the two situations are inextricably linked.

The problem that you and I first talked about a minute ago — teens and the parent teen conflict and the teens that will end up in the streets —

is linked directly to the numbers you just quoted. Yes, I read the same

articles and have read papers on the subject, and there's no question

that it is a problem that, if not of crisis proportions already, will

soon become that way unless we can address it. It probably is already.

There

is no question that there are pressures on teenagers today that just

did not exist a few years ago. They are under tremendous pressures that

we, when we were teenagers — I am assuming that you are a little younger than I — did not face. We didn't face those kind of pressures, and we realize that.

am going to take the lead as the lead ministry simply, I suppose,

because I am chairman of the social policy committee of cabinet, to

involve all the social ministries and come up with a strategy as best

we can to address this problem. I think the problems are tied closely

together, and we are addressing them.

[4:30]

MR. JONES :

Again a short supplementary. Could the minister give us any sort of

anticipation of the time when he will bring forward responses to these

very serious problems?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Would you mind doing that again for me?

MR. JONES :

Again, I am very pleased at the minister's response, and the only

question I have in relation to those two is that he has promised that

the situation will be reviewed, that he will be bringing back solutions

to deal with these very serious problems. Can he give us any indication

of the time in which we can look forward to these responses?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I hate to put a time limit on these kinds of things, because every time

you do, it seems you never meet the target. So let me just say, as soon

as possible. We have realized the need and the urgency of it, so as

quickly as we can make the wheels of government turn, we will be back

with a proposal.

MR. JONES : Again, on a very similar theme —

and I think the theme is that we need to anticipate problems. We need

to have a look at the problems of our young people and prevent problems

down the road. Another area similar to the last two that I mentioned is

in the area of our ethnic and cultural minority people in this

province. It seems to me that these people, the immigrants that have

come to this country with language problems, with problems fitting into

our society, face a unique set of circumstances. The young people of

those families face a further unique set of problems. These people have

problems of adapting to our society, adapting to the expectations and

traditions of their parents — of the heritage that they come from another country and fitting into the heritage of this country.

am afraid that many social workers cannot adequately deal with the

tremendous sensitivity of cultural diversity that exists in this

province. For example, I don't think I as a social worker could go

among a Vietnamese family that was having difficulty in values that

were in conflict between a teen-age Vietnamese and his parents,

probably because I couldn't speak the language, probably because I

wasn't sensitive to their values — that I could deal effectively with that problem.

would like to ask the minister: have you any plans for increasing the

number of multicultural workers that are going to provide family

support in this province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The

member asked a very complex question, because we are talking on two

different levels here. If we are talking about the estimates of my

ministry, many of the things you speak of do not pertain to my

ministry, as you said when you made your opening remarks. It cuts

across a lot of ministries. To start in one place, many of

[ Page 395 ]

the

workers in my ministry are of ethnic backgrounds, and we do have quite

a multicultural mosaic of workers. I'm not sure-, I can't answer you

whether we have any Vietnamese workers on our staff. I can find that

out. But the point is that we do have quite an ethnic mix in the

ministry.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Secondly,

when you're talking about programs for counselling of parents and

teens, etc., it doesn't really fall under the purview of my ministry.

To come back to what we talked about before, a lot of these things that

you are speaking of fall between all the ministries. Nobody really has

jurisdiction. My ministry is mainly a response to children in need. We

really cannot react, under the jurisdiction we have, unless we perceive

that children are at risk. So it is a sort of crisis intervention, if

you like.

What you are talking of is something totally

different, which comes back to what I said about cutting across all the

ministries and why we are developing a policy at the cabinet committee

on social policy — because no one at the moment really has

jurisdiction until something happens. So that's a very complex answer

to a very complex question. It might have sounded simple, but it's very

complex. But to come back to it, yes, we are addressing it under this

program that we're talking about for teenagers in trouble.

