1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7619 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Neilsen).

On vote 42: minister's office –– 7619

Ms. Brown

Mr. Davis

Mr. Barnes

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $216, 236.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister some questions about those

people on income assistance who are not going to be able to benefit

from his partners in poverty program: the disabled, who have had their

rates frozen, and the unemployable unemployed, who are not going to be

able to work by reason of mental, physical or emotional disability —

whatever the reason might be. In view of the fact that he has indicated

that GAIN rates are frozen, have any plans been made for this group who

are not touched by this program which he introduced yesterday? What's

he going to do about that? A number of children fit into that category,

in terms of dependents of people on income assistance. What's going to

happen to them? It has been proven that the rates which have been

frozen since 1982 are inadequate. He has indicated that he has some

concern for the children of the province, and a number of them fit into

this category. What's he going to do about them? Are there any plans to

subsidize them in any way, since they cannot work and therefore will

not be able to avail themselves of his partners in poverty program?

The

other question is: what's he going to do about GAIN for the

handicapped? Is there any indication as to when the freeze is going to

be lifted from that particular program? Also, there has been no mention

of expanding the program, such as subsidized adoption for children with

special needs. Are there any plans to do that, or did he just neglect

to mention it? There's no respite for natural parents who have disabled

children at home. I know that all of that information has been brought

to him. But there were no comments in his opening remarks about that.

Has he made any plans for that?

When the minister indicated

that a superintendent of child welfare was appointed, he said that some

children officers were going to be phased in. The initial announcement

gave us to understand that these were going to be new positions. Is

that so, or is it simply going to be a matter of attrition, with some

of the old positions being renamed?

In 1983, as the minister knows, we lost over 200 family support workers. Sixteen

family and children's services coordinators based in the regions were also

lost, along with the specialized child abuse team and child care workers in

the schools. I'm raising that issue again with the minister to give him

an opportunity to tell us if there are any future plans either to reinstate

these workers, or to come up with alternatives for these workers, because certainly

the problems which they dealt with are still there. They remain today and they

are increasing in their intensity and are getting worse. So what plans does

the minister have to reinstate those workers?

About

a week ago the federal task force on child care sat here in Victoria.

There were a number of submissions made to that task force. I want to

ask the minister two questions. Has he made any attempt to receive some

of the briefs which were submitted by groups and individuals here in,

Victoria to that task force? Has he asked for some of those briefs? And

is he aware that a number of those briefs indicated that the subsidy is

inadequate? If he is aware that the subsidy is inadequate, are there

any plans to do anything about the subsidy program?

Is he

going to be working with the federal task force, not just with the one

which is sitting now, but with the Katie Cooke report, which was tabled

earlier, to do something about improving the child care situation for

the children of British Columbia, bearing in mind that this desperately

needed service is not for the parents but for the children?

There

is also a need for better services for the mentally disturbed children

and adolescents in the province. The minister neglected to mention that

in his opening remarks. Would he take the opportunity now to tell us

what plans, if any, there are to meet the needs of this group in our

society?

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I didn't have an

opportunity to go into great detail again about the number of services

to children and families in the province — but primarily to children —

which were gutted during the 1983 program and which we really hoped

this minister would be addressing himself to and reinstating or

redesigning. So I'm hoping that he'll use the opportunity this morning

to tell us in some concrete way really what is going to be done for the

children who were jeopardized by the cutbacks in those programs. As he

knows, 90 percent of the workers cut in that first wave of jobs which

were eliminated were workers who directly served families and children

and that, overall, the services which have been cut in the ministry

still for the most part affect children. What is he going to do about

that?

[10:15]

I have a quote here

from an

article which was written about the human costs of restraint.

According to this article, 14 percent of all of British Columbia's

children have been directly affected by the government's decision to

eliminate some of those important programs and to cut back on others.

These are children in families on income assistance, children in foster

homes, group homes or institutions, children with physical or mental

handicaps, children whose families need extra help to care for them.

What programs does the minister have to deal with this directly? There

was no indication in his speech as to whether he is specifically

looking at this.

When he's through responding to that, Mr. Chairman, I want to touch on a number of other issues.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Responding to some of the inquiries, the

GAIN rates remain as they have been for some time. The government has

not made any announcement that it is to be changed immediately or at

any specific date. The initiative announced yesterday is to do with

those people who are deemed to be employables. There is an opportunity

for persons to be reclassified should they find that the proposed

system would be to their advantage. But the other rates are not

changing at this time. There are other benefits, of course, which are

available to people under the GAIN program other than the income

assistance. There are other benefits available

[ Page 7620 ]

with respect to certain needs, specifically in the area of dental and medical health.

The

member asked about subsidized adoption for special needs. At the

present time there is no subsidy for parents who would adopt a child

with special needs. Some very interesting discussion has taken place

with respect to that question. There are those who suggest that it

would be of assistance to a family who adopt a child with special

needs, assistance to the family to provide them with some form of

payment to recognize the additional costs in caring for a special-needs

child. The federal government recognizes this to some degree with

certain exemptions under the Income Tax Act for various categories of

individuals. They have for 1986 expanded the definition, which I think

is long overdue and quite proper. That is not necessarily the answer to

the additional costs associated with caring for a special-needs child.

The federal government had under the Income Tax law permitted an

additional exemption for a person who was legally blind, those confined

to a wheelchair or bedridden, basically. They have now broadened their

definition to include others, which I am advised would include a person

who is mentally retarded or mentally handicapped. That will assist some

families to some degree.

The differences of opinion with

respect to whether the state or province should pay for someone to

adopt a child.... The answer usually is no. I think the argument can be

put that a special-needs child is a very different circumstance. When

we provide rates for foster parents, there is a differential with

respect to a child with special needs.

Mr. Chairman, the

government would never wish to be in the position of appearing to

encourage people to adopt children for the purpose of receiving income.

No one would wish that. But I do believe, in certain circumstances,

that it would not be beyond consideration to suggest that the people of

the province, through their taxes, could assist a family in caring for

a child with special needs, even after such time as the child is no

longer the responsibility of the superintendent and is the legal child

of a family.

I would think that that should be given every

consideration, because there are additional costs associated. Perhaps

it's just philosophical, but I would not wish to believe that a child

may be a permanent ward of the superintendent as a foster child with a

family who are quite prepared to adopt the child, but feel that if they

were to adopt the child they would not be in a position to afford the

care. The amount they're receiving now, as a foster parent, would

cease. Perhaps it should be considered most seriously, if it can be

developed without having any suggestion that we're trying to encourage

people to purchase children. Yes, I agree that it should be considered.

I'm not as familiar with what other provinces do, but I will certainly

find out, and I would give it every consideration as a possibility.

believe that the member was speaking of the federal task force on day

care that was in our vicinity recently. We had representatives from the

ministry speaking with them. We have not yet received the report from

the task force. I would have to inquire whether we have copies of the

submissions. I would have to check with staff, because they were in

attendance.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned in my opening

statements that there was some increase for day care and for foster

parents announced this year. I believe it's 4.7 percent.

Mentally

disturbed children and adults. If I could digress for just a moment, a

problem which has been identified and which, I think, is very real in

the area of social services is that when a mentally handicapped child

reaches the legal age of an adult, the rules seem to change quite

dramatically. Many organizations and associations care for children.

