1990 Legislative Session: 4th 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, MAY 23, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9751 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Clean Environment Enforcement Act (Bill M202). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9751

Spill Prevention and Reporting Act (Bill M203). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9751

Pulp Pollution Prevention Act (Bill M204). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9752

Personal Property Security Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 26).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9752

Oral Questions

Payment to former NDP employee. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9752

Recriminalization of abortion. Ms. Marzari –– 9753

Mr. Sihota

Provincial sales tax and GST. Mr. Bruce –– 9753

Recriminalization of abortion. Mr. Sihota –– 9754

Location of interior cancer clinic. Mr. Clark –– 9754

Ministerial Statement

Komagata Maru. Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 9754

Mr. Sihota

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 9755

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 20). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9755

Mr. Clark –– 9755

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9755

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

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9756

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we have the director of

business and community relations for the district of Surrey, Mr. Rick

Johnson. Along with him, he has a guest visiting us from Surrey's

sister city of Koto-Ku, Japan: Mr. Yoji Tanaka. I would ask the House

to please make them both welcome.

MR. CASHORE : Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today we have Dermot Foley and Stuart Hertzog

of the Citizens' Action Network. They represent an organization that

works on waste reduction and citizen participation. I ask the House to

join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, as Premier and first member for Richmond, and on behalf of

the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), I'm very proud to

introduce to you today another group of grade 7 students and several

adults from Garden City Elementary School in my constituency of

beautiful, sunny Richmond. I would ask the House to join me in

extending them a big welcome.

Also, it's a very great

pleasure for me to introduce to the House today Dr. Ronald David and

his wife Faye from Orlando, Florida, accompanied by Dr. David's

parents, George and Nel David from Miami. Also travelling with the

David family are Dr. Warner Webb and his wife Caroline from

Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. David and Dr. Webb have been attending the

American Pediatric Surgical Association's twenty-first annual meeting

held this past weekend in Vancouver, which was attended by over 500

doctors from all around the world. I would ask the House to please join

me in extending to our American visitors a very warm and hearty British

Columbia welcome.

MR. CRANDALL : Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today are two constituents of mine from far-away Columbia

River. I would appreciate it if the House would welcome Pat Soles and

Ewald Huebert.

Introduction of Bills

CLEAN ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Clean Environment Enforcement Act.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Speaker, management and enforcement of existing environmental

laws in B.C. have been abysmal. Charges under the Waste Management Act have

rarely been laid for the habitual violation of permit specifications, and

nearly every pulp mill in B.C. continues to routinely violate its permits with

impunity.

This

bill renames the Waste Management Act, calling it the Clean Environment

Enforcement Act. It provides for effective monitoring of pollution and

toxic spills. It plugs the loopholes in the Waste Management Act by

more broadly defining what is considered to be environmental damage,

calling harmful wastes "hazardous wastes" instead of "special wastes"

and imposing a duty on officials to ensure that the monitoring of

permits is reasonably related to permit compliance, treatment of

discharges and the determination of environmental effects.

Consistent

monitoring of permits is also required, as well as public availability

of monitoring data, no longer allowing provincial officials to grant

approvals or variances to polluters. Where an industry is unable to

meet its permit specifications, it must apply for an amendment to its

permit or face prosecution, subjecting all air effluent and refuse

permits to a public review process every three years or before a permit

is renewed. On the principle that the polluter pays, permit-holders

will be required to pay the true cost of administration and enforcement

of their permits, and permit fees will be based on a reverse sliding

scale, so that higher discharges will result in significantly higher

fees.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, just as a point of clarification, the comments made at

first reading of a bill should be of a brief explanatory nature and not

editorial comment and practically reading the entire bill on this

me-too piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER : Order,

please. Recent changes to practices which allow statements at first

reading and introduction of bills have allowed some tolerance in this

matter. I could refer you to page 32 of MacMinn's second edition,

"Introduction of Bills." If all members would like to read it, there

will be a small test tomorrow at two.

SPILL PREVENTION AND REPORTING ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Spill Prevention and Reporting Act.

MR. CASHORE : There is currently no effective requirement under the Waste Management Act that spills of polluting substances be reported.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I had not realized that the member had two bills to

introduce. I'll just take the opportunity to read this short paragraph

from our practice recommendations:

"Until the

adoption of practice recommendation No –– 5 in 1985, no statement or

speech of any kind was permitted on introduction of a bill. A member is

now permitted a two-minute statement on introduction to explain the

purpose of the bill. The explanatory statement must not be used for the

purpose of

[ Page 9752 ]

making a partisan speech, raising matters of privilege or points

of order, nor should it be used as a vehicle to criticize another member. If

a member strays from the intent and purpose of the two-minute explanation permitted

by this practice recommendation, he will be brought to order by the Chair."

Having

given the member that advice, I will ask the member to proceed. I trust

he hasn't a prepared statement which will in fact be in violation of

our standing orders. Would the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

please proceed.

MR. CASHORE : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To put my bill in context, it is in contrast to the present

legislation. While letters informing of a requirement to report spills

are attached to some permits issued by the ministry, this requirement

is of questionable legal validity. Because spills are frequently not

reported, the evidence has washed away and polluters are not charged.

This

spill prevention and reporting bill clearly defines spills, sets forth

to whom spills are to be reported and requires that steps be

immediately taken to lessen environmental damage. In addition, this act

requires that the ministry maintain a publicly available and up-to-date

record of spills and prosecutions relating to spills.

Bill

M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

PULP POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Pulp Pollution Prevention Act.

MR. CASHORE :

This bill amends

section 8 of the Waste Management Act to require that

permits granted to pulp mills limit chlorinated organic discharges.

These chlorinated discharges include dioxins and furans as well as many

other harmful substances that have contributed substantially to

pollution of B.C. rivers and coastal waters.

Over the past

year commercial crab, oyster, clam and shrimp fisheries have been

closed in eight B.C. coastal areas because of pulp mill pollution. High

levels of pulp mill toxins have also been documented in fish caught

near Prince George, Quesnel, Kamloops and Castlegar. This bill proposes

a permit limit of 1.5 kilograms AOX, which is attainable by 1992 if the

pulp industry moves quickly to install the best available technology.

This

standard is expected to virtually eliminate dioxins and furans. A new

limit of 0.1 kilograms AOX by the year 2002 gives the pulp industry ten

years to develop production methods that virtually eliminate all

organochlorines. The B.C. pulp industry has been producing record

levels of pulp over the last several years and has record profit

levels. Pulp mills can no longer pollute with impunity and must now

meet the highest environmental standards possible.

Bill

M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

MR. SPEAKER : Having read from the

parliamentary practices of this House, I would just like to remind the

member that on his second bill the statement was in order, but he

slipped again on the third one in terms of that. Perhaps as a guidance

to all members, it would just assist the Chair if these matters were

prepared before the matter came to the House.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Personal Property Security Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This bill amends the Personal Property Security Act, a statute that was

enacted in the previous session but which remains unproclaimed. The

Personal Property Security Act is a thorough and comprehensive reform

of personal property security law in B.C. This bill further refines the

Personal Property Security Act to ensure that it provides British

Columbians with a modern and comprehensive framework for securing

credit.

The PPSA was the result of many years of discussion

with a wide range of groups. The implementation of this statute was

deliberately delayed so that further consultations could take place.

These consultations resulted in a number of refinements and corrections

contained in this bill.

[2:15]

believe the amendments contained in this bill reflect this government's

commitment to encouraging and strengthening the financial industry in

this province. The PPSA is one of the finest statutes of its kind in

the world. I commend this bill for the consideration of the House and

urge its passage.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT TO FORMER NDP EMPLOYEE

MR. RABBITT :

To the Minister of Finance. Could the minister confirm that the full

cost of the Jim Hayes settlement is not $89,000, as reported, but may

actually reach $125,000? Would the minister inform the House as to the

total amount of public money involved in this secretly negotiated

agreement?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, I cannot

confirm today that the settlement was in the $125, 000 range; nor can I

deny it. I think the issue will have to be examined by the appropriate

staff members; obviously I will have to discuss it with them. I would

also

[ Page 9753 ]

like

the opportunity to discuss it with the Leader of the Opposition, whom I

notice isn't here that often. So it may be difficult for me to arrange

that discussion. In any event, I will have to have discussions, and I

will bring the matter back to the House when I have the information.

RECRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, on May 7 the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs

(Hon. Mrs. Gran) advised this House that she hadn't made any

recommendations to the federal Minister of Justice regarding the new

abortion bill, which is going into third reading tomorrow in Ottawa.

The final decision will be made tomorrow. Will the Premier advise this

House of any actions he has taken or any communications he has had

regarding returning what should be a personal and private issue to the

Criminal Code?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker,

I'm getting a little fed up with the opposition continually asking this

side, on whatever the issue, to do what the NDP MPs in Ottawa ought to

be doing. Time and time again, we hear: what is the government doing

about some issue in Ottawa? I too am concerned about what is or isn't

happening in Ottawa. One of the things that isn't happening is thorough

and complete representation by the NDP MPs. I haven't heard from one

NDP MP in the whole of the four years that I've been the Premier of

this province. If that member wants to work with me to make sure that

the NDP MPs in Ottawa do their job, I'd be pleased to try and help.

MS. MARZARI :

For the Premier's information, our members in Ottawa have been on

record time and time again, raising this issue and bringing to the

attention of the House the fact that the recriminalization of abortion

is about the worst thing that could happen to women in this country.

Our critic for women in Ottawa has put forward....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I must ask the member to ask a question.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Premier, in case you didn't hear me the first time, what actions

have you taken or what communications have you had with the Minister of

Justice or the Prime Minister regarding the recriminalization of

abortion? It does have an impact on us here in B.C. Every woman wants

to know: what have you said? You had a lot to say two years ago. What

have you said lately?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the clarification. Now it's apparently not so

much a matter of the NDP MPs in Ottawa not doing something. It's a

confirmation that they are totally ineffective.

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Premier. Members of the federal NDP caucus have made

their position clear on this bill. Why are you not prepared to make

your position clear on this bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, there's one thing that pleases me tremendously about the

line of questioning we're hearing from the NDP today. I understand

question period is for urgent matters affecting the province and to

which the provincial government can react. Obviously the only questions

they have to ask are with respect to matters that might be dealt with

by their socialist counterparts in Ottawa. So the province must be in

fantastic shape.

MR. SIHOTA : I am sure the Premier

is not saying that this is not an urgent and important matter for women

in Canada. The Premier has talked about a number of federal matters, be

it the GST, Meech Lake or interest rates. Why are you not prepared to

state your opinion with respect to this federal legislation?

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX AND GST

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I have had

several calls from residents in the constituency of Alberni. An

article

that appeared in the Alberni Valley Times was brought to my attention

which causes me great concern.