MR. JONES :

I very much appreciate the minister's answer, and the complexity of it.

I accept the answer. It would seem to me, though, that there are family

counsellors within his ministry. It seems to me that because we do have

this cultural mosaic in our province, it's necessary that that cultural

mosaic be reflected in his ministry employees. I'm wondering if the

minister would consider any affirmative action program to look at where

these ethnic minorities are located in this province and to try to

address the problems of hiring from ethnic minorities in relation to

their numbers in various communities throughout the province.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

We are very much aware of the ethnic communities and where they are,

region by region, in the province; and we do have a tremendous amount

of contact with them. We spent last year, I am told, $5. 1 million to

assist children with severe behavioural or emotional problems -some of

which would fall under these categories — enter or re-enter the

school system. Last year we assisted 1,270. This year we expect the

number will increase to 1,534. But I do point out to you that it is a

reaction to those with severe behavioural or emotional problems —

that's when we get involved. Just to repeat: we are very much aware of

the ethnic mix, region by region, in the province, and address it as

best we can.

The other thing I would point out is that if we're talking about immigrants — in your remarks you mentioned immigrants —

they are the responsibility, first of all, of the federal government.

So we shouldn't get the two demarcation lines mixed up. If we're just

talking about immigrants, they are a federal responsibility.

MR. JONES :

My next question may be stretching the latitude even more than the

previous one. I want to express a concern that I have to the minister.

Again, it's to do with young people. It has to do with the increased

availability of alcohol in our society. In my community a few weeks ago

there was a drug store where now there is a beer and wine store. This

is in a mall that is frequented by young kids hanging around the

7-Eleven store — very much a community centre kind of atmosphere

in this neighbourhood. I'm very concerned that these kinds of

directions on the part of the province to make alcohol more readily

available in our society, particularly to our young people, are going

to cause all kinds of crises. I know that's the point where the

minister wishes to get involved and intervene. I'm suggesting to the

minister that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I want

to ask the minister at this point: is he going to, as an individual

member of this House, support the increased availability of alcohol in

our society?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In answer to that

question, just let me say a couple of things. First of all, I don't

think, to correct something that I think the member said, alcohol will

be more available to young people. It's not available to young people

now, and it won't be more available to them by adding more outlets. We

all know they can get it, but that doesn't mean it's legal or available.

AN HON. MEMBER : There'll be more places to get it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Well, it may add more places, but I don't think it will add to the

consumption. Statistics show us that if you increase the number of

outlets, you will not increase the amount of alcohol consumed. The

amount sold will remain virtually the same. So if we increase the

number of outlets, I don't think we're going to sell any more alcohol

than we did before.

I would like to add another thing on

the previous subject. It's just been handed to me, and I think it

should be read into the record. In supporting families which require

assistance in carrying out parental responsibilities, in '86-87 we

spent $9.7 million and assisted 2,200 families. This year, as it's

projected, we will assist 2,847 families. So that's another amount that

we spend in assisting families where they're having problems, where

they cannot for one reason or another carry out their parental

responsibilities.

MR. JONES : Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister could assist me — perhaps not at this point in time, but at some point — with the studies that he quotes that suggest that the increased availability of alcohol does not increase consumption.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I don't quote from any studies that I can relate to you, but I repeat

what I am told by others when these discussions occur. Perhaps 1 could

dig and find some studies that say that, because this is obviously the

jurisdiction of the people who have told me that, and they have more

knowledge of it than I do. I guess I can speak from my own experience

and from the people whom I know. It wouldn't make a difference to me if

there was an alcohol outlet every hundred yards down the road. It isn't

going to make me drink any more or any less. I do agree with the

comment that was made from the front bench that it does provide more

places for young people to get alcohol illegally, but if they're going

to get it, I suggest that they're going to get it whether there are ten

outlets in your constituency or 30.