They care for children with various problems, including mental

retardation or mental handicap. Frequently the bylaws of their society

— or whatever their governing constitution may be — limits their care

for children. When a person reaches the age of 19, a request frequently

comes to our office: what do we do with this person now? We have

instituted a test program in Prince George to relocate young people who

have reached the age of 19 in a group home setting, rather than

institutionalizing them, which seems to be what's available at this

time. I believe that we have a reasonable network of facilities for

children who are suffering from some very severe form of handicap. We

have a pretty good network of facilities for elderly people who are

suffering from the difficulties of age and frequently from some

handicap. There seems to be a bit of a vacuum in the area of those in

between. We have several specific cases that we're investigating with

respect to the care of an individual person. There have been many

changes offered over the past while. These are frequently very

specialized, tailor-made opportunities for an individual, because an

individual can't be categorized as a group; that person has those

problems and perhaps no one else has. But I believe we must seek-an

additional step or a different level of care for these youngsters who

are now legally adults and are not necessarily wards of the province.

They may be quite independent — other than their handicap. So if the

member was speaking of that, I agree that we do need that additional

level.

Mr. Chairman, if I could refer for just a moment to

the changing attitude of society with respect to these individuals, it

was not many years back that certain conditions identified at birth

would bring forth a recommendation by the specialists that the person

be institutionalized. That has changed dramatically over the past 20

years. Now the specialist will more frequently recommend to the

parents, or whoever might be the guardian, that that particular child

be kept in a home setting for as long as possible, with additional

assistance and training. One of the very real problems we have is

people who were designated as having a problem some years back and are

the result of perhaps 20 years of institutional care — not that the

care was abusive, but it was a different attitude in that day. These

people are now in need of certain care and rehabilitation as well,

because many of them were denied stimulation in early life simply

because that was the process which people genuinely believed was the

proper level of care. So we do have that, and we are aware of that. I

think we must make progress with respect to that.

The

coordinators who are responsible as the child abuse team — I believe

there were 12 consultants workings on the lower mainland — were

disbanded or eliminated. The cost associated with that is part of the

amount now spent in the field. These 12 consultants were available to

workers for advice. The advice is still available to workers from their

supervisors or regional managers. The child abuse team was only

available on the lower mainland. We've provided the training for the

line workers. They are expected to consult their supervisors when

required, and I believe they do. I believe the system is still intact,

although that one particular team may not be.

[ Page

7621 ]

We were speaking earlier about the possibility of some sort of subsidy for

special needs children. I am reviewing far more matters associated with the

adoption program and I will be hearing from interested parties. I already have,

and I would welcome input because it is a very important part of our system.

It affects different identifiable groups of people and there seem to be very

strong feelings on both sides of almost every issue.

There

are questions being asked with respect to the suitability of people

being considered for adopting and the requirements of adopting parents.

There is also the perennial question of a register for adoptees. The

question comes up, I guess, almost yearly. British Columbia and Prince

Edward Island do not have registers. Some provinces have what they

refer to as a passive register; others have an active register.

have been asked by several organizations in the province to consider

it, and I am certainly reviewing that matter. I think it's very

important we receive the views of the citizens of the province who feel

they may be affected by any major changes in adoption. Adoption is not

as common as it once was because of changes in our society, but it is

still a very important part of the program. I would be interested in

attitudes and ideas.

[10:30]

MS. BROWN:

I just have a couple more words about services to children, and then

I'm going to yield to my colleague for Vancouver Centre who wants to

raise a few more issues. The Interministerial Children's Committee has

not been very active over the last few years. I wonder whether the

minister is thinking of reactivating or rejuvenating or putting some

life into that committee and assigning it to work more closely with the

new superintendent of child welfare, and whether this is sort of part

of an overall plan to redesign and look at the whole area of services

to children in the province.

I was hoping that we would

have heard some more about what the government has planned in terms of

coordinating and doing better in terms of delivering services to

children so that the gaps that presently exist, which the minister

himself just pointed out, in terms of adolescents and children who

become young adults.... Is there some way of plugging that? I would

like him to tell me what the superintendent of child welfare is going

to be responsible for — not just apprehensions, I hope; certainly more

than that. Will he in fact be working with the Interministerial

Children's Committee, and just how broad is the mandate in terms of all

of the services to children?

A word about the adoption

registry. I am glad that the minister is asking for input and that he

is considering it, but I am wondering if there is going to be a public

call for input in this area. I know that there is certainly a lot of

pressure coming in to all of the offices of the MLAs from adult

adoptees who would like to have some access, if possible, to find out

who their natural mother is, or even their natural parents. Would the

minister consider a public call, either through the legislative Select

Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources, or through

some other special committee, to deal with that particular issue?

I'd also like some more discussion about eligibility for that child care

subsidy. As I pointed out in a brief presented to the federal committee, the

eligibility level is so low that most single parent mothers who really need

it find that they are just at the cutoff level. Maybe he could talk in more

detail on the improvements in the eligibility level.

agree with him that this specialized child abuse team was only

established and only present in the lower mainland. I think, however,

that expanding this specialized team into the regions would have been a

better way of dealing with it, rather than eliminating the team and

turning that responsibility over to the supervisors in the various

regions. I think the supervisors are already overworked as it is.

Also,

the minister didn't comment on the elimination of child-care

counsellors in the school. My own experience has been that often that's

where you first spot the problems that are occurring in a family. When

the child shows up at school without breakfast or with bruises, or

something like that, that's the first place often that we can spot that

something is happening. So maybe the minister would be able to comment

on that.

I think it's interesting that the minister is

talking about the disabled people trying to work and to become

self-sufficient. The minister may not be aware — but I know the deputy

minister is, and certainly the past minister was — of a young man who

is legally blind and who despite this completed university and got a

degree in social work and applied to the ministry for employment. I

know the deputy minister knows what's coming next, because there have

been a lot of phone calls and correspondence going back and forth. The

ministry has not been able to find employment for this young man. I

think that when he has tried as hard as he has and has done as well as

he did in his social work course, his disability is in fact an asset

and he would be enriching the whole profession if it were possible for

him to secure employment in his field. Also, I think it's really very

destructive for him to have struggled this far and for the ministry not

to be able to find secure employment for him.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Now

I know that the rule is that in order to be a social worker in this

province you have to be able to hold a valid driver's licence, because

there are emergencies when you sometimes have to go out on an

apprehension or for some other kind of reason. Also, it's good, because

what happens is that you weed out people with impaired driving charges

and people who have problems with alcohol and that kind of thing. But I

don't think it's enough to encourage this young man and to be

sympathetic; I think that this calls for some really aggressive action

on the part of the ministry in helping him to secure employment, not

just in terms of his own self-esteem and not just to show a flag which

says that the government is really serious about helping disabled

people to become able to take care of themselves, but more importantly

because of what this young man can bring to the profession of social

work, to his work with his clients and to the ministry itself. He has a

real contribution to make. Whether he would be working with disabled

clients or with clients who are not disabled, his own life experience

enriches him and makes him a more valuable worker. I think the ministry

is really selling itself short if it doesn't find some way to utilize

this young man's talents, his training and his experience. I would like

the minister to bring me up to date in terms of whether in fact it has

been possible for the ministry to secure employment for this young man

who is legally blind but has a degree in social work.