In this article, the Leader

of the Opposition — I am sorry he is not here to hear this, but I've

waited for him to be here; he's never here — has written that it is our

government's intention to piggyback our sales tax on the GST.

know this is not the case. Mr. Minister, can you advise this House

whether this misrepresentation of the facts has occurred elsewhere

throughout the province, and what you intend to do to set the record

straight?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, like the

hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, I was astounded to see in print the

false allegations surrounding this issue made by the Leader of the

Opposition when he visited that community. It's disturbing to me

because it clearly is not true. It clearly was addressed during the

budget speech.

There is absolutely no reason for the Leader

of the Opposition to be misinformed on this subject. I find it most

unfortunate and irresponsible that a duly elected person should be

travelling the province at public expense, deliberately misleading the

public he is alleged to be serving.

As for the member's

question as to whether this misrepresentation has been spread

throughout the province, I will endeavour to ascertain the facts. I

have, in the meantime, prepared a letter that I will send to the

Alberni Valley Times to set the record straight. I trust that in the

interests of clarity and truth, the hon. member from Port Alberni might

do the same.

MR. SPEAKER : Does the member have a supplementary question?

[ Page 9754 ]

MR. BRUCE : Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, I would like to know: will you ask the Leader of the Opposition

to retract this statement, which is clearly false?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order in this forum.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I will obviously have difficulty communicating with a chair that's

always empty. But I can assure the member that I will communicate

through the mail, in the naive hope that the Leader of the Opposition,

if he can't hear the spoken word, might at least be able to read the

written word.

RECRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Premier. He has talked about the GST and a number of

other federal matters. My question is simply this: do you not think

that the right of women to have access to abortion is as important a

matter to comment and state opinion on as the GST?

HON. MIL VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we deal rationally with all of

the issues, and we certainly recognize the importance of all of the

issues. We deal with them fairly and honestly. We don't, as was

mentioned a little earlier, deal with issues one way on the hustings —

as we've heard the Leader of the Opposition did at several places in

the province — and another way in the House. We deal with these issues

fairly and honestly all the time. Frankly, I detest dishonesty, and I

hope and trust that a correction will be made by the Leader of the

Opposition about the issue raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mr. Bruce).

We recognize as well that members elected

federally have a responsibility to deal with certain issues. We

certainly do not seek their involvement in issues of a provincial

nature, and we don't expect to be involved in federal issues. I guess

this is one of the advantages of Social Credit — we don't have to bow

to some group in Ottawa that's calling the shots.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Leader of the Opposition is very

clear: he defends the rights of women to have access to these legal

services. The question to the Premier is: fairly and honestly put, Mr.

Premier, rationally state your opinion of the federal legislation on

abortion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I don't

want to take up all the time in question period going over the issue

again and again. I will agree with the member opposite, if that's what

he's saying — and I hope it is, because sometimes I have my doubts about

these things when they come from the socialist opposition — that all

people are entitled to their opinion. Yes, I agree that the Leader of

the Opposition is entitled to his opinion, as all members here are

entitled to their opinion.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker,

the people of this province are certainly entitled to hear the opinion

of the Premier on this important matter. As a matter of policy, Mr.

Premier, do you think that this matter of abortion should be covered by

the provisions of the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I was asked in a recent interview in Kelowna whether in fact, come an

election call, the issue of leadership or of personalities might come

into question. I answered: "No doubt it will." I undoubtedly will be

criticized for too much leadership, and the Leader of the Opposition

will be criticized for no leadership. That's a fact, and I believe it.

answer to the question from the member, let me say that there is one

thing about this Premier: the people of the province know where he

stands because he's not a fence-sitter like the Leader of the

Opposition, who tries to be on all sides and sits on the fence. The

fence is getting so uncomfortable that he's never in the House anymore.

We don't see him in the House anymore. He's getting splinters from his

fence-sitting, and he's probably consulting his doctor.

[2:30]

LOCATION OF INTERIOR CANCER CLINIC

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Health, speaking of fence-sitting. Last

Wednesday the Minister of Health announced that the decision to locate

the interior cancer clinic in Kelowna was final. He said he could

understand the disappointment in Kamloops, but a decision was made. Can

he inform the House why he made this announcement when the Cancer

Control Agency is reviewing its decision today to locate that clinic in

Kelowna, and when people in Kamloops who have put a lot of work and

effort into a brief were assured they would get an impartial hearing?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Let me correct the member for Vancouver East first of all. We made the

announcement some months ago. What I reaffirmed in Kelowna was that the

decision for having a cancer clinic located in Kelowna was still on the

books and hadn't changed. I also indicated to Kamloops that we were

considering the information from the Kamloops task force, and I am

waiting for a report from the Cancer Control Agency of British

Columbia. Until we have that, I am not prepared to make any further

statements on the matter.

Ministerial Statement

KOMAGATA MARU

HON. MR. DIRKS : I rise to make a ministerial statement.

This

evening in Vancouver the province will join with the government of

Canada, the city of Vancouver and members of the Indo-Canadian

community at the unveiling of a commemorative plaque. This

[ Page 9755 ]

plaque will be a reminder to future generations of the lessons to be learned from the Komagata Maru incident of 1914.

that time, a shipload of aspiring immigrants to Canada from the Indian

subcontinent was turned away from our shores. That decision may have

been technically correct in the eyes of the courts of the day. However,

it is not a decision which history and Canadians of today can regard

with comfort. The reaction of Canadian society to the Komagata Maru in

1914 was, I believe, largely founded on uncertainty and fear. Today we

take pride in being a multicultural society and recognize the strengths

that newcomers have brought to our province.

Last Friday a

number of members of this House joined in the first public viewing of

an educational videotape on that incident. I believe that all of us who

were there were impressed with the sincerity and deep feelings held in

the community regarding this piece of our common history.

is important to remember the past. The past reminds us that social

intolerance is something we need to collectively guard against. It

reminds us of the need to work individually and as a society toward the

goal of an environment where all British Columbians live together in

harmony.

This is a day with special meaning to all

Indo-Canadians and all British Columbians, regardless of their origin,

as we rededicate ourselves to that goal.

MR. SIHOTA :

I think we all understand why the government is making the statement

that it is today. I wish that I could simply congratulate the

government for the statement, without having to make reference to

events that have transpired in this House, and particularly the events

of last year, when we witnessed an unnecessary outburst from the

Premier of this province with respect to a request for funding for the

plaque, and a subsequent series of comments from the former Provincial

Secretary. Those statements, Mr. Speaker, have left the Indo-Canadian

community unsettled and, in many quarters, offended. The scar left by

those actions will heal inevitably over time, but they will not be

healed exclusively by one statement made in the Legislature

Mr.

Speaker, we've come a long way as a society since 1914, and we've

learned a lot since then about tolerance. One would hope that this

government has learned from their unfortunate handling of the matter

last year.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee stage on Bill 4.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. SIHOTA :

We, of course, adjourned this debate on Thursday, and I wanted to take

this opportunity to thank my colleagues, particularly the learned first

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) for his comments and the contribution

to that debate. We have no further comments to make on this legislation

and wish it speedy passage. We would hope that this will now pave the

way for new appointments to the Provincial Court — as I said in my

opening statements — which will hopefully see more women and members of

the native community form a part of our provincial bench.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

MR. SPEAKER : Government House Leader, do you have someone to carry the bill?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I will take notes for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), and I hereby move second reading of Bill 20.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Speaker, any questions I have on this bill we'll deal with in committee stage.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I now close debate and move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

20, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

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

[ Page 9756 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 59: minister's office, $331,553.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure today to present the expenditure plan for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

guide this work, we have established three strategic priorities for the

year ahead: first, to foster independence and initiative; second, to

strengthen our partnership; and third, to provide quality service.

For

1990-91, my ministry's total budget allocation has increased to $1.7

billion. This will enable the ministry to fulfil its mission of helping

British Columbians in times of need and assisting them to regain or

achieve self-sufficiency.

In recent years the healthy B.C.

economy has attracted many new residents — a net gain, as a matter of

fact, of over 60,000 last year. The resulting pressure on housing has

been extreme. Within the framework of the $1 billion provincial housing

action plan, my ministry has vigorously pursued its goal of ensuring an

adequate supply of rental and social housing. I'm proud of our record,

Mr. Chairman, and want to assure the people of the province that

despite the federal government's announcement of a 15 percent cutback

in funds for social housing, we will continue to negotiate our fair

share allocation of quality social housing to serve the housing needs

of low-income British Columbians.

The rapidly increasing

population has also put pressure on emergency accommodation. This

budget will allow us to open new hostels and dramatically increase the

total number of hostel beds.

This government places a very

high value on families. The budget for services for families and

children is increasing this year by 16 percent. Additional residential

care resources will be developed so that children and families can

receive services in their home communities. In this and all program

areas the ministry is strongly committed to equitable access to our

services throughout B.C.

In keeping with our commitment to

quality service, we have become a member of the Child Welfare League of

America. The league is an internationally acknowledged organization in

the child welfare field. I am confident that our membership will

stimulate innovation and keep us focused on providing quality services.

We will, in turn, contribute much to the league, since we have many

innovative programs that other provinces and states can learn from.

For

women and children who are victims of domestic violence and abuse, and

for those in need of short-term emergency shelters, funding has been

increased this year by 25 percent. This significant funding increase

will lead to the creation of new facilities, expansion of several

existing facilities and an overall increase of 160 bed spaces.

partnership with the native community in Vancouver and the federal

government, the ministry will establish a transition house in the

Vancouver area to serve native women and children.

For

several years now we have been discussing with native communities how

their needs for our services can best be met. As a result, the ministry

opened B.C.'s first native family and children's services office in

Vancouver earlier this spring. We will continue to work in partnership

with native communities to foster child care and other initiatives that

are sensitive and appropriate to the culture, values and circumstances

of native British Columbians.

In 1981 the government made a

commitment to move people with mental handicaps from institutions into

the community. Throughout North America, British Columbia is regarded

as a leader in community living for people with mental handicaps.

[2:45]

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, can I continue, or should I wait until they're finished?

Consultation

with parents, advocacy groups and service providers has been essential

to the success of this process. For their help, I wish to say thank you.

Our

budget will enable us to continue this highly successful process. This

year's budget also provides funds to initiate a health care monitoring

system to ensure that persons with mental handicaps....

MR. WILLIAMS :

Point of order. It's clear that the minister is reading a set piece,

which is not in the rules of the House. Could the minister possibly

give a speech from the heart on this subject?

MR. CHAIRMAN : That's not a point of order, hon. member. The minister continues, please.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, I would say that every word is from my heart. It's a very

sensitive issue when we talk about families and children, and if

someone likes to make light of it....