MR. JONES : I think it is a serious question, and I'm in this position in order to learn. I want to be able to substantiate

[ Page 396 ]

the

kinds of remarks that I make in this House, and I would very much

appreciate the names of those people who suggested that to you or the

studies that they quoted. I think it is an important issue, and I would

very much appreciate that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Chairman, I don't purport to be an expert on the subject of alcohol,

and I don't speak from any particular expertise, but if you like I'll

try to get you some statistics that have been shown on the subject, and

I'll do the best I can to do that for you. I speak mostly of personal

opinion about it, and how it affects me and the people I know. I would

like to add, though, to the member for Maillardville Coquitlam (Mr.

Cashore), that all of the information, save for a few analysis sheets

on the back, have been sent to your caucus already on the Hewett Group

report, so you have it already.

MR. JONES : Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to really struggle with my next question, and

perhaps the minister can help me. I think a good part of it falls

within his ministry, although again it falls within other ministries.

It's related to rent increases for seniors. I've had a lot of

complaints from senior citizens' housing centres about the tremendous

number of rent increases that they appear to get in a year, and I think

it's a real problem of communication. It's a real problem of

administration. I might throw in an aside: as the percentage of their

disposable income that is available not for board and room.... That has

decreased in recent years — and perhaps the minister could comment on that —

but that's not my main question. I understand that the amount of old

age security and guaranteed income supplement is adjusted quarterly,

and in addition to those increases there are also increases from the

actual housing centres themselves. I'm not sure whether the B.C.

housing authority themselves also add further to complicate the problem.

[4:45]

There

is a serious problem of notification of tenants in this situation. I

think often the administrators of these houses are given notification

of these increases and are not allowed to give a proper three-month or

even one-month notification to their tenants. It seems to me that when

we deal with seniors.... I think as politicians we recognize certain

things. If it goes to seniors we've got to make the print big, and

we've got to do things that can simplify the process for those people,

and it would help in a great way to the seniors of this province if

those living in senior citizens' housing could have that whole process

of administration, of rent increases, simplified for them. I'm

wondering if the minister could comment on that. Does he have any

suggestions or any plans to look into this or to improve the situation?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, the problem of notification of rent increases and rent

increases themselves really don't fall under this ministry. They're

probably better addressed in someone else's estimates. But I will tell

you that responsibility for responding to need for seniors' housing

falls under this ministry, and we do address it under a joint program

with the federal government.

This year we are projecting

building 1,886 units of housing, not all for seniors, but the great

bulk of it; and the biggest share of it is going to the lower mainland,

where the need is the greatest. The two criteria that we use to

determine where and when we will build these units, of course, are

whether there is a need in a given area and, secondly, the quality

delivered for the cost per unit. There are some areas in the province,

for example, where we have had requests for nonprofit societies to

build seniors' housing, and we turn them down simply on the basis that

there is no need, because there may be a vacancy rate as high as 25, 30

or even 40 percent in that area, and adequate housing can be provided

quite readily without building any more units. On the other hand,

especially in Vancouver and the lower mainland, there is a need for

seniors' housing, and that is where the bulk of it is going.

That part of your question on the availability falls within my purview; the rest does not.

MR. JONES :

I apologize for my lack of understanding of that. I thought, because

the housing authority was often involved in these rent increases, that

it did come under your ministry. I applaud the minister's efforts in

increasing the amount of senior citizens' housing. But again, it seems

to me that even that approach is not a long-range planning approach but

a sort of crisis intervention: if we have seniors without housing, then

we'll provide it. We know from the demographics what the senior

population is going to be down the road, and maybe we should be

thinking about planning for the future on those things.

I could ask one more question of the minister. I appreciate his

patience with me. I'd like to refer to a situation where a citizen has

a federal disability pension and experiences an increase in that

pension. When that situation happens, the person loses in terms of his

income supplement from the province; in fact, he can even lose his

medical and dental premiums being paid. If I'm understanding it

correctly, then in these situatio