[ Page 7622 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The chair recognizes the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MS. BROWN: Could I have some response from the minister...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds rises on a point of order.

MS. BROWN:

No, it's not a point of order. I asked for some very specific questions

about the Interministerial Children's Committee, etc., and I wondered

if the minister would also respond about the Gerry Onischak case,

because I think it won't take him more than a few minutes to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The member is not on a point of order and recognizes

that the minister is not obligated to reply at any specific time. The

member for North Vancouver–Seymour has been recognized.

MR. DAVIS:

First, I'd like to welcome the appointment of the member for Richmond

as Minister of Human Resources. He says, and I believe he means it,

that he's going to bring a balanced approach to the administration of

his very important ministry, and that is certainly welcome.

None

of us is perfect; certainly no law is perfect. I don't think anyone in

the administration claims they are perfect. I personally think that we

can improve our legislation in respect to child care, and particularly

in respect to child abuse. I know of a number of cases in North

Vancouver where there has been child abuse and where there have been

serious allegations and they have been borne out in subsequent court

and other cases. I know also of a lesser number of accusations which

have been made which have turned out to be misplaced or essentially

incorrect, a few of them malicious, where serious damage has been done

to the family. There are various reasons why there has been a

miscarriage of justice in some of those cases.

I am perhaps

one of those who believes that strong measures in the area of child

care, particularly in the area of child abuse, are necessary. I agree

that prompt action must be taken where child abuse is suspected.

Sometimes, as I have already said, the accuser is wrong and in some,

hopefully few, instances malicious or simply mischievous. In those

latter circumstances — and I want to stress that they are in the

minority — we the state, more particularly the ministry, must be quick

to rectify the damage that's been done.

We all see child

abuse as a crime. It exists and it must be stopped wherever possible.

Informers must inform, but there are cases where the informant

obviously is wrong, where the child itself may have told a tall tale in

order to get back at a parent or to shake off discipline which the

child doesn't appreciate.

So we must have a system, a

procedure, regulations, laws which check circumstances as reported by

informers, whoever they are, as quickly as possible, verify their

charges, and make certain that the parents' rights, that the parents'

good intentions, are respected as well as those of the child.

The

Human Resources ministry recently published a pamphlet entitled

"Protecting Our Children" and it states that in 1983-84 there were

2,474 reports of child abuse in British Columbia, of which 1,751 were

confirmed or verified as child abuse. There were, however, 723 reports

which turned out to be false; either that or there was insufficient

proof of child abuse, and the charge was dropped. Several hundred of

these reports, at the very least, were ill-founded, wrongly based for

one reason or another. I suggest that in most, if not all, of those

cases the traditional rights of the parents were abused to some degree.

The

state, with all its powers, came down hard on innocent citizens, more

often than not single parents, and acting abruptly caused them, or more

often her, the single parent, great emotional stress, subsequently

making no amends, no apologies, whatsoever.

I note — and I

am quoting from the report — that "people who suspect that a child is

being abused have both a moral and legal responsibility to report their

concerns." Also: "The Family and Child Service Act protects all who

report suspected child abuse." Again quoting: "...failure to report a

situation of possible child abuse is an offence under the Family and

Child Care Service Act."

Quoting again: "There is a toll

free 24-hour Helpline for children, Zenith 1234, that automatically

links reporting individuals with their local office.... Absolute

certainty is not necessary when making a report." This is strong advice

indeed.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have a reporting system, one

which, along with the CARE packages which are going out to the schools,

invites reporting, sometimes encourages children even to report on

their parents in a manner akin to the methods which were used by the

Nazis in World War II. I am drawing a very strong and perhaps unfair

analogy, but nevertheless it is an informant system: there is an

invitation to inform, and there is an invitation to inform against

parents.

Also I read that "where a child is considered to

be at risk in the family home, a delegated social worker has the

authority under this act to remove a child to a place of safety while

the investigation takes place." Now, I have said on occasion that Human

Resources can and does remove children more often from the school, but

sometimes from the home, and sometimes without being accompanied by a

police officer and so on. As I understand it, MHR employees have that

power. I have had letters from the previous minister saying that isn't

true, but I believe it to be a fact, and certainly I can recite cases

where it has happened. This is obviously an unusual power delegated to

a ministry, and through the ministry by legislation to employees of

MHR. So there you have it: apprehension without full and final proof,

apprehension sometimes on the basis of rumour alone. Perhaps we have to

go that far, but we must have a prompt and impartial resolution of the

situation. I stress "prompt" and "impartial."

The

employees, not only of Human Resources but of the several ministries

involved in cases of this kind — sometimes including the Ministry of

Education, sometimes that of the Attorney General — are armed with

whatever evidence they have at the outset. They have all the expertise

readily recruitable through doctors, psychiatrists and so on. They

appear before a magistrate with what appears, at least to the parents,

to be a massive dossier, and considerable expertise.

Whereas the

parents, assuming in this instance that they are wrongly accused, are

in a state of considerable upset and confusion, and they lack legal

advice. They certainly lack the expertise that the state can promptly

and quickly amass in a situation of this kind.

[10:45]

Unfortunately, our legislation also doesn't define child abuse. There are attempts to define child abuse. In Alberta

[ Page

7623 ]

the legislation endeavours to define child abuse,

whether it be psychological or physical. Our legislation is vague in

that area. Mere slapping or scolding might, by some, be deemed to be

evidence of bad parenting. Some social workers have never raised

children themselves. Those of the view that any physical or any

psychological duress is unconscionable move, in this early stage,

decisively and to the considerable upset of the parents.

The

real danger is.... I must stress again that these are the minority of

cases. These are the instances where the parent or parents have been

falsely accused. They, in their very action — and because the whole

process may take weeks, even months, and I know of a number of cases

that have run into years — take the child out of the home, do

irreparable damage to the family relationship, the relationship of the

child to the parent or parents, and so on. This is claimed by some to

be one of the causes of child suicide. Certainly children who are, for

the wrong reasons, apprehended, put in a foster home, a group home, for

a considerable period of time, in those circumstances may be exposed to

some forms of abuse, and their relationship with their parents is

altered. It tends to be altered fundamentally, it disrupts the family,

and in those cases that I'm familiar with on the North Shore, the good

feelings which otherwise did or could have existed between the parent

or parents and the child have been disrupted.

I've had a

number of interviews with parents, I've received many letters, and I've

seen a number of articles on this subject. In the United States,

legislation was passed in the early 1970s — I believe it was referred

to as the Mondale Act — referring substantially to the question of

child abuse. Supplementary to that legislation, a volume of federal

funds was made available to the individual states which would legislate

in this area, and there was a rash of legislation. There were many

apprehensions. As a reaction to the unfair apprehensions, a number of

organizations were established to fight the whole process of child

apprehension by the state, by the individual states in the U.S. In that

case.

In front of me I have a letter — one of many letters

I've received. This letter is a copy of one addressed to the former

Minister of Human Resources by a number of well-intentioned parents on

the North Shore banding together under the heading Citizens United for

Safety and Justice. They've been concerned about other matters, for

example the Olson and Noyes cases. They're more concerned with the

victims than they are with the perpetrators of crime. They write to the

former minister:

"Over the past year we've

been approached by a number of parents who consider themselves victims

of the apprehension process of Human Resources and of the attitude of

some of the employees. It is our belief that it is too easy for an

unruly child or teenager to get even with a caring parent or parents

who have necessarily and reasonably ruled and have high standards for

their children."