This year's budget

also provides funds to initiate a health care monitoring system to

ensure that persons with mental handicaps can live in the community and

will be receiving the highest quality of health care.

ministry's income assistance function is another area in which

progressive and sensitive programs are showing positive results, We now

offer income assistance recipients the most extensive array ever of

employment initiatives, incentive programs and support services.

project that this year approximately 7,800 income assistance

recipients will receive training and work experience through the

Employment Plus program. Over 40,000 will receive assistance to find

and keep a job.

Let me acknowledge here the many private

and public sector employers who, in partnership with the ministry,

provide numerous training and work experiences each year for so many of

our income assistance clients. Our many employment initiatives and an

active provincial economy account for a decrease in income assistance

caseloads since 1987 of 15 percent - 7 percent in this last year alone.

[ Page 9757 ]

This

year's budget also provides for rate increases to help rising costs.

Those seniors whose income levels and rental costs make them eligible

for shelter cost assistance under the SAFER program saw significant

enhancement to this program last year, and monthly payments to them

have nearly doubled. The SAFER program will be further improved this

year, and rent ceilings will be raised as well.

Let me

spend a few minutes talking about people instead of dollars. The

Ministry of Social Services and Housing is a large and complex

organization with offices all over British Columbia. In offices large

and small, urban and rural, this ministry's many employees serve with

skill, energy, dedication and distinction to attain the goals and

fulfil the mission of the ministry. I'm very aware that their work is

often difficult and often stressful, and our staff are indeed special

people. I want them to know their work is valued and their

contributions are recognized. To them all we also wish to say thank you.

This

year's budget provides for a significant increase in our staff

complement. For example, in the vital area of child protection, staff

will be increased by 35 full-time-equivalent positions. The equivalent

of 52 positions has been added to allow us to increase our coverage

when staff are on vacation or ill or are receiving training. Additional

staff will be added to work with mentally handicapped persons who live

in community placements and to staff the at-home program which was

announced last year for severely disabled children.

addition to our own ministry employees, there are also many people who

provide services to our client population through contractual

arrangements with the ministry. I cannot overstate how important the

thousands of such service providers are to the delivery of social

services in all parts of British Columbia. To ensure they can meet

rising costs and maintain high standards, the ministry has received an

increase of $23.17 million in this year's budget allocation.

closing, I want to acknowledge the invaluable contribution made each

year to the mission of this ministry by our many partners in service. I

want to especially thank the foster parents, who not only provide care

for children but also work together through their local associations

and the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations to provide

training and support for all foster parents.

Thanks also to

the B.C. Association of Social Workers and to the B.C. Association for

Community Living for their advice, perspective and constructive

criticism. The Downtown Eastside Residents' Association deserves thanks

for its efforts in the areas of housing, the downtown deposit program

and other projects. We work very well with them.

Also the

Provincial Advisory Committee on Services for the Mentally Handicapped

is to be thanked for its invaluable service to government regarding all

aspects of issues related to services for persons with mental

handicaps. There are also others too numerous to mention that will work

with us in the upcoming year.

I must say that in the short

time I've been in this ministry, I am truly grateful and always amazed

at the dedication the people who work in the many areas of this

ministry give to the job they're responsible for. I have to say that

they give everything back to the community, not just because of the

paycheque but also because they believe in what they're doing and in

the cause they're working for.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr.

Chairman, on a point of order, earlier the member for Vancouver East

raised a point of order concerning the reading of a speech in the House

— reading directly from a prepared text. If I understood the Chairman

correctly, he indicated that it was not a point of order, when in fact

it is. In my understanding, one is not allowed to read directly from

notes. It's understood, as a matter of practice, that people can refer

to copious notes. That is very different from reading a prepared text.

has increasingly become a habit for ministers of the Crown to read

directly from a prepared text; in no way could that be considered to be

referring to copious notes. It's a practice that I think helps to bring

this House down and assists in avoiding the spontaneity of debate that

we really want to go back to in this House. I would urge you, Mr.

Chairman, to insist that the rules of this House be obeyed. When we're

required to obey them, as was evidenced today in the introduction of

bills, I think ministers of the Crown should also be required to follow

them.

HON. MR. VEITCH : On the same point of order,

it's a longstanding tradition in this House that members are allowed to

refer to copious notes, and I don't believe there's any rule on how

copious those notes can be. I suggest that it is not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I thank both the member for North Island and the acting government

House Leader for their comments in this regard. I note, as the member

for North Island noted, that this point was raised not too long ago. At

that time we referred to Sir Erskine May for some background on this,

and there was quite a dissertation by him. I haven't been able to turn

it up at this moment, but I will turn it up for the edification of

everyone sometime this afternoon. It seems to me that he stated that it

was difficult for the Chair to rule on this — copious notes as opposed

to a written speech — and that in many parliaments it was an accepted

practice to have copious notes.

I do know what the member

is saying. I certainly hear what he is saying: if one person is going

to be asked to follow the rules, everybody should be asked to follow

the rules.

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Chairman, may I make

just one additional comment on that point. We are hearing speeches

prepared by public servants; we are not hearing the words and comments

of the minister. That's the essential point. We should be hearing from

the minister in these cases, not from people employed by him or her.

[ Page 9758 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Here is what Sir Erskine May has to say about the rule against reading

speeches. It is "relaxed in the case of opening speeches, whenever

there is special reason for precision...as in the case of important

ministerial statements, especially on foreign affairs, or matters which

involve agreements with outside bodies, or highly technical bills. Even

at a later stage of a debate, prepared statements on such subjects are

read without objection being taken, though they should not constitute

an entire speech."

MR. WILLIAMS : I think Sir Erskine

sums it up: the answer is "none of the above." I'm not doing this as a

point of order, but under the estimates. It was reassuring that we had

two deputies here to see that the minister read the speech the way they

wrote it. For that, welcome, gentlemen; thank you for attending.

MS. SMALLWOOD : As soon as the traffic clears, I would be glad to take my place.

would like to welcome the staff to the estimates I would like to

welcome the minister, because these are his very first estimates in

this ministry. Regretfully I would like to add that while I was given a

whole hour and a half notice that the ministry's estimates were coming

up, nevertheless the minister will see that I don't have a prepared

speech. I certainly have lots of issues that I would like to talk to

the minister about.

I would like to start off by making

some general statements about the ministry and about the impact of

social services generally in this province. I have stated some of these

concerns before in previous estimates, but I think — given the fact

that we have a new minister now — that it's worthwhile restating them

in the hope that the minister will make some comments, and in the hope

that it will also help to frame some of the very serious thinking that

I am sure the minister is doing, given the fact that this is a new area

for him.

First of all, when dealing with Social Services

and the fact that this is perhaps one of the biggest bureaucracies in

government, the fact that you are dealing with the third-largest amount

of money for a ministry in the provincial budget, and because of the

impact your decisions have on people who rely on the services and the

cheques that your ministry provides.... I would like to say that I

cannot for a moment separate the decisions and policies set down by

your ministry from general overall economic policy in this province. If

the ministry's priority is, as you say, to "enable people, " it would

seem to me that any decisions you make with regard to that pool of

unemployed must fit into an economic strategy for the province and must

deal with those economic realities.

I will talk a little

bit about those specifics later on, when I would like to go through a

point-by-point question on your business plan for the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing. That in itself, I believe, serves to

fortify my perspective in that you chose to call this plan "a business

plan."

[3:00]

If indeed we are

talking about a group of people that are either low-skilled, suffering

under some sort of disability or are, in increasing numbers, women in

this province who rely on the support of your ministry, I would think

that you would have to start from the basis that it is your job to help

those people in any way possible to become full participating citizens

of this province.

But I haven't seen that in the last

couple of years that I have been involved with this ministry. What I

have seen is policies that are punitive and which are directed, as your

previous minister has said, to ensuring a short-term reliance on

welfare; policies which are creating and enhancing that welfare cycle

in this province and which are doing nothing to assist people to get

back into the workforce in a meaningful fashion.

The

strategies that you talked about in your opening statement, which

referred to your "employment initiatives or incentives program, " are

nothing short of a furtherance of your government's low wage strategy.

All it does is enhance the ability of employers to pay low wages while

subsidized at taxpayers' expense. There are no strings attached and no

requirement for training or long-term employment. So we are seeing

increasing numbers of people going into those programs, having their

wages subsidized, and when that subsidy ends, the employer lays them

off and looks for someone else to employ, thus perpetuating that cycle.

The people who are holding those jobs have nothing at the end of their

short-term employment.

I want to talk about a couple of

different aspects with regard to your ministry — the income side, with

GAIN and other income programs for handicapped and seniors. I also want

to talk separately about services.

I might emphasize that

the more I am involved with helping people throughout this province

interface with your ministry, the more I come to realize that your

ministry is suffering greatly under the legacy left by the previous

government in the restraint era. What we are seeing in this province is

a legacy left by a government that cut all community programs, all

support programs and all programs that helped with prevention, were low

in cost, and would have ensured that the province did not have to pay

the phenomenal amount of money that they are now paying.

talked in the previous estimates about other jurisdictions. I compared

other jurisdictions, not only in North America but in England as well,

where they have chosen to put their money in prevention and support,

and have by that decision prevented the kind of crisis intervention

that we see now in this province.

Last year I talked about

that crisis intervention — the fact that this particular ministry seems

solely focused on crisis management and is no longer involved in

support to the degree that it once was. I see in the last little while

that the ministry itself is coming to learn that they have to

reinitiate some of those programs that were put in place in the '72-75

[ Page 9759 ]

era

that one of the other members referred to, because not only are they

more humane, they are cost effective. It's cheaper to prevent than

trying to deal with those kids and those families later on.

reality, I think that a lot has happened in the last year. When we

looked at those cost factors and the direction that the ministry was

taking, I think it is becoming increasingly obvious.... I hope that in

the next short while, if not in the estimates, we'll begin to

demonstrate that your ministry, Mr. Minister, is no longer even living

up to its statutory requirements. I don't know whether the minister

understands that; quite frankly I'm not sure the minister's even paying

any attention.

But the reality in this province is that

while this ministry has vacated the field of prevention and support, it

is rapidly moving into an area of breaking its own laws. I think that

you will see in the next while a decision as to whether this ministry

is going to live up to its responsibilities or indeed change the laws.

I suggest that there's nothing to indicate that this ministry will live

up to its responsibilities, so I predict that in the next short while

we will see the ministry change its mandate and in particular its

responsibility to the children under its care, and we'll talk a little

bit more about that as the estimates go on — hopefully tomorrow.

I'd

like to start off by asking the minister if he has with him the

1990-1991 business plan and whether he would be prepared to answer some

questions with regards to that.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Chairman, we're starting off with a real bang, where we are negative

right from the beginning. I want to make it very clear that I'm not

going to go down that slippery road and start answering negative

questions.