In this instance a number of references

are made to cases where the child has instigated an inquiry by phoning

the Helpline. I might conclude by quoting a letter which was published

by Dr. Millar in West Vancouver. He's a psychologist. This was

published in the Medical Post, April 3, 1984. Mr. Chairman, I'll quote

three short paragraphs:

"In my years of practice I can count on my fingers the cases

of genuine abuse I've seen. I've talked to many colleagues, and except

for those who function as child abuse experts all say the same thing: they don't

see much child abuse. What's going on here? Are these semi-professionals

simply hysterical do-gooders seeing abuse in every situation where the parent

does not seem as loving and giving as they deem right and proper?

"Why,

I don't know, but I do know this. Once your child calls the Helpline,

you are in the ministry's clutches. Some pseudo-professional is

suddenly judge and jury of your parenting. While you may have simply

shaken your child or given too many hugs, your name goes on the list of

child abusers, to be removed at their pleasure."

I would

ask one question. A number of parents who have been to court and

otherwise and won their cases against the ministry claim that their

file still exists in the ministry, that it's still open, that while

they were able to prove their innocence in court, they are still

labelled in the ministry. I'd like to ask the minister what the

situation is in that respect.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), spoke of the Interministerial

Children's Committee. At one time it had a very specific task, and it

still functions quite regularly with respect to an overview and also,

again, by way of specific assignment. The Interministerial Children's

Committee is very active and continues to make recommendations. At this

time one of the specific tasks assigned to it is with respect to the

question of sexual abuse.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned

yesterday very briefly that the committee, along with the

superintendent of child welfare, is attempting to determine a number of

factors associated with the spate of reports we have received recently

and which have been made public through the media with respect to

sexual abuse of children by persons who have authority over children at

certain points in time.

I believe that one of the most

important questions to be answered is whether the system has failed at

some point. If there has been a failure within the system with respect

to alerting authorities to the potential abuse, has the system failed

because of the structure of the system itself or has it failed because

those responsible have not completed their responsibility, have not

responded to the law and have not fulfilled their obligations under it?

That is one of the questions the committee will attempt to answer and,

if necessary, provide specific instances should the system have failed

at some point in time. So they are very actively involved in this at

the moment, and I expect to have a report from them in a reasonable

period of time. We consider it to be very important and of considerable

interest to the general population at this time because of the

publicity given to some rather dramatic and frightening examples.

The

question of the one specific individual the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

spoke of: I've met with him a couple of times. I met with him once

actually and saw him again. It is not just a question of being able to

drive, although frequently the terms of reference with respect to job

qualifications require that the person have a valid driver's licence. I

understand there has been a question about visual capability overall,

not just driving. Legally blind is a term, as the member knows, that is

used by medical specialists to describe a person with a visual

impairment. It frequently permits that person therefore to receive

special dispensation or privileges because of that handicap. It's

different from one person to

[ Page 7624 ]

another.

This person in question has a specific difficulty with respect to

seeing that another person who may be legally blind may not have. It's

a different problem that he has. He has done quite well, when you

consider the added burden of study when it's very difficult to see. He

has done well.

I have met with him. I've asked for some

review. We have to be a bit cautious with respect to intruding or

attempting to modify in an ad hoc way the process of hiring through the

public service process. We certainly don't want a grievance launched

that we gave somebody special consideration, contrary to the

procedures. But yes, that gentleman has seen me, and I have asked for

some specific information. I don't like to intrude directly, but I

think that there are other aspects of social work that may not require

the need to go to a scene. However, I've offered some attitude with

respect to that.

Just an aside, Mr. Chairman. I believe

most job descriptions are invented to restrict the number of people who

may apply for the job. I would suggest that frequently the

qualifications suggested are not always necessary for the position, but

it keeps down the number of people who apply. I think that's very

unfair in our society, that a person who has the ability to perform the

job is disqualified because he or she can't even get an interview. As

an example, there are probably a great number of very good parents who,

if they had to qualify under some bureaucratic job description, would

never qualify, yet they've done very, very well. So I think that's

something that was invented by someone at some point in time, not

necessarily in this case, but just to keep the numbers of applications

down.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

was speaking of a balanced approach with respect to some of the

problems associated with the Ministry of Human Resources and its

clients. He spoke specifically of child abuse. I mentioned yesterday

that it's a very delicate balance, with respect to reports of child

abuse. The wisdom of our Legislative Assembly at some point in time

brought about legislation which required people to report when they

suspected cases of child abuse. The same legislation cites that the

protection of the child is paramount in all cases. It also called for,

in the legislation, the failure to report to be an offence. Information

was sent directly to those groups of people, classes of people or

individuals who would be in a position frequently to witness the

effects of child abuse, and pointed out to them their responsibility

under the law — specifically, medical practitioners, police and school

officials, and others such as day-care operators.

[11:00]

Mr.

Chairman, the great difficulty is that the law requires certain

categories of people — all people, but specifically certain categories

of people — to report to a person in authority if they suspect a child

may have been abused. We are speaking of individuals in our society who

may not have had extensive training with respect to recognizing what is

abuse, but see evidence which they interpret as possibly being abuse

and therefore make a report that they believe a child has been abused.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

example I could use would be a child, perhaps in a day-care centre,

where one of the day-care centre workers believes the child has been

abused, or has reason to believe it's possible, and therefore makes

contact with the Ministry of Human Resources. A worker then is obliged

to investigate that report — not necessarily to reach a conclusion, but

to investigate. The greatest difficulty is that during an investigation

it is almost always necessary to interview the guardians of the child,

be they the parents or otherwise. I could say that, as I said

yesterday, it's very, very different for a person in authority to

arrive at your home to advise you that there's an allegation or a

suspicion that you may have abused your child, than, say, for a police

officer to arrive and say that there's been a report that you were

involved in a hit-and-run accident, because there's a tremendous amount

of emotion involved in an accusation that you may be abusing your child.

The

difficulties many of the workers have when they approach is the

immediate resentment by people who feel they are being accused of

abusing their own children, or any child. Frequently the investigation

becomes quite difficult because of the very negative attitude of the

person who believes they've been accused. I'm not criticizing them for

that at all; I can understand that. So it becomes very delicate.

Frequently the police are asked to escort workers, where the worker

perhaps previously has had great difficulty in conducting an

investigation or even having any questions answered, has perhaps been

thrown out bodily or has had a door slammed in their face. Frequently

police will be asked to assist. The law, however, requires that in the

case where children are apprehended — I can assure you it is not the

desire of the ministry to apprehend children simply to apprehend but

only in the cases where it is believed the child is in need of

protection — it is up the court to decide within seven days whether

that child should remain in the custody of the ministry or in someone

else's custody. An application must be made to the family court. It is

the court which decides if the child is to remain in custody. The court

decides that; the ministry does not. The ministry and the guardians of

the child are equal in that court. There is no rubber-stamping that

goes on. The court does not rubber stamp an allegation that there may

have been abuse.