We have done more this last year...brought down

the caseload by 7 percent again with our programs for independence. If

I heard correctly, saying that we do nothing for employment.... We do

nothing but put people to work, sharing the employers' wages up to $7

an hour. To say that they get out on the street when they are finished

with their job and are left high and dry — it's absolutely not true.

All you have to do is go and ask some of these employers. Just check

with them.

I was at a meeting not too long ago, and there

were 35 or 40 employers who had employed people under the Employment

Plus program, where we paid 50 percent and the employer paid 50 percent

up to $7 an hour. I went from table to table asking how the program was

working, and there wasn't one negative remark from all the employers

who were there. They said that this program worked well and that in

that particular area 41 percent of the people on this program stayed

with that employer as a permanent employee. How can you stand there and

find fault with that?

We have a tourism program where

people who perhaps haven't had employment in the past are helped to get

training and information. We have programs such as forestry...tourism,

the same way.

When we talk about incentives for people that

are not able to find jobs, more has been done in the last few years

than ever before. The caseload is way down. We are heading in the right

direction. You say we're not. So I suppose you and I have a different

story to tell.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I think I'm more

encouraged about these estimates, as the seconds click by.... The

minister said he's proud of his program. He said the reason that he's

proud of his program is that he went and talked to some 40 businessmen

who were involved in the program, and they said it was great. Well, you

should check with the people relying on that program to feed their

kids, because that's what it's all about. It's not about subsidizing

employers.

You said that 41 percent of all of the people

that had obtained jobs in that program were still with those employers.

I'd say that was a failing record. I'd say that if it was the school

system, you'd have to repeat this year.

On top of that, you

say there's not a bad word to be said by those employers. Well, if you

guaranteed me that I had to pay less than the minimum wage in this

province, subsidized by taxpayers' dollars, then I'd be pretty happy

too. What you're saying is that the government, with taxpayers'

dollars, is subsidizing wages up to $7 an hour. You're paying 50

percent of that $7. That means the employer, to hire those people, is

paying $3.50 an hour. That is what this program is doing. It is not

offering those clients anything. It is directed at the chamber of

commerce, at employers in this province, rather than dealing with the

real needs of the people that rely on your system.

I would

direct the minister to look at the previous year's estimates, where the

minister then responsible talked about who was on welfare. He talked

about the increasing number of women with children that are on welfare.

Those make up, I understand, the majority of people on welfare at this

time. An increasing number of men over the age of 50 have become

technologically redundant. I would say to you that your programs do

nothing to address the needs of either of those two groups, and that

emphasizes the need for this ministry to clarify its role. I believe

that it is a component of the economic strategy of this province, and I

believe that everything you do and say points to the fact that you are

more interested in the business lobby than you are in serving those

people. It serves the business lobby well to have that pool of

vulnerable labour that is prepared to work at the kinds of jobs you're

talking about with that incentive program.

In your business

plan you talk about the realities that this ministry will have to face.

You talk about the pressure the GST will bring on the ministry. You

talk about the expected 40 percent increase in cost to the ministry

because of the GST. But you neglect to deal with the fact that the GST

will also bring costs to people that rely on income assistance. So I'd

like to ask the minister whether or not he has considered that, and

whether the people reliant on GAIN can expect to see an increase in

their GAIN cheques to

[ Page 9760 ]

cover off that — the same increase you are lobbying your cabinet colleagues for to cover off your costs.

[3:15]

HON. MR. DUECK :

I haven't got the details, but I understand that low-income people are

going to get a refund from the GST once it's in place. But be that as

it may, we are reviewing GAIN and we are reviewing SAFER every year,

and there will again be an increase in those areas.

I was a

bit surprised when you said that not one word from those employers....

I only spoke of the employers I met at that particular time. I've met

all kinds of people around the province, including people that found

work by getting this experience and having a rsum; they finally work

at a place. Some of them have never worked. I've got all kinds of

letters from people saying that was the best thing that ever happened;

that they finally got into the workforce; they learned how to work;

they got experience. And that's what it's all about. I grant you that

these people aren't getting big pay, but it's not a matter of getting

them off the welfare rolls and providing an income that you'd perhaps

get if you were in the workforce permanently.

Just to give

you an example of the percentage change from 1985, let's go back a few

years. You were referring to last year and the year before; you were

lumping in many years, and I will do the same. For single men on the

income assistance roll, 1985 to 1990, there is a decrease of 31.2

percent; for single women, '85 to '90, there was a 13.2 percent

decrease, and that's with an increased population; for couples, '85 to

'89, there was a 39.6 percent decrease, with an increase in population.

How

can you be negative on every point? There are some positives, you know.

Income assistance was never meant as a payroll; it was meant to get

people into jobs. With these programs we're trying to get people from

the welfare roll into paying jobs, and many of them do.

For

two-parent families, 1985 to 1990, there is a decrease of 45.8 percent;

for one-parent families, 1985 to 1990, there is a decrease of 1.7

percent. That's where the least is. You are correct on that point. The

single parents, mostly single women, have the toughest time. It's

unfortunate. We are trying to do what we can to help them.

have to tell you in general terms that this last year has been actually

quite a good year in getting people off the income assistance roll and

back into the workforce. We have evidence of that over and over again.

I can pick out sad stories as well as you can. I'm sure you are going

to bring up all kinds of sad stories. Of course it bothers me to hear

some of these situations, especially when children are involved. You'll

do it, but I can give you a lot of positive stories too. As we move

along, we'll probably get into that more as we go.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I want to quote from the minister's own document. This is the

environmental assessment

chapter of your business plan. The minis-

ter

looks a little perplexed. Perhaps you could spend a little bit of time

this evening reading your own business plan, and you wouldn't be quite

as perplexed. This particular item is under "Employment, " and it is

assessing the overall situation in the province as it impacts your

caseload. It says:

"As we move through the

nineties, the automated office may emerge to the detriment of

employment for women. The net effect of social and economic change may

be the relative feminization of low-income living. The increased

numbers of elderly widows, the erosion of available employment

opportunities and the potential increase in number of single parents,

chiefly women, has profound implications for the size and composition

of the ministry's caseload.

"The economic

transformation, together with increased competition from entry-level

workers with greater education, may create additional barriers to

independence for ministry clients."

This is your own document, and I want to hear specifics. What is your plan? What are you doing about it?

HON. MR. DUECK :

We have, as I mentioned a couple of times, various programs in place.

That is what we're following through on. You're talking about what may

happen in the future. It's true, automation does have the effect you

just mentioned. But you know, we're speaking of the estimates of last

year and what we have for the future in this coming year. I know if you

want to look back, you can give me some sad stories, and I'll give you

some good stories. We can go on with that for a while if you wish.

For example, I'll read you this:

"Hello,

my name is...." I won't mention the name. "I would like to take this

opportunity to thank you for providing me with social assistance. It

has allowed me to attend a 12-week computer-assisted upgrading and

pre-employment training course called Youth Employment Skills. I had

been out of school for three years and really had no future, but with

the help from your social assistance, I have a chance for a great

future. I am almost ready to write my grade-12 equivalency and have

acquired many job-finding skills as well as job-keeping skills."

Another one. I think I should take the time to read them just for the record.

This is from another individual:

"Just a short note to congratulate you and your ministry

on this excellent program. Our law firm has had the good fortune to become involved,

and we have received prompt and courteous assistance from — and again the

name — "in your department in Nanaimo. The employee we hired has thus far

shown herself to have excellent potential." I would like you to listen;

this is very important. "Clearly, industry in general, our law firm in

particular, and those people you are trying to assist are very well served indeed

by such a program. Should you require any testimonials such as those I have

seen produced on local television stations, we would be only too glad to produce

them."

This

is someone who found employment through one of these job-creating

programs. Sure, you think it's funny, but it works. You want to bring

up one

[ Page 9761 ]

side. I could go on and on. Do you want to take some more time?

Single

parent. Despite the fact that this single mother has been out of the

workforce for ten years, she has obtained a well-paying position as a

financial planning assistant through the completion of the job action

program. With the help of ongoing support throughout her EOP employment

contract, she has recovered so completely from severely abusive

relationships that she now gives lectures on employment management to

job action program participants. It's just another positive story.

Mentally

handicapped. Until this mentally handicapped man was referred to the

program position, he had never had full-time regular employment and had

been in receipt of income assistance for the majority of his adult

life. This is the first time he has had an opportunity to prove himself

with a supportive employer. He has surpassed everyone's expectations to

such an extent that his original contract as a janitorial worker has

been extended to training in the cabinet-making field. That's success.

That was through this program.

Another one: as a result of learning disabilities, this 21-year-old man has

completed only a grade-8 education and has spent several years on income assistance.

Through this particular program he has obtained well-paying employment in a

nursery and has developed a streamlining system in the workplace. His employer

is greatly impressed with the quality of work.

Another

one I just met on the street the other day told me that he has now gone

into his own business after being in the Employment Plus program where

we paid 50 percent and the employer paid 50 percent. He is now in

competition with the employer who hired him for $7 an hour. That's good

stuff.

We can pick things apart, and I suppose that's what

estimates are all about, but when I go through the province and talk to

people who have been helped through the program — whether it's the

environment program, the youth program or the Employment Plus program,

where we pay a certain portion of the wages — they all tell me that

it's working well and that they're satisfied with the program.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I am amazed, actually, every time I find myself in this House

struggling to remember what the real world is all about, because once

you have sat here and listened to a minister such as yourself talk

about how great things are, you begin to think: "God, do I live in the

same world?"

Given your responsibility and the situation as

I know it in this province, where we still have food banks and children

going to school hungry and an increasing number of people — who for no

other reason than that they are women — having to rely on subsistence

income from your ministry, I find it very difficult to comprehend how

you look at the world.

Very clearly you do not live in the

real world that these people live in, nor have you experienced the

reality of raising a family on a restricted income.

HON. MR. DUECK : Oh yes, I have.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Well, I beg to differ with the minister. Until such time as you are a

single parent having no option but to live on welfare.... All you have

to do is look at the numbers across this province to realize that

almost two-thirds of every single-parent family headed by a woman lives

on welfare, because they can't support their kids any other way.

That

is a reality brought about by this government's policies, and for you

to talk in glowing, rosy terms about how great the world is and how

great your ministry is doing, it just points out again and again that

you are out of touch. If you insist, sir, that you understand and that

you are not out of touch, then I would suggest, by that last little

rosy speech that you gave, that you don't care — because it's one or

the other.

I want to talk about the SPARC report. We'll

talk about poverty and about the impact of living under your

government's policy and about the fact that you, sir, are administering

that kind of hardship in this province.

In your opening

statement you talked about your role as it relates to social housing

and your responsibilities for creating a certain number of new housing

opportunities for families on low incomes. Before I actually get into

the SPARC report, I again want to quote from your own document. I have

to say that the last time I asked for specifics and for you to comment

on your document, I wasn't too happy with the answers. They were not

specific. Again, either you don't understand or you know that the

answer is not going to be politically expedient for you, because you're

not doing what you should be doing.

Let's talk about the

housing aspect of this report. You talk about the erosion of the value

of SAFER benefits and GAIN shelter allowances because of the housing

market. Then you have the audacity to get up in this House and talk

about the increases that have been brought about under your

administration to SAFER in particular. I ask you whether those

increases did anything to compensate for the erosion of the programs by

the marketplace.

[3:30]

I want to talk about this document, where you talk about your

housing programs. If you have your copy of the business plan, Mr.

Minister, I refer you to page 38, where it talks about major program

housing and the objectives of your housing program: "The objectives are

to help British Columbians meet market-determined prices for their

living accommodations." We're not talking about affordable housing

here. We're talking about the marketplace and your unquestioning

commitment to the marketplace, without any consideration for the people

who have to face that marketplace.

You go back again to

increasing the supply of affordable rental housing. "Affordable" means

the lower 25 percent of the market for the region. Again the market is

the determinant here, not how much people can afford to pay. Last year

the SPARC report talked about the cost of living as it related to GAIN

[ Page 9762 ]

and

how difficult it was for people on GAIN and other restricted incomes to

make it in that marketplace. What do we have here but a business plan

that ties affordable housing to the marketplace and stresses that

affordable rental housing means 25 percent of the market for the

region? Do you know what that means in real terms, Mr. Minister? It

means that when CMHC financing comes off an apartment block and the

people who own that apartment block do a market survey — your lead, I

expect — they can go ahead and increase the rent to the market amount.

So much for affordable housing.

What that has meant in my

riding is that people living on pensions and on GAIN who were paying

$500 a month as a family for a two-bedroom apartment had their rent

increased $750. There's your marketplace; there's our affordable

housing. I want you to tell me how you can turn that around and make it

rosy. You say you know how to live on a restricted income; you've had

to do that. I'd like you to explain to those people who are on GAIN,

pensions or fixed incomes how they can compete in a marketplace that

increases their rent 100 percent. How can they do that? That's the real

world out there, and I can't wait to hear how you can put a rosy tint

on that one.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I don't

appreciate people on that side of the House making statements that I

have never done this or never done that, when I've only known the

individuals by being across the floor from them. So they don't have any

clue as to what I know or don't know, or how I've lived or haven't

lived. I want to tell the member that I have been in situations....

When we were first married we did not have money, and I have lived on a

very sparse income for some time. As a matter of fact, I was unemployed

for a while.

So things change, and that's no credit to me.

I was fortunate and things have changed. In no way am I going to tell

that member — trying to put words in my mouth — that I'm going to stand

up here and say: "So what? People on income assistance live well." Of

course not. I think it is a very sad story when we listen to people who

have a hard time with food and shelter. That's why we have programs.

That's why we look at income assistance yearly. That's why we look at

SAFER and say: "Shall we move it up? How many points? How much more can

we give this year?" I have to live within a budget as well, and it's

not that I go out there and say, "Gee, I'd like to give these people

$800 a month." I have to live within a budget, like everyone, and if

the opposition was on this side they would do exactly the same.

With

the budget that I have, I do everything I can. Yes, we are reviewing

GAIN; yes, we are reviewing shelter allowance for this year again; yes,

we are reviewing SAFER. As a matter of fact, I have an announcement to

make in a very few days on the SAFER increase, and I hope that before

my estimates are up I will be able to make that announcement.

When we talk about housing, let it be very clear — and let it be on

the record — that we have over 60, 000 subsidized housing units in

British Columbia at this time.

Another

statement was made by the member, saying that two-thirds of the single

parents — or the single moms — were on income assistance. Not true.

About 50 percent are on income assistance. The rest are independent,

providing for themselves.

We provide every year — we are

talking about social housing now — the maximum that we can receive

under the program from the federal government, which since 1986 has

been 18,086 units a year. They just announced a month ago that they

are going to cut us back by 15 percent. I was to be in Ottawa on Monday

and Tuesday at a ministers' conference where we would look at the

formula again to increase our allocation — at least make it more

equitable and more fair — only to find out that the conference was

cancelled at the last minute because some province couldn't agree to

the formula, when the senior people had worked out a formula that was

equitable and fair to all the provinces.

would like to

take you back in history a little bit — and this was before my time —

when the Regina accord was first agreed upon and we knew that we were

getting shortchanged on the housing allocation. Because the provinces

could not agree, we said we would go along with the Regina accord,

provided it would be looked at in 12 months' time and then would be

changed to adequately reflect the different provinces and the true

equitable share at that time. Well, that's four years ago; we're going

into the fifth year. I've been back there a couple of times, and

generally there is one province at least that I am aware of that vetoes

it, and we just can't seem to get that extra allotment that I think we

deserve. That would give us quite a few — maybe 50 — more units a year.

is a good program. It is a program where the federal government shares

70 percent and we share 30 percent with a subsidy. I still hope to

increase that; and if we can, we will at least alleviate a few more of

these problems.

The rental supply program was never meant

for low income. That program was meant for the middle to lower income,

but not social assistance or the working poor. It was going to take the

pressure off those housing units that are now being used by the

middle-of-the-road who are moving into the low-income housing market

because there is such a scarcity of housing. I say to you again — and I

will repeat it over and over again — that it is supply that will change

it.

I've got an allotment from cabinet: $80 million in the

rental supply program. As fast as municipalities can zone it, as fast

as developers can put those things on foundations, they've got the full

green light to go ahead and produce this housing stock. In total it

would be 8,000 units.

I have to tell you that I don't

think ever in the history of this province has there been so much

allocated to housing as we have done this last year. I know it isn't

enough. We had a net immigration of over 60,000 people. You can't

produce housing for

[ Page 9763 ]

60,

000 extra people, and a natural increase in the population, in one

year; it takes a long time before we get these on the market. We've had

a lot of problems getting social housing zoned. A lot of communities

have vetoed it. A lot of aldermen and mayors have turned down

proposals. It has been a difficult time.

I'm not going to

stand here and say that someone on income assistance is doing well and

that they should get by and be very happy they've got that. What I'm

telling you is that we review it annually, and I am doing everything I

can to provide at least interim assistance so that they can get back

into the workforce. That is our goal — not to provide an income to stay

on income assistance all their lives. It is to get them through this

period of time, and many of them do. They are on income assistance on a

temporary basis. They get back into the workforce, and that's what

gives them dignity and purpose in life.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we continue, hon. members, the second member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain has asked leave to make an introduction.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT :

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House today a number

of students from Mackenzie Elementary School in Vancouver who are

visiting the precincts today and are now sitting in the House with

their teacher, Mr. Jack Schonewille. I would ask the House to please

make them welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we

continue, I would like to remind those members who are participating in

this debate this afternoon that it is customary that the debate go

forward through the Chair. The Chair has been ignored almost completely

in the last little while. It makes for better debate when it proceeds

through the Chair, as opposed to directly opposite from member to

member.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Chairman, I stand up to

comment on some of the statements the minister has made. He comments

that he himself was unemployed for a period of time, that he knows what

it's like to live in poverty or close to it, and that he has come

through tough times.

I think that's a mythology that many

people like to talk about: when they were poor; when they had to pull

it together; when their parents lived through the Depression and things

were rough, but they pulled it together and managed to live on almost

nothing or eat tulip bulbs, as has been suggested by one member of this

House. We have to dispel the mythology of the poor-but-pure family

struggling to make ends meet and ultimately coming out into a shining

vision of the future where all is well.

HON. MR. DUECK : I didn't say that.

MS. MARZARI :

You suggested though, Mr. Minister, that you could have some sympathy

with the plight of a family that lives in poverty. You gave a few

happy endings by reading some of the letters you had received over the

last few months. You suggested at the end of your statement that people

are on welfare for a very short period of time, and then they're off

and well into the mainstream ready to do their bit, having pulled it

all together and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, so to speak,

and life is rosy once again.

fact, the world we really

live in — the real world.... My colleague the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) has spoken on this a number of

times

in this House. The facts for women in poverty are very different from

the picture you outlined for this House. The facts of life for a woman

in poverty have to do with hopelessness, real despair, raising children

with not enough food on the table and feeling pushed around perhaps by

a spouse who has left on a moment's notice or who has divorced the

family.

One way or another, women who are living with

children in poverty do not have a rosy light at the end of the tunnel

to look forward to. They haven't had it in the past, they don't have it

at present and with existing policies, procedures and training programs

in place, they will not have it in the future. They have nothing to

look forward to.

[3:45]

The average woman who is divorced or separated with children in our

community stands to lose 47 percent of her income. The average male who

leaves a family situation very often — in fact, the statistics show

this — stands to increase his living income when he leaves. It's simply

fact of life, and it has been borne out by the Canadian statistics that

we have and can share with you, if you haven't read them yourselves.

Your

government's answer to this situation, after many years, is to come in

with a Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, which we will deal with in

future estimates. It basically tells women that they can claim from

their husbands, have their husbands pay into a central depot and

receive their living allowance as stipulated by the court.

know that program is failing badly, and that very few people have

actually benefited. We will deal with this program with the

Attorney-General, who set up this program, which is a good program in

concept, but in practice has turned into a major albatross around the

neck of your government because of poor management, long waiting-lists

and administrative incompetence. Women are simply not receiving the

money the court awarded them, and men are simply not paying.

We're

talking about women who find themselves in poverty. Their choice is a

difficult one. They can go into a workforce that puts them, generally

speaking, about 40 percent below any job performed by a male colleague.

We put them into a workforce which is very competitive, and if they are

not skilled or have made their choice to be at home with children during

[ Page 9764 ]

their

early or late twenties, they find themselves in a competitive workforce

which simply cannot accommodate them. When they are accommodated, it is

very often at less than minimum wage.

Very often they're

accommodated in jobs which they don't declare the money from. Very

often they find themselves in the position of being a housecleaner,

nanny or domestic where they are very vulnerable to being even poorer

than they would be in jobs where they had decent employment standards

legislation backing them up or where, if they declared their income,

they could be in the mainstream of the labour force.

What

I'm painting a picture of, Mr. Chairman, is a population of women in

our province and across the country; but in our province especially,

because according to Statistics Canada it is showing up the worst of

any province in this country in terms of female poverty and in terms of

the children who must bear the costs of being poor.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The

SPARC report, which is published annually in British Columbia, is a

constant reference for us and a constant goad to our consciences about

what this poverty looks like. The SPARC report doesn't have a very

human face, because it doesn't take us through individual scenarios and

cases of women making choices on a day-to-day basis about whether or

not their kids get an apple in their lunch or new shoes once every

season for school. We don't see those heart-rending, gut-curdling

stories in the SPARC report.