I think it is a very difficult problem for

the ministry, and I am not apologizing for that. It is difficult for

people within the ministry to give their side of a story because it's

contrary to the act. In fact, a worker who appears on the scene of a

situation where they're investigating abuse is not even permitted to

publicly make known what they witnessed unless it's in the court

procedure. I am not coming down on the side of the ministry exclusively

when it comes to these problems. It's a very difficult problem.

agree with the member that under certain circumstances there can be

exterior stimulation for people to make accusations, whether it is a

question of revenge or whether it is mischievous, or for whatever other

reason. We all recognize that people in conflict, whether it's

neighbours or members within a family, may decide to get even and could

maliciously file a report which requires an investigation, and I'm sure

this has occurred. It is not much different than the activities of our

police forces who must investigate complaints or allegations. They have

to do it. And it's not a pleasant feeling to have police come to your

home and say, "We have a report that you're in receipt of stolen goods,

" or whatever it might be. That's not pleasant. If the report is

malicious, if it's unfounded, then the process is complete. Similarly

with cases of child abuse — the process is complete.

The

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) spoke of some cases

where the matter has gone to court and acquittal has been achieved. I

agree with the member that surely that is the ultimate answer to such

allegations in our

[ Page 7625 ]

system.

When the court finds that the allegations are unfounded, in my opinion

that should be the end of the matter, because the process has been

completed in our system. That should be the end of the matter. I don't

think we can expect a person who is carrying out their duties in good

faith to apologize for having done so, just as I am sure the police

would not apologize for having investigated something they were

required to investigate.

We've had legislation to protect

children for almost a hundred years in British Columbia. I agree with

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour that child abuse is not defined.

Basically the act seeks protection for children who are deemed to be in

need of protection. I guess there is almost an unlimited number of

descriptions of abuse, and as you know, in our law system if you leave

one description out, the court would probably throw out the case

because you didn't define that specific form of abuse. Basically, it's

for children in need of protection, and that is somewhat subjective.

look forward to meeting with the member again to discuss some of these,

and as I said, we're very much open to suggestions. We are not

pretending for a moment that the system is as perfect as it could be,

and there is certainly room for improvement, and I think we'd like to

hear from as many people who feel the system could be changed for the

better as possible. We're very much receptive to that.

MR. DAVIS:

Briefly, I agree with the minister that the problem is essentially

process. I would hope that through changing our legislation, or perhaps

only changing the administration of the act, we could have an

independent court meet as soon as possible after the apprehension — a

matter of, say, 48 hours. Also, the accused parent or parents could

receive some legal advice through legal aid or otherwise at that early

stage, because they may — and I know of a number of instances — have

encountered this problem with no advance notice, no idea of what they

were up against. In my opinion, a magistrate would have thrown the case

out in most of those instances. The social worker, etc., may well be

proceeding with the best interests of the child in mind. But a quick

review of all the circumstances, including the parents' side of things,

might make it obvious that the case was not really a child abuse case.

I'll repeat that I don't regard this as the usual case, but there are a

sufficient number of these instances in which parents have been wrongly

accused and obviously wrongly accused. The whole issue should be dealt

with very quickly.

My impression is that there is a

seven-day meeting before a court of sorts; but the resolution in a true

court sense is really weeks away. I would hope that the process could

be speeded up, that the obvious rejoinder on the part of the parents be

given full weight at a very early stage, and that those cases — and

there are roughly one in four in B.C., at least, and U.S. statistics

suggest one in every two — be resolved in a quick hearing before an

independent magistrate, with the parents able to obtain suitable legal

and other advice.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the

question of abuse can certainly be extended beyond the apparent

problems that we are discussing now. I wonder if the new minister has

considered what is happening to young people who are prostituting

themselves on the streets of downtown Vancouver — who are between the

ages of 12 and 16, and many of whom have left the protective custody of

foster homes and their families due to family stress, economic problems

and other conditions that render parenting more and more difficult. I

wonder if the minister has reviewed the policies that his government

introduced soon after the May 5, 1983 election, when it was decided

that a number of social programs were excessive and too costly, mainly

because they were provided through the public sector; and a policy was

introduced to cut back on the number of public servants, who by and

large were social workers doing family support work — providing

counselling and advice with respect to rearing of children, and

intervening and providing assistance where child abuse cases were

suspected. A number of other specialty programs were reduced or

eliminated as a result of restraint initiatives brought on by the

government.

I think that in fairness I should point out

that the minister has been addressing these questions by responding.

But you know, there hasn't been nearly the outrage or the indignation

on the part of the new minister that there should be in light of the

devastating and sometimes catastrophic consequences for families, human

life, communities and the morale of staff within the ministry.

[11:15]

fact, soon after some of those initiatives were undertaken, the former

minister was commenting on the idea of the staff being bonkers. You

will recall that they were under such stress in attempting to carry out

their duties under the GAIN legislation and family and child protection

laws, without resources, that it was as though the social workers and

their assistants were handcuffed and expected to do an impossible task

— jobs which they were trained for, which they were committed to, and

had the sense of moral responsibility necessary to do the job for their

clients. But they were reduced, in many instances, to apologists and

defenders of a system that they knew was inadequate and incapable of

providing the kind of service that originally they were intended to

provide, simply because of an arbitrary decision on the part of

government to unilaterally cut programs that were vital and essential,

and are today even more necessary. We are feeling the consequences.

While

I can appreciate the nuances and all of the real implications and

problems on both sides in terms of dealing with child abuse matters,

where intervention is necessary on the part of the ministry and going

through the court system is necessary, I think the minister should be

expressing some concern about the causes of the situation. If we have a

passive minister and a passive superintendent of child welfare, if

there is no sense of advocacy on the part of the Ministry of Human

Resources, it is nothing more than a bureaucratic administration that

is merely operating in a very light-hearted, superficial way.

There

has to be some sense of enthusiasm generated in the Ministry of Human

Resources that tells the workers and tells the clients that the

Ministry of Human Resources cares about them first and foremost and

that there is a desire to turn things around, to change things.

The

reality is that the government simply has not shown the passion and

concern for the large numbers of British Columbians who have been

victimized. All we're getting is more and more rhetoric, more

expressions of sadness even, of a lack of.... I don't know the words.

I'm having difficulty describing just what it is that the minister and

his ministry are saying that really has any consequence. I was

unfortunate enough to experience a very short stay in a community where

people all relied on the Ministry of Human Resources, by and

[ Page 7626 ]

large. A very large community of people are looked upon as losers by society.

must be very candid about this. It has been a long time since I have

been without economic means. It was really very difficult for me to

even pretend to simulate what it is like to go through these very real

conditions as people on social assistance do, people who are dependent

on the resources of the Ministry of Human Resources — be they single

parents, senior citizens, pensioners, UIC, or whatever their problem.

There

are an awful lot of people out there who are virtually helpless to

defend themselves, who are relying on various government departments to

care about them. They may be a very small percentage of the overall

population. And it may very well be true that 85 percent of the

population may be gainfully employed, earning adequate enough incomes

to enjoy the amenities of our society. But, Mr. Chairman, somehow we're

missing the point. We've become too articulate in talking about things,

but we're not taking the kind of action that is going to clearly be a

sign that we're going to turn things around. It is inexcusable, and I'm

convinced of this. It's inexcusable that today in this society we

should tolerate the kind of so-called slum areas, where people are

without means to fend for themselves. And we accept that, when all that

these people really need is an opportunity to get involved. The

minister said: "We cannot afford it."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:

Yes, you did, Mr. Minister. The minister now says he didn't say it.

Okay, what did you say yesterday, Mr. Minister, when I asked you, point

blank, to take advantage of the Canada Assistance Plan that allowed us

to pay for these programs on a cost-share basis, to raise the...?

AN HON. MEMBER: To raise it to what?

MR. BARNES:

He wants to interject. We'll get to that. The point is that those funds

are available. Now you're shaking your head no. Yes, they are

available. You said yesterday that those funds are taxpayers' money and

that the government shouldn't be raising taxes or spending more tax

money to assist those people. Was that not the intention of what you

said? Did you not say that the Canada Assistance Plan was tax money?

Was that not your defence? That's what you said. The Canada Assistance

Plan funds are not all from British Columbia. Only a portion of those

taxes are from British Columbia. They are from the other provinces as

well. Just understand what you are saying when you say that you don't

want to bother Canada assistance funds, because that is more tax money.

Let's

consider some of the regional development programs that we opt for

every year, that we get involved in in terms of tax dollars, to try to

deal with regional disparities. Let's not start playing those kinds of

games.

The point is, you are spending money. Mr. Chairman,

the Minister of Human Resources is spending money that we don't have to

build ALRT, to run Expo, to develop the northeast coal project, to

build Coquihalla. Where are you getting the money from? When was the

last time the budget was balanced in this province? When was the last

time you came up with a budget that was not a deficit? What is the

deficit today? What is the budget?

Let me tell you

something, Mr. Chairman. When you analyze the budgets for the past four

years, you will find that we've been increasing anywhere from half a

billion dollars to a billion dollars of debt every year. In the last

ten years it is almost $20 billion, almost five times as much as it was

ten years ago. So let's not talk about how you can't afford it. What

you mean is you can't afford to do this for people. You can't afford a

megaproject for people — even if the rest of Canada wants to

participate, even if the rest of Canada wants to share it. That's the

idea, that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country we

share and share alike, and the rest of Canada wants to assist those

people. That's why you can raise those rates.

But you have

decided not to raise them for other reasons. What are those reasons?

Surely you don't believe that the people can buy more today with the

rates than they were buying four years ago. You haven't said a word

about that. I don't think you care. Yesterday I gave you credit for

caring. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said he doesn't

care. I said he must care; he knows what care means; the man says he

cares, he cares. But I am beginning to doubt it.

Then you

play these funny games. You send me over a copy of the new GAIN rates

for 1986. I asked you for them for 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985.

Let's compare those. Let me see. I asked you for all of them. They

haven't changed, is that what you're saying? Are you saying that these

1986 GAIN rates are the same as 1985, 1984, 1983 and 1981? Is that what

you're saying, Mr. Chairman? Okay, in that case, then one document will

do.

But I will say this, Mr. Chairman: the government

really doesn't care, and that is hard for me to say because I don't

believe in confrontation. I believe that we should try to cooperate.

Yesterday I put on my best behaviour, I tried to talk to the minister,

and you know what the minister did? He gave me the same respect. He put

on his good behaviour, and we very politely discussed the issues. We

talked about the rates, and those people who are out there in need

didn't get one iota out of it. We're still in the same situation we

were before.

What I am trying to say to the minister, Mr.

Chairman, is that I, like him, was at arms' length from some of these

problems just a few months ago. I'm telling you, it does make a

difference when you begin to do a hands-on approach. Go and find out.

But you're not doing it. You can't possibly go and investigate some of

these situations and come back and sit there and say that you're not

going to raise those rates. You couldn't possibly do it.

Pretending

is something none of us like to do. I can tell you with a fair amount

of humility and reservation that I undertook that project because

everyone that told me I couldn't possibly understand knew what they

were talking about. I still don't think I fully understand, but I do

know that dollars go a long way toward helping to alleviate some of the

problems. It's those cutbacks that we're paying for today.

when you talk about child abuse and the need for special programs,

you'd better first of all start realizing that you're not doing

anything to keep the integrity of the families together, not really.

You're talking about it. Several of my colleagues have commented: "In

listening to the minister speak, he's going to be pretty tough, because

this man has something to say about every issue." You are very

believable; you are very smooth.

You wrote a little note on

the bottom of these benefit levels that you sent over to me. Mr.

Chairman, he didn't even refer to me by my first name. I am offended by

that. You call

[ Page 7627 ]

Mr. Barnes. He says: "Mr. Barnes, perhaps you might indicate what

amounts you would suggest for the various categories." I'm going to

say, now Jim, are you playing games with me? I'm no better qualified

than you are to come up with what the rates should be. That's the whole

point. Now you know you're playing games with me. What am I going to

say? What do I know? This is why I suggested SPARC's study. This is why

I said go by Stats Canada. This is why I said get those bureaucrats

that you have to do the job that they know how to do. But you won't let

them. They know that the rates should be raised, and they know why.

They've got all the information. Now you're trying to play games with

me. Okay, well, I'll take you up on it. I will recommend what the rates

should be, but I want you to go with me, and I will go downtown, I will

go all over the province with you as the minister, and we will together

look at what the situation is.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No,

Mr. Member, I will not play games with you. You asked something very

specifically yesterday, and I sent that information over to you. Were I

playing games I suppose I would have made that matter public rather

than send it over to you privately. I think one of the things you

appreciate from that list, though, is that there is not one standard

rate. It goes on almost forever, and there are so many variables that

have been tried to be added to it over the year. It think we would

probably be somewhat better served by a far more simple

schedule rather

than that which takes all of these variables into consideration. I

think the system itself would function somewhat better if it were

simplified, hopefully without people losing because of that.

Mr. Chairman, the numbers simply do not reach the same conclusion as the member

about so-called cutbacks. As an example, the child welfare expenditures we were

discussing earlier: in '78-79 the cost was $63.1 million. In '84-85

it's $95.7 million — a tremendous change over the years in what's been

spent. The income assistance the member was speaking of: the dollars associated

with that have increased dramatically over the past number of years, doubled

in five years, I believe — the amount paid out in income assistance.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Sure, deal with individuals. See, we'd have a couple of hundred

thousand categories in income assistance if we dealt with individuals.

The legislation regulations at this time identify people in groups, and

they call for a maximum amount to be provided to persons who qualify

within a group — whether it's by age, number of dependents, handicap or

whatever the qualifying factor may be — not to individuals.

MR. BARNES: That's what I'm talking about.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Hold on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member has an opportunity to stand up and comment after the minister. The minister has been recognized.

[11:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The rates have remained as they are since 1982. That's a matter of

public knowledge. There have been no alterations in that, just as

people who are employed may not have had an increase since '82. They're

in the same position basically; better off, of course, because they're

employed, but basically they're in that same position. Inflation has

affected all of us. Obviously it's going to affect others more

seriously than some groups, but it's affected all of us, and not

necessarily equally.