What

we do see, however, are

numbers which, if given any thought at all, should make us all think

about what we do to keep people poor; not only putting these families

through the rigmarole of losing their status, self-respect and

integrity by dragging them through the welfare system, but then forcing

them to live on an amount of money which they simply cannot live on.

put them in the terrible position of having to lie very often about

what they're actually earning. We put them in the position of having to

go out and earn bucks on the black market, to do those jobs as

domestics, to do those jobs as baby-sitters, because they cannot afford

to live on what welfare grants them. In doing this, we basically

perpetuate the whole cycle of devalued women's work. We create the

cycle and the downward spiral with our welfare rates and our procedures.

The

SPARC report, this year and every year, puts together a market basket

of what it actually costs to live in our community: transportation,

food, clothing and housing. It then measures our welfare rates against

that basic poverty line.

In the fourth example, where they

talk about a single mother with a 16-year-old son and a 14-year-old

daughter, the maximum GAIN allowance, with the family allowance added,

is $1,040.66. The actual cost for that family is $1,698.45. Those are

basic, very conservative, minimal costs, assuming that the mother or

the family is buying its food at the cheapest possible prices and

looking for every sale.

The shortfall between that family's

needs and what they get is 63 percent; an incredible shortfall between

what a family needs and what it gets. That 63 percent has to be

measured not just in terms of numbers; it has to be measured in terms

of daily decisions that the mother has to make about how to make it

through to the end of the month.

A couple with a

six-month-old infant and a five year-old daughter: their maximum GAIN

allowance is $1,105; their costs are $1,844. The shortfall there,

between their integrity and what they get, is 67 percent.

Mr.

Chairman, numbers like these are abominable. They are not tolerable in

a civilized community. We simply can't go on in terms of the human

wastage — the number of children and women who are living in poverty. We

are wasting our human capital and the abilities of our people and

citizens by giving them 66 percent less than they actually need to live

on. We cannot continue to adjust our political priorities around a

number like 66 percent less than what is actually required for

subsistence.

So I would ask the minister... No, I won't ask; I'll speak on for a few minutes, because there are solutions.

guess I would ask questions about whether or not the minister is aware

of some of those solutions. Obviously there are political decisions to

be made. Obviously, on a day-to-day basis, you live within your budget.

I assume that when sitting in your cabinet, you fight for more budget —

as everyone does in your cabinet — to get more into your program. But I

have to ask you and your cabinet why. How can you tolerate living with

numbers such as the ones I've just outlined, knowing that there are

women and families living at 66 percent less than what they absolutely

need to survive? We're talking about absolute needs.

Is it

because these women don't come storming over to Victoria once a week to

say: "We're dying"? A recent health study in Quebec published a health

report a few weeks ago that suggested that poor women die sooner. A

study that we've known about for two or three years now and that has

created a furor in Ottawa around child poverty found that poor children

die because they are poor.

The complex situations that make

up poverty and the hopelessness and the despair don't have a rosy

ending. Children and women die with greater regularity. It is not a

rare event either.

We are wasting our resources by not

funding the families — the women and their children — to a level where

they can find some self-respect. They don't just need money; they need

housing; they need transportation if they are living rurally.

don't need fancy demonstration projects to show how a family with

integrated social services can come together and make a better deal of

it. We probably could use a few projects, but these families need

money. Poverty is lack of money for these women and their children.

[ Page 9765 ]

am talking about a coordinated effort by your ministry to first of all

put pressure on the Attorney-General to upgrade the quality of the

family maintenance service so that women on welfare: (

a) are not pushed

into the family maintenance program; rather that they do it

voluntarily; (

b) that women on welfare are not forced into training

programs but rather are given quality opportunities for decent training

when they choose or find the time to go back into training; (

c) a

special program for women and families to build equity in co-op

housing, special units of co-op housing set aside for women in poverty

and their children; (

d) transportation allowance for people on welfare,

most notably for women and their children who very often live in rural

isolation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, under standing orders your time has expired.

MR. SIHOTA :

I am enjoying these fine words by the member for Vancouver-Point Grey

and I think we should hear more of what she has to say on this very

important issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I recognize

the member for Vancouver-Point Grey I would just like to point out that

the questions should be addressed through the Chair.

MS. MARZARI :

We need a transportation allowance, or some mechanism by which people

who happen to be on welfare or are living below a certain income line

have proper access to decent transportation services, without

stigmatizing them, without special cards that they have to carry or

wear. Last, and most important, we need a review of GAIN, not just to

see what political pressure is being applied this week but a serious

review in consultation and in active partnership with groups such as

FAPG, Federated Anti-Poverty Groups, and ELP, End Legislated Poverty,

and the Victoria women's group, Women For Economic Survival — including

also representatives perhaps from the National Anti-Poverty

Organization, NAPO.

SPARC, the Social Planning and Research

Council of B.C., obviously has to be involved. A number of people in

this province have put 20 to 30 years of their lives into either living

in poverty or into having been with it and trying to study it or work

in the system that tries to alleviate poverty. These people have to be

conferred with.

I'm talking about drawing an accepted line

for British Columbia. Are you prepared to draw a poverty line for

British Columbia, to accept the SPARC line, or to look at Senator

Crow's line from 1968 or the National Council of Welfare line or the

Canadian Council on Social Development's line?

[4:00]

Each one of these poverty lines serves a purpose, Mr. Minister, and

that purpose is to show the gap between what we offer our people who

live in poverty and what they need. Those lines haven't been drawn in

thin air; they've been drawn on the basis of what people actually need

to live on in our country.

Are you, Mr. Minister,

prepared to draw a line about what it takes to live on in this

province, as opposed to going from month to month trying to bump up the

welfare rates a bit here and there? I'm talking about a consistent

policy and about establishing a priority.

My second

question to you is: are you prepared to fight for that line? It's not

good enough simply to say yes, people who are poor will draw a line. We

have to fight for that line — not just in cabinet, Mr. Minister, but

with the federal government. If there's one thing that has happened in

the last few months with the federal budget that has affected people on

poverty, it was the federal government's action to cap the Canada

Assistance Plan for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. We are one

of the three that have been singled out by our federal government to be

punished. Why? Because we gave too much to the poor? I hardly think so.

Mr.

Minister, that's my second question to you. After you've answered

whether or not you're ready to draw a line, I have to ask: are you

ready to take on the federal government publicly, in a visible way, and

fight for the retention of the Canada Assistance Plan — which was

really our only hook, the only thing we had in this country that

guaranteed 50-cent dollars when we set out to fight poverty? It was the

white horse on which we could charge into the battle against poverty,

and we have lost the ability to innovate or create new programs under

the Canada Assistance Plan.

So, Mr. Minister, are you prepared to draw a poverty line? And then are you prepared to fight for that line?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, I will be addressing the Chair. I have to apologize for

getting involved in the debate and forgetting that the Chair is there

to be spoken to.

To begin with, I would again just like to

correct a statement. I do not appreciate a statement being made and

then built on when I have corrected it once. It was built on from

something that I perhaps said or that someone thought I said: that

there was a good ending to the story, but that that is not how it often

ends up with a lot of people. I only made that statement because the

other member mentioned that I probably don't know what it's like. Only

on that basis did I say yes, I did. I didn't in any way indicate that

because I had lived that way, everyone should come out of a situation

and have a good ending to their story. I didn't even think about it. I

wish that you would not take a statement, add to it and then, for the

record, make it something that I said or that you perhaps thought I

said. It's not true. I did not make that statement; I want to make that

very clear.

Mention was made, Mr. Chairman, about the

family maintenance program, although it's not in my ministry. We

certainly have clients that we refer to that program. I want to correct

the statement that it is not successful. I want to emphatically tell

you that it

[ Page 9766 ]

very successful. I'm very happy that we are finally getting to the

point where people can't walk away from a family situation and say: "I

now leave that life behind me. Somehow the government, from here on in,

will look after the family." We're saying no. If you get married, if

you raise a family or produce children, you are responsible.

I'm

very much in favour of the program. It is tremendously successful, and

every month it's improving. So I don't buy the argument that the family

maintenance program is not doing what it ought to do. It is very

successful, and I'm very happy that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith) is going in that direction.

Our

basic GAIN budget —

I'm not going to get into that and argue with you about whether it

should be more. Of course it should be more. When I go to budget time,

I fight like mad for my ministry and for the people we serve through

this ministry. I've worked very hard, and I've made my voice known —

very loud and clear — for extra money, because I know it's never enough.

want to tell you that my basic GAIN budget this year is $902 million;

that's not a small amount. The caseload is decreasing, yet the budget

is increasing. We are spending a lot of money in that area. You can

perhaps criticize and say that it's not enough. I might even agree with

you. Perhaps I would, because it's not simple to live on a fixed income

of that kind. But I want to tell you again that the purpose of the GAIN

program and the shelter allowance.... SAFER is another area where we're

helping seniors who are not able to help themselves in the area of

shelter. The GAIN program is strictly to get people off the welfare

rolls and back into employment.

Talking about GAIN and the

shelter allowance, I mentioned that we are reviewing that program. Mr.

Chairman, the statement was made that they don't want me just to review

it. My gosh, whenever we do something, we review what we've done in the

past and what we're going to do in the future. I think I've gone on

record right after my opening remarks that we are reviewing the shelter

allowance, the GAIN for independence programs and SAFER programs, and

hopefully I'll be able to make an announcement in that area soon.

You

also mentioned special housing for single moms. Would you believe that

we have? For example — this is in French, and I'm not that good in

French.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

That's the one. They have three very successful projects now. We

haven't got enough of them, but it certainly is the direction in which

I think this ministry wants to go, and I'm extremely pleased that we

were able to do that. I've visited these homes and talked to the people

residing there. Many of them have, in fact, found employment since that

time, moved out and created a life independent of the social housing

part of the program. So not all is gloom and doom. We have some success

stories.

Again I want to say that with all the programs we

have, we are attempting to get people away from income assistance,

because when they are on it — I hear this again and again — I hear that

they are not feeling their self-worth, are somewhat depressed and feel

that they haven't accomplished what they should in their life.

Therefore the idea is to get them back into the mainstream, into the

workforce, and wherever possible we are doing it. We also recognize

that there may be many who will not be able to do that, and we have to

help them the best we can. Unfortunately, the budget is set at the

beginning of the year. I have to work within that budget, and that's

exactly what I'm doing.

Transportation. We certainly

provide transportation in many forms — bus passes and other things. We

provide transportation for people who need to go to work in the interim

period. In the particular program that the individual is enrolled in,

we have a clothing allowance, transportation — all kinds of things to

help wherever possible. You can criticize it as being not enough, but

we do provide.

Will I go on record on the Canada Assistance

Plan? My goodness, have you listened to the radio or watched TV? Have

you listened to the Attorney-General? We're suing the federal

government, for goodness' sake! What more can we do? It was at my

insistence; I brought it forward in cabinet. We're saying that it's

contrary to the agreement we signed many years ago. They're supposed to

give a year's notice. They can't make any changes or amendments. It has

to be done in a proper way, and that's why we sued them.

sent a letter to the other provinces. Manitoba, Ontario and the native

community have joined us in this lawsuit. It's now before the B.C.

appeal court, and I hope we're successful. I think it's a rotten shame

that they did that to us, because it's not just a provincial

responsibility; it's also a federal responsibility. The biggest

majority of these people have moved out from Ontario. They come here,

and a lot of them end up on our income assistance rolls. Therefore they

have a responsibility, and I will press — as I've done in the past

again and again — and will say: "You people have to live up to your

agreement, which was signed many years ago, which says that not only

must you give 12 months' notice, but you cannot make an amendment

unless there's an agreement."

MR. MOWAT : I am

pleased to speak in the debate of the Ministry of Social Services and

Housing. I have been sitting here now for almost two hours listening to

the opposition talk about the lack of programs in that ministry.

First

of all, I want to welcome the minister to this new portfolio. I think

he brings with him a great deal of experience from the Ministry of

Health, because programs are often interrelated between the two

ministries. Particularly, many of our people who have been injured or

have a health problem are leaving institutions and returning to the

community to start a new lifestyle. They're trying to find employment or

[ Page 9767 ]

continue

their education, to move into the community and try to get back to the

lifestyle that they had prior to their injury or disability.

want to just briefly say that I certainly don't share the gloom and

doom that the two members who have spoken so far in this debate do. I

know we've touched briefly on the problems of where we've been, where

we've come from and how tough it must have been. Some of us have made

it through.

I have not spoken on this subject before in the

Legislature, but I've been there, and I was brought up in a time when

there were no social programs and no chances for persons to achieve

anything in the way of assistance. I was involved very strongly between

'72 and '75 in a committee to bring forward different programs and

suggestions to the government. We brought forward 12 recommendations,

and sadly none of these programs was implemented during that government.

MR. REE : What government was that?

MR. MOWAT : That was the government between '72 and '75.

touched briefly on employment. Recently I read a report of one agency

that had placed 261 persons, and the majority of them were from the

ranks of the disabled. They were also from people on social services.

The majority of these placements were well over the minimum wage, and

the placements were all varied fields and all varied disabilities. I

want to say that the minister's employment program — through that

ministry and with a very dedicated staff — is truly working.

[4:15]

1 am looking forward to hearing in the estimates the final results

of the in-home support program that this government put in last year to

assist disabled children who live at home with their parents or who

live in institutions and want to return home to live with their

parents. I know the government funded it last year in the amount of

$14.9 million. This is an outstanding program; it's a program that many

of us had worked on for years to bring in, and it certainly has been

appreciated by many families who have been supporting at great cost a

very seriously disabled child at home. Many of the children now are

returned to their homes from institutions because of the effects of

this program.

I was at the presentation — and I know the

member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) is not listening — when this government made the announcement.

Unfortunately,

because of grandstanding by that member, the publicity that should have

been given to the program — and not to the politics — was not widely spread

throughout British Columbia. Many of the agencies that are working with

parents who have children in institutions or children at home with

costly medical expenses have not been aware of the program.

want to touch briefly on housing — because the opposition have spoken

about housing — and on the fact that the SAFER program has been very

effective and that it's being reviewed.

Interjection.

MR. MOWAT :

The second member for Victoria says we haven't done anything in housing

for two years. He doesn't realize that we are now on a program of 8,000

affordable housing units and that also this year we will have 2,000

special social-needs housing units.

Interjection.

MR. MOWAT : The second member for Vancouver has shown up.

want to talk about some special-needs housing that you don't see

anywhere else in Canada or in North America. We have one called

Creekview in False Creek. It has taken six seriously disabled,

respirator-dependent quadriplegics and placed them into the community.

This was unheard of four years ago; now it's taking place.

also are doing a new project with the cooperation of the ministry

called Noble House on West 6th Avenue in Vancouver-Little Mountain. In

that project — it's a 21-unit apartment project — all the units in the

complex will be of a barrier-free design, accessible to people with

mobility problems. Some of the people leaving institutions — in some

cases these people have been living there for 35 years — will be moving

into Noble House.

I could go on to point out what they are

doing in the Coast Foundation and other specialized housing. But I'll

be speaking later in this debate to support the minister's estimates —

and particularly what this minister has brought forward to us as a

caucus — the innovative programs that he will be speaking about. I am

pleased that the ministry has received an increase in its budget to do

some more programs, and I just wanted to take a moment to stop the

gloom and doom that was coming from the opposition and commend the

minister — and particularly the staff of the ministry — for the programs

they are bringing in at the grass-roots level. Many of our citizens in

British Columbia are receiving benefits because of their programs.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

It gives me pleasure to introduce some grade 7 students and their

accompanying teacher and a parent from Strathnaver Secondary School in

the very north end of our riding. Please welcome Greg Siemens, a

teacher, along with Betty Hatfield and students Karry, Tory, Bryan,

Tara Lynn and Cindy, and make them welcome to the precincts.

MR. ROSE : I have a couple of questions to ask. But before that is an observation.

[ Page 9768 ]

The

minister said, telling us about this court case having to do with

changing the Canada Assistance Plan without any particular reference or

warning.... I wonder if the minister would agree that it probably came

about through the premiers calling for a cut in federal spending, so he

thought that would be an appropriate place to cut.

wouldn't agree with that, according to the House Leader of the

government — the temporary House Leader, the part-time House Leader of

the government.

The other question I'd like to ask is about

the relationship between GAIN and other federal moneys coming to people

who are 65 and older. What happens to the GAIN cheques if there happens

to be an inflationary increase of the old-age supplement or any Canada

Pension Plan disability payments, as they are tied to inflation? What

happens to the GAIN payments when there is an increase in the federal

contribution to them?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman,

I think the member is aware that it is deducted; the GAIN goes down. If

there are other sources of income, it's regarded as income, and it goes

down.

I also want to answer the question of whether the

federal government made this change because of the Premier's statement.

No, it was made for Canada, not just for British Columbia, so it was a

universal thing when CAP was reduced. So I would say that it definitely

has nothing to do with the statement anyone made.

They

decided they were going to cut — where I think cuts should not be made

— in an area that is very sensitive. I'm very disappointed that they

have done that. However, Ontario joined in. Manitoba is not even part

and parcel of it, because they were not in that category. They have

joined us, and so has the native community joined us in the lawsuit. I

don't think it has anything to do with any statement made by anyone.

But I think the federal government is not too sensitive to the needs of

some Canadians, especially those in need of assistance.

MR. ROSE :

I don't want to leave this GAIN bit for a moment, because I heard the

minister say in what was actually a heart-rending expression of his

deepest feelings something having to do with those unfortunates who

have to be recipients of GAIN. I know you would like to improve their

character and their enterprise by cutting them back — and maybe that

will motivate them — such as the Minister of Social Services did last

year by cutting single women by about $50. Of course, having to

subtract that stimulates them and motivates them to work harder.

The

minister said there is never enough money; he'd like to see it higher.

A very simple way would be to just let it pass through — not because

they get a raise from Ottawa, but that they get a cut from the

province. Just let it pass through. If you really feel that there isn't

enough money.... The bums on welfare idea has pretty well been exploded

as a myth, when you've got the unemployment rates that we have in

Canada.

I once phoned our social welfare office and said:

"How many unemployed employables have you got around here?" The results

were very minimal, and those were better times than they are now.

What's wrong with the idea of just letting this pass through?

The

problem of housing for the elderly, since we've got no control over

demolitions.... When we had Expo, we had all the problems associated

with the revamping of these hotels to take advantage of the bonanza,

and people being sent out on the street. There are all kinds of people

being released from Riverview without adequate means. They forget to

take their pills, and they end up as derelicts. It's a very serious

problem.

This isn't directly related — maybe it is — to the

question. When you have a situation of extremely high rents like we

have now and definite housing shortages because of many things —

in-migration, demolition, the high cost of housing, no rental

accommodation and all that kind of stuff — then it seems to me that the

kindest and most humane thing to do for these people, who are certainly

not driving any Cadillacs.... I've never seen anybody on welfare

driving a Cadillac. Why not let it go through? What would be the cost

to the treasury if you let it go through? Would it be something we

couldn't handle? After all, we're good at throwing money around and

throwing money at things.

MR. REE : Maybe you are.

MR. ROSE :

Oh, no. You've demonstrated pretty good talent for it yourselves. You

haven't forgotten about the Coquihalla, have you? Do you know that we

spent $1 billion on SkyTrain to carry 1 percent extra passengers?

There's

all kinds of money for certain things. It's all a matter of priorities.

I don't want to be distracted by the former Solicitor-General, who is

enjoying luxuriating in the back bench over there, heckling poor,

nervous newcomers like me and trying to put me off my food — if not my

thoughts. But I would like the minister to address himself to this very

serious question.

Get out of the way; lead, follow or get

out of the way. I'm suggesting that what you should do on the federal

stuff is to get out of the way and just let them pass through.

HON. MR. DUECK :

That can be done, or an increase in GAIN.... Whichever way you want to

look at it, it spells more money. We don't deduct; we just don't pay as

much. We have a level for seniors, and we top it up. It's not that you

deduct; you top it up to a certain level. That's what we do. So we'd

rather talk in terms of topping up less because they are at a certain

level, and if they have income we top it up to that particular level — a

supplement to that level that has been established.

Again, I'm not going to argue that point, because I accept what you're saying. We could do that. We

[ Page 9769 ]

could

also pay more in GAIN. The purpose of the whole exercise is that we

have a certain amount of money which we allocate as evenly as possible

to all concerned, we say that no one over a certain age should have

less income than that particular amount, and we top up to that level

through the GAIN for Seniors supplement.

MR. ROSE : I really don't want to harass the minister or wring more out of it than is in it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Are you suggesting that I should be harassing him?

MR. BARNES : Harass him, yes.

MR. ROSE : Okay, I'll harass him for you.

The

minister is a decent man and a highly principled one, but really, when

we're talking about cutting GAIN, not allowing it to pass through or

topping up; we're just playing with words. That's all we're doing.

The

point is that the extra money allocated by the federal government for

inflation factors in the old age supplement — and also other federal

payments — if not passed through, is depriving them of the money,

whether you want to call it topping it up....

The problem

for most people is that the top is too low. It's not just a question of

whether you get that money back. I think it's really — I was going to

say it's a form of theft, but perhaps that's a little bit too strong.

MR. BARNES : It's a good term.

MR. ROSE :

I wouldn't want to say that. But it really deprives a lot of people who

probably have the least defences of any segment of society.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I want to follow up on this issue that the previous speaker introduced,

and I want the minister to very clearly indicate to this House.

seems to me, as I listened to that exchange, that the issue is not

money, but rather a policy of this government to pay only a certain

amount. I'd like the minister to reply to me on the record, and I will

give him that opportunity. The minister says: "I would dearly love to

give these people more money. I lobby for more money all of the time."

Yet when the member for Coquitlam-Moody asked you why you did not give

them benefit of the increased money that was coming from the federal

government, you said that you made a decision — not to take away from

them, but to not give them any more money.

[4:30]

So the issue is that limit. It is not your policy to increase the

amount, or you would have given those people the benefit of that

federal money coming There was a direct cost-saving to the province by

not giving those recipients the benefit of the money that came from the

federal government.

So the issue is not the money. It's

not, as you would have the House or the people of the province believe,

that you're a big-hearted guy who wants more money for these people. It

is a cold policy decision that people on GAIN or the supplement for

seniors or handicapped cannot make more than this certain amount. It

would not have cost the province anything extra if you had just given

them the increase that was coming from the feds. Instead, you made a

calculated decision to save the province that money. Is that not

correct?

HON. MR. DUECK : I find it really

interesting. It's "not the money, " but ending with a statement "to

save the province that money." So what are we talking about? Again it's

a play on words.

I'm telling you there is a program in

place, and that program — for example, the supplement — is topping up to a

certain level. We can raise that level; of course we can. Perhaps we

will be. We're looking at GAIN again; we're looking at SAFER, which

will help the seniors — if we're talking about seniors.

Someone

just now slipped me a letter written by a senior, saying that his rent

went up last month or the month before, and had it not been for SAFER

he would have been in real trouble. He's as happy as all get out. We're

helping people wherever we can, but there is a limit as to how much we

can help.

I'm just telling you that the policy of this

government at the current time is that level, and we will supplement it

up to that level. Now whether you like that or not, or whether you say

it's not good enough — I accept that. I take that on notice, and we'll

see as time goes on whether we can make those changes.

have asked for more money, of course. Every ministry wants more money

for its particular programs. When it comes to children and families,

sure, it is more than asking for maybe a bridge or a highway. It's much

closer to an emotional thing. I feel very strongly that people should

be helped when they are in trouble. But for me to make changes other

than what I have in the budget, I just can't do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I recognize the member, I should reiterate that the comments and questions should be made through the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I find the smokescreen really fascinating and somewhat humorous,

because the reality is — no matter how much you say you would dearly

like to give these people more, and you don't have any more money to

give, and all of that — it wouldn't have cost you anything to allow

that money to come through. Instead, you made a cold and calculated

decision to withhold the money — the province's share — and basically

benefit from taxpayers' money that was supposed to go to the poor in

this province.

I want to go a little bit further on that

thought, because.... The minister's not happy, but those are the facts.

No emotionalism, we're dealing with the facts here. The minister is

trying to wrap himself in a rosy blanket of goodwill and fatherly love.

But the

[ Page 9770 ]

reality

is that for these people it has nothing to do with whether they are

deserving or not; it has nothing to do with emotionalism. The

bottom-line facts are that people are not able to make it to the end of

the month on their welfare cheques. They have got to go to food banks,

and some of those food banks are at risk. It is under this government's

leadership, under your policies, that people have been forced to line

up for food. That is your legacy; that is your decision. Your saying

you have no more money to give is pretty thin when you look at the fact

that you made a cold and calculated decision to withhold money that was

supposed to go to those people.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

reality in this province is that we have a group of people who, because

they are handicapped or disabled, because they are women, because they

are visible minorities or natives, because they are men over 50 who

become technologically redundant, not because they are undeserving, not

because they are welfare bums — your government has perpetuated that idea

in the past — suffer a disproportionate chance of being poor. You are

doing nothing more than making decisions about their livelihood,

decisions to put a cap on the amount of money they can live on and

making punitive decisions that affect their daily lives. That's the

reality. All those well-meaning platitudes don't matter; the reality of

the policies of this government has created the lives that those people

have to live each day.

In this country and in this

province, as many of us can attest, in the last five years for the

first time we are seeing women and children lining up at food banks for

food, something I'm sure none of us ever expected to see. We are

beginning to see homeless people, people living on the streets and in

the parks. Do you not accept any responsibility for this at all? Do you

not see that your government's policies have directly influenced these

people's lives? Do you not understand that there are things that you

can and morally must do? Do you not accept any responsibility, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. SMITH : I would like to direct a

question to the minister with respect to the policy regarding

availability of individuals for work where we have a situation,

particularly on farms.... In some areas in British Columbia we have

difficulty getting employees to participate in harvesting or planting.

I raise that question for the minister because I have had that request

come to me directly from constituents who have asked me what the policy

is. Rather than trouble you with a letter — as their MLA I would then

respond to them — I would like to take this opportunity in the House. I

think it might be of some interest to other members if we could simply

have a relatively brief statement as to what the policy is.

ask the question for a couple of reasons. For the record, I do indeed

want to know what the policy is so that I can respond to my

constituents. But also I think it's important that any mythology that

might be associated with that policy be put to rest. There have been

statements made over the months about what that policy is and what it

is not, and what it may or may not force people to do or not to do. It

would be helpful to me as an MLA if I could find out what the policy

is, so that I could let my constituents in the agriculture business who

have asked me those questions know.

I know that the second

member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) has also indicated in his comments in

the House today, which won't be in Hansard, that he has had similar

questions directed to his constituency office. It would be helpful if

we could get that information and then relay it in a dispassionate way

to our constituents.

HON. MIL DUECK : Mr. Chairman,

we certainly expect employables to seek employment at all times. The

whole purpose of the program is to get them back into the mainstream so

that they find employment and have self-worth rather than live off

income assistance. It has worked very well. Right here in Victoria this

spring, when it came to picking daffodils and tulips, we referred — I

haven't got the information here at the moment — quite a number of

people. A good number of them did go to work; certainly that's what the

purpose is. Others just decided that they would rather go off income

assistance and not seek work. But most of them did find it rewarding

and did go to work. Some found work elsewhere.

The same

thing applied in the Okanagan at fruitpicking time, where employables

are asked to seek employment. Whenever they are in a region where there

are certain harvests — I'm speaking about farms in particular now —

they will seek that employment to help out the agriculture industry and

to gain experience and find employment. It has worked very well, and I

can get the particulars on the two that I've become aware of in the six

months I've been in this ministry.

The Attorney-General

asked what he could tell his constituents. So often we find people

requesting help, and they can't find it. Get in touch with our office,

and we will certainly refer people to them. In most cases they are only

too happy to go.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I found that

exchange very interesting. Obviously the Attorney-General felt that the

minister was being somewhat threatened and felt the need to intervene

and throw up one of those government smokescreens that says that if

people really want to work, there's work out there.

Maybe

the minister would do well to sit and listen to or look at some of the

studies the ministry itself has done on who is on welfare. Who would

the minister have go to work out in the fields — the single mothers with

their kids? Should they go out? You see, there isn't any day care.

Should they go out into the fields and pick? It's really difficult to

pay the rent with the amount of money you make from farm labour. It's

not covered by the Labour Code; therefore they don't even have to pay

the minimum wage.

[ Page 9771 ]

wish that this government — in particular, the member who just asked

that question — would wake up and realize what it is like to live in

this province on the subsistence amount that people get on GAIN. It's

an absolute smokescreen. If people are supposed to deduce from

questions like that that there are people on welfare who could be out

in the fields, I'd love the minister to tell us which of those single

mothers with kids, which of those handicapped people, it is. I'd love

the minister to tell us what those kids should be doing while the mom

is out there.

[4:45]

The reality is that your government has abandoned these people so

that you can advocate on behalf of industry. As the minister said, his

employment programs are really well received by employers because they

only have to pay $3.50 an hour. I'm sure that the farm industry is

lobbying you, and you have a choice. Who are you going to stand up for?

The industry that is not covered by the Labour Code — an industry that

certainly would employ some of those little kids in the field, working

with the pesticides and other hazardous substances with absolutely no

protection, thanks to your government? Is that what you're advocating?

We'd like to get back to some of the issues that we were raising.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Through the Chair, please, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I want to go back to the issue of welfare and the limits on welfare:

the artificial limits created by this government; the artificial and

arbitrary limits placed on people who are wholly reliant on welfare;

those limits that have no rationale and absolutely no equity; those

limits that the government — you, Mr. Minister — have set in place by

your policy; those limits that keep people at 60 percent of the poverty

line. It goes back, Mr. Minister, not to your caring, well-meaning,

fatherly attitude but to a calculated policy that deals with those

people's lives. It says that the reason for our policy is to get people

off GAIN, and therefore we will make it as miserable as possible for

those people so that they don't look on it as a way to support their

families.

It goes back to my opening comments about looking

at the whole picture. If those people on welfare are disproportionately

women, then you have to ask: what's wrong with our economy that women

are disproportionately poor? Therefore what can we do as a government

to change those realities so that women, by the fact that they are

female, don't end up on welfare? That's all — not making it as

difficult and as punitive and as damned miserable as possible with your

policies that restrict welfare payments to those families so that women

and children have to line up for food.

It's going to be

pretty difficult for you, Mr. Minister, if you are honest, to hold your

head up in this ministry. I wouldn't change places with you and your

government for anything.

1 want to talk about who's poor

and what the realities of your government's policies have created for

this province. Twelve percent of all families in British Columbia are

poor. Thirty-four percent of families headed by a young person, a

person under the age of 24, are poor. Of families headed by women, 40

percent are poor; 34 percent of all unattached individuals; 53 percent

of females over the age of 65.

Because of your inaction and

because of your punitive policies, these people have to live at

subsistence levels. They are in a situation in the marketplace....

Remember that marketplace that your low-income housing is tied to? When

they have to live in the marketplace in British Columbia and deal with

those rent increases, huge amounts of their welfare cheques are being

consumed by a landlord.

There are things you can do that

would alleviate the pressure on those families and allow them to live

with a little more dignity; allow them, if necessary, to get back into

the workforce. But I would say perhaps we could look at not necessarily

getting back into the workforce, because I would take it back to you,

Mr. Minister, when you talk about the role of families and the value of

having a parent at home, whether a father or a mother, and the fact

that w