The rate of inflation has decreased in

the last while, fortunately, but sure, if a person is tied to a 1982

level of income, no matter from where, they have less spending capacity

today than they did in '82. Of course they do, whether it's personal

income assistance, if they're still on income assistance since '82. I'm

not sure how many people would still be on who were on it in '82. We

probably have those statistics somewhere within the records. But that

is a fact of life in Canada. Since 1982 there have been serious changes

in the economy. If someone has not had an increase since '82, obviously

their spending power is less today than it was, whether it's a person

working in industry, a service industry or their own business, or on

income assistance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Member, I don't like what's happened to the economy in Canada over the last decade.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I think the member is starting to play games with me. He mentioned

earlier that the Canada Assistance Plan would provide some of the

funding on a matching basis. We have to come up with some too. The

member mentioned that deficits have occurred provincially and

federally, and he is correct. It costs us a great deal to service those

deficits. Over 30 percent of your income tax federally goes to pay

interest on the money that is owed. So in any one year about $33

billion is not available in our economy because they're paying interest

on debt. Maybe not quite that high, but....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre will have his

opportunity to stand and ask questions of the minister on the estimates.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly adhere to the philosophy of no deficit

spending. There are circumstances, however, where a government must

consciously decide to maintain a certain level of service at a certain

cost, and if revenues are inadequate, then you're going to have to run

a deficit. Philosophically, I don't think we should deliberately have

deficits. We should avoid them as much as is humanly possible. I'm not

terribly thrilled, as a Canadian, to have our federal government in

debt to the tune of almost $200 billion. The cost of servicing that is

enormous, and it is not providing any service to us. That's a huge

amount of money. If you consider British Columbia represents about 10

percent of Canada, you can see what effect that's having on our

economy. A couple of billion dollars a year is not available to British

Columbia because we have to pay off the international bankers. That's a

huge amount of

[ Page 7628 ]

money

that's not available. You could increase rates to whatever level a

person wanted to imagine. At this point the money is borrowed for that

purpose. The federal government is borrowing $35 billion a year. Every

increase in any program they come up with is borrowed money. Unless

they decide to cut back in other areas of expenditure, and I could

offer them some suggestions that I have, then at the moment it's

borrowed money. The money is available on a cost-shared basis under

agreements — up to certain limits. But we in British Columbia have to

raise an equal amount, presumably through increased taxation or

borrowing. That's the only way the money comes in. We've got to get it

from somewhere. Ottawa doesn't send us money they haven't already taken

out of B.C. I would suggest that more money leaves B.C. than is

returned by the federal government by way of transfer payments.

The

member is theoretically correct: these things can be done. The member

said that it's very difficult for one person to say what the rights

should be, but that perhaps there are other people more qualified to

give that consideration, including the professional staff within the

ministry. That's basically what you said. You said that you weren't

qualified to know the number, nor was I, but someone may be.

can compare rates across Canada. That's an exercise, that's frequently

used — compare rates across Canada and see what they are in other

provinces. Then the question is: who is right? Do you do better than

the others, or should you be behind the others? Do you get into

competition with them? What's the value of a dollar in B.C. compared to

the value of a dollar in Newfoundland?

MR. BARNES: There are ways of finding out.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Sure, but there are so many variables associated with that — cost of living and other things.

Obviously

the attraction of the lower mainland is one of weather, which may

translate into somewhat lower costs for people over a year. If we were

to believe the pollsters and the others who say that most Canadians

would like to move to British Columbia — or at least, of those

surveyed, many would like to move to B.C.... The province they'd like

to get away from is Manitoba. The Premier said that when you consider

the winters they have in Manitoba, you can certainly understand why

some people would. Not everyone in Manitoba wants to leave, but of the

number surveyed.... We do attract a lot of people to our province for

many reasons. One is the relative youthfulness of our province. The

style of life in B.C. In particular has been depicted.... Typical

Vancouver life, according to some people who want to sell that

image.... According to Goldfarb in his survey of attitudes, it was

summed up in the idea that "I'd rather be sailing; I'd rather be

sailing than working," in some instances. There is a difference.

It's

not just a simple matter of saying: "Add this to the rights and it will

solve the problems." The member knows very well that there are people

who have been on income assistance for some time and who may never be

rehabilitated — are quite possibly beyond rehabilitation, except by

divine intervention. There are some people who might even discourage

others to assist them in rehabilitation.

I wouldn't agree

with the member that the ministry is operating in a light-hearted way.

I think the people within the ministry take their jobs very seriously

and are dealing with very difficult situations,

As a

society, I think we are quite generous to our fellow citizens in the

various services which are offered to our fellow citizens by other

people in our society through some form of government agency. I think

it's important to listen to people and see what they think. It is very

hard to develop a policy based on one case, although in some instances

that individual case must be attended to, often in a tailored way.

The

member for Vancouver Centre was speaking of the problem of teen-age

prostitutes. The Ministry of Human Resources has tried in almost every

way to alleviate that problem, working with the Vancouver police and

other police forces, the Ministry of Health, Corrections, parole

officers and social workers. Youngsters who are prostituting themselves

have been apprehended by ministry officials. They have been placed in

group homes, foster homes and other forms of care. Frequently they are

on the street the next day. There have been resources provided. They

tried an experiment with a hotel in Vancouver where they could all

congregate, and that apparently turned into a disaster. There has been

a lot of work tried. We don't incarcerate them; we don't lock them up —

12; 14; 15; 16-year-old who wants to be on the street for whatever

reason, and the ministry is not responsible for some background

situation that may have never involved the ministry at any time. If a

youngster comes here from Lethbridge who may have had a lousy childhood

and lives on the streets, you can hardly blame the Ministry of Human

Resources for creating that condition. We try to respond to it. We

can't incarcerate them; they're not breaking the law. They may be in

need of custody. We may place them in custody, but we don't put them in

a jail. They're back on the street the next day, some of them. If the

member has some ideas, I'd be pleased to hear from him, but it's a

problem we are very concerned with as well.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, could I have leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON:

Mr. Chairman, in our gallery this morning is a very ambitious

entrepreneur from Surrey. He has provided the wherewithal to allow for

a large number of jobs at the Expo site, the SkyTrain construction, the

Ridley port and the Annacis crossing. I would ask the House to please

welcome Mr. Peter Zeeman from Surrey Iron Works.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, those comments were particularly

enlightening, inasmuch as you've indicated a desire to listen, and I

think that is probably the most encouraging thing that's come out of

this House for some time — that a minister is prepared to listen to the

public and to the community to try to become more enlightened about

some of the realities of the situation. I believe the minister is to

that extent sincere.

I just go back to his note yesterday,

because I intend to attempt to the best of my ability to respond with

what I would indicate as adequate levels, but I believe that that

should come as part of an initiative either through some kind of

arms'-length, non-partisan collection of publicly concerned people — be

it a commission or appointed by Legislature — that would have the power

to investigate to find out what the

[ Page 7629 ]

real criteria are, what they should be, and what the real facts are.

You

know, it's such an immense problem that it's one that I think we have

to face is going to be with us, Mr. Chairman. It's not a problem that

is going to disappear, because it seems to be a fact of life that we're

moving faster than we can keep up with in terms of the traditional ways

in which we've kept families together, kept our citizens constructively

engaged in the development of society. There are many factors and

forces that are changing that: technological inventions and ideas

impacting on society as it is are just the beginning of the things that

are happening. We're constantly trying to rationalize our education

system, constantly attempting to keep costs down and keep people

informed, keep people educated. It is a difficult problem, but I think

as long as we believe that the people who are affected most have

something to contribute and we listen to them, then we don't set

ourselves aside as experts and authorities, simply by virtue of our

being elected. I think the challenge after getting elected is to stay

in touch with those people and to listen to them, to find out what

they've got to say, what their solutions are to some of the problems.

Now

we speak about the teenagers who are prostituting themselves. It is my

understanding that most of these young people do not wish to be where

they are. They have real problems with self-esteem. They are often

embarrassed to be doing what they are doing. From what I understand,

they are doing what they are doing because they are desperate. It's out

of need. It's not out of a desire to see this as some kind of a

pleasure trip. There's nothing pleasant about standing on the streets

and trying to sell yourself, whether you are a teenager or otherwise,

despite what some people may believe.

[11:45]

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he has addressed the

problem of the evictions that are taking place in the downtown east

side, as the minister responsible for the integrity of those

communities and those families that are dependent on his ministry. Of

course there are still a lot of young people coming to the city who are

exploring, as young people will do, the downtown communities, but who

are going to have it pretty rough in terms of being able to find

accommodation, find a secure means by which they can visit the city of

Vancouver. Could the minister indicate what his ministry is doing to

provide accommodation for those large numbers of young people that are

anticipated to be visiting the city? There is no need to say they're

not going to come. They're going to come. The point is: will there be

hostels that are adequate? Will there be proper supervision? Will there

be qualified, trained people who can work with young people on the

streets? I don't just mean policeman, but I mean community people who

are able to work with young people and understand their situations to

try to avoid any explosive problems, including the kinds of crimes that

are being suggested may happen in a downtown area: muggings and

break-and-enters, and these kinds of things that are being projected as

being on the increase once Expo opens. I mention that really as an

aside.

Specifically, Mr. Minister, what about your

government's position with respect to the evictions? We've had the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) downtown, who has been

on a bit of an excursion. He has not really come up with any solutions.

He has not really indicated that he would go along with a request by

the city of Vancouver to be authorized, given the statutory authority,

to stop evictions on a temporary basis from those rooming houses that

sometimes operate as hotels and sometimes as residential premises.

can suggest to the minister that his department should be taking the

lead. By and large, most of those tenants being evicted are dependent

on the Ministry of Human Resources. The ministry has directly been the

main source of revenue for those hotels; there is some obligation

there. The ministry knows that those hotels have been operating as

long-term residences — not a month or two, as may be possible in some

hotels.

Usually hotels operate on the basis of a transient

population — clients that are coming and going, staying one or two days

or a week. But the hotels in the downtown east end, particularly — and

in some other areas, I'm sure, as well — are allowed to extend the

tenancy to as long as a person will stay. Be it six months or a year or

two years or ten years or twenty years, they do not lose their status

as a hotel.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I

know. That is the problem. In the downtown east side, as the minister

says, any hotel can do this. But when it comes to a clear change.... A

condition has developed in the downtown east side, where the social

housing is not adequate. People do not own their own properties, as

they do in some other parts of the community. They are reliant on these

hotels for their living accommodation. In fact, some of those hotels

have gone so far as to ask the city council for exemptions on their

taxes because they are essentially residential facilities and are

providing a social service. Hotel owners have said that themselves.

They've lobbied to get the concessions, amounting to thousands of

dollars of discounts on their taxes, because they're providing the

service. Hundreds of people are without protection under the

residential tenancy laws of this province because of the category

"hotel" which comes under different legislation, innkeepers. They have

no protection. I would think that the minister would want to address

this and would be sensitive enough to the implications of these

displacements of people. The removal of these people from these

facilities is not merely a physical thing in terms of them leaving a

hotel room or losing the right to live in a specific place, but it's

the community itself — their friends, their families.

And

not the least important is access to outlets that make food and items

available to them for their living at economic costs. If some of those

people were to move, say, to Surrey or to some of the outlying

communities that have offered them places to stay, would they be able

to shop at the same economic costs that they do in the downtown east

side? This is the thing you've got to look at: the downtown east side

is such a unique place that it actually has economic shopping

facilities that have grown over the years because the people in that

area cannot afford to spend extravagant amounts of money for their

foodstuffs. So you are destroying a community and putting people at

even greater disadvantage. In some cases you're breaking their hearts,

and in some other cases, perhaps even, it's a death sentence because of

the shock of having to be uprooted after so many years in a community.

These

are the kinds of things that the Minister of Human Resources is not

addressing. I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if he is

aware of the serious consequences of this wholesale displacement of

these people, not to mention the fact that they have fundamental rights

and should be protected by virtue of the fact that they have as many

rights as

[ Page 7630 ]

any

other citizen. They are living in these residences and should be given

proper notice, should be given at the very least assistance in

relocating. And there should be some consideration given to temporarily

freezing this movement of people until after Expo.

It's a

very serious problem. It's one that has received international

attention. Just the other day one of the federal ministers was making a

tour.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well,

regardless of his name, there was a minister touring in the downtown

east side. To his mind, it is a matter of national concern; to his

mind, it is a matter that is going to have negative implications for

the country and for the province when the tourists start to come to our

Expo 86.

I can tell you that a lot of people are upset, a

lot of people are heartbroken, a lot of people are losing their lives,

and a lot of people will probably not last very long once they move

from the downtown east side. I know it sounds like we are saying that

that's such a great place, that it has a lot of the amenities that

other parts of the city have. That's not the case. What we're trying to

maintain, first of all, is the integrity of the community; and we're

trying to improve the opportunities for people in that area. We're

trying to get rid of the cockroaches and make sure that landlords

maintain their facilities in an affordable and decent manner. I'm not,

by any means, suggesting that the downtown east side residences that

these people have been living in are anything other than deplorable in

some instances. But two wrongs don't make a right. I think that it's

just a tragedy, and it's a tragic comment on our society when we can

allow a temporary event like Expo to have such an impact on such a

long-established community, without any real regard for trying to

protect these people.

This is the question I want to ask

the minister: do you really feel there is nothing you can do to stop

these evictions? Do you feel it's right? Is this a just thing to do?

Mr.

Chairman, there was a time when people in the so-called skid-row slum

areas were safe from the conventional, regular part of society, because

no one wanted to touch them.

That was the last place —

they're all swept under the rug; leave them alone. You know, they're

not even safe under the rug anymore. It just seems to me that there

should be some sense of responsibility. There should be some

recognition that these are still human beings, that they still have

some dignity. How can we dissociate ourselves from the fact that some

of those people are war veterans? Many of them have been working in our

forest industries and developing our mineral resources. They are

retired old-timers. Many of them don't have families. They are alone;

they are without very much, other than the few friends that they can

see next door walking down the streets or around the comer. You're

going to tell me you're going to stick these people off in someone's

basement or in someone's attic somewhere out in Surrey or Richmond or

Kamloops, or wherever these phone calls are coming from, and tell me

that you are not destroying these people? It is a sentence of death;

you break hearts.

I think that there has to be more outrage

on the part of the minister. There has to be more aggressive action. In

other words, let's go out and do something. Now you've given me a

challenge; I intend to follow it through. I wish you would comment on

this. If you are sincere, if you really want me to make recommendations

about what the rates should be for income assistance through the GAIN

program, address it. Tell me what you really mean. I think that this is

a great opportunity you've given us, and I'd like to hear it reaffirmed

to me that you mean what you said when you asked me to participate in

setting the rates.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Because of the nearness of noon, I'll respond to the member this afternoon.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada