1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 6, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5941 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

School trustee firings. Mr. Skelly –– 5941

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 42: minister's office –– 5944

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Davis

Mr. Williams

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Rose

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

MONDAY, MAY 6, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This is an important day in the history of

this city and its environs and of the nation. On May 4, 1910, the

Canadian naval service was established, and therefore 1985 is its

seventy-fifth anniversary. Many celebrations to mark this important

event are taking place throughout our country, but particularly in

Victoria and in Halifax.

This afternoon the Naval Officers' Association of Vancouver Island

and the Chiefs' and Petty Officers' Association presented two

magnificent gifts to the people of our province. These gifts have been

placed in the upper rotunda of the legislative buildings. The naval

officers presented a seventy-fifth anniversary ceremonial sword; the

chiefs and petty officers presented a plaque listing Canadian naval

vessels lost in action in the Second World War.

In connection with these events, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of my

colleague the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who attended the

ceremony a short while ago, and on behalf of the government, it gives

me great pleasure to introduce the following who are seated on the

floor of the Legislature: Rear-Admiral Robert Yanow, commander,

Maritime Forces Pacific; Captain Eric Dawson, president, Naval

Officers' Association of Vancouver Island; and Mr. Zip Rimmet,

president of the Chiefs' and Petty Officers' Association.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as you will observe and as all hon. members will

note, in the galleries we have many members of these two fine

associations and, in addition, a number of survivors of those Canadian

naval vessels which were lost. They have come to Victoria from right

across the country.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, I think it's most fitting that this sword

and plaque have been placed in the upper rotunda, so that the thousands

of Canadians and those from other lands who visit this building and our

capital of Victoria may reflect on the fine record of the Canadian

naval service, past and present.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, on

behalf of our caucus and on behalf of all members of the Legislature,

to join the Minister of Finance in welcoming Rear-Admiral Yanow, Eric

Dawson and Mr. Rimmer to the Legislature and thanking them for the

memorial which has been placed in the precincts, and also to join with

the Minister of Finance and the government caucus in honouring the

contribution that the naval services have made to Canadian democracy

over the years, both in terms of the fighting that they've been

involved in and the contribution to world peace that they are

responsible for. We honour their commitment to this country now and in

the future, Mr. Speaker, and we, as succeeding generations to those who

fought in two wars, recognize what they have fought for and promise

them that we will continue that commitment to democracy.

MR. MITCHELL: On behalf of Esquimalt, which was the base of the navy

for so many years, I would like the House to make a special welcome to two groups:

all those who have made this particular presentation possible.... I would like

a special thought and memory to all those who, in the last 75 years, have made

the Canadian navy what it is: something that all of Canada can be proud of.

A special memory and welcome to all those people.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on your behalf earlier this

afternoon I accepted a plaque for the Legislative Assembly which will

be displayed in the Ned DeBeck Lounge. I inform the members accordingly.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts — and I know there are some

in the galleries today — are two classes of 40 students, some of them

visiting from Ste-Foy, Quebec, and others from Earl Marriott Secondary

School in Surrey. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Members of the Legislature to

join with me in welcoming a businessman from Oak Bay, Geoff Stokes.

It's his first time here watching these proceedings. He's here to see

whether we do things in a businesslike way or whether we're here to

give people the business, so we'd better watch ourselves. Would you

join me in welcoming him.

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a

visitor from Beijing, China, from the Institute of Political Science in

the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Mr. Pan Shiqiang. I would ask

the House to make him welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to introduce to the House

today a resident of Middlesbrough in England, Mr. Ernest Wright, who is

an ardent collector of Captain Cook memorabilia. He was exceptionally

helpful to us during the Captain Cook Bicentennial celebrations, and he

has been an admirer and good friend of our province for many years.

Would the House please welcome Mr. Ernest Wright.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL TRUSTEE FIRINGS

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Education, in view of the

fact that the Premier is not here today. At the same time he abruptly fired

the Vancouver School Board this morning, he released a report outlining some

possible budget revisions and budget reductions that the school board could

have achieved in order to maintain class size. Could the minister advise if

he met with the former Vancouver School Board, which he so unceremoniously dissolved,

and if he discussed the contents of that report with them in an attempt to negotiate

a settlement prior to firing them this morning?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss the

contents of the report with the former members of the Vancouver School

Board. The position which I have taken all along is that I expect duly

elected people to comply with the provisions of the law. I am sure the

members of the Vancouver School Board were very much aware of the

contents of the report. After all, much of the discussion and the

preparation of it was done with the assistance of many of the senior

officials who are on the board. I will maintain that position all

along. Each school district, and there were 70 of the 75 who were

capable of filing a compliance budget.... I was in no position, nor

would I think it even appropriate, to negotiate

[ Page 5942 ]

with a school board who, in the process of

committing an illegal act and submitting a non-compliance budget, then

turned around and expected to negotiate a settlement. That, to me, is

not the way you would play fairly as far as all of the other districts

are concerned.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in terms of fair

play. It would be interesting to know how long the minister has had

this report in his hands, so that he could have negotiated the contents

of that report with the Vancouver School District, had he chosen not to

develop a confrontation between himself and that school board.

My question is this, Mr. Speaker. It appears that this minister

seems interested only in having one board fired when they contravened

this so-called law. It seems that there are a number of other school

districts around the province who haven't complied or submitted to the

will of this provincial government, and at the same time they haven't

been unceremoniously fired by this Minister of Education. I'm asking

the minister: what is the difference between the situation in Vancouver

and the situation in other school districts in the province who have

not yet complied? Is the minister using the Vancouver situation to

generate some fear around the whole issue?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Is the minister using the Vancouver situation as

a show of force to, these other school boards and to other school

districts in the province? Why is the minister applying the law

unequally in this....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, question period is

expressly for the asking of questions. I would ask the member to come

to his question and leave the debate for another forum.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: Why is the minister treating school boards in

this province unequally, since other school districts have not complied

with the minister's budget dictates? Is the minister using the the

sacking of the Vancouver School District as a show of force to those

other school districts and local governments?

MR. SPEAKER: One question, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: A black day for democracy.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I hear the comment "black day

for democracy." Democracy is as fragile as can be. The basis of a

democracy is compliance with the rule of law. As a matter of fact, the

Leader of the Opposition didn't counsel non-compliance; he encouraged

people to comply with the provisions of the law.

With respect to the question of why Vancouver instead of other

boards, I made it very clear in my statement this morning that I am in

the process of preparing the documentation that will be required. Now

the question comes in....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The report itself shows in detail the

political games that were being played by the Vancouver School Board,

who considered the worst possible scenario. The report is clear, the

minutes are clear. Other school boards have struggled to try to reach a

compliance budget; there was a genuine, honest effort. In the case of

the Vancouver School Board, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, they

were going to turn around and pile up their program on the backs of the

teachers, and it's the teachers we wanted to protect. It was very clear.

Mr. Speaker, it's clear that our duty is to the classroom, the

students and the teachers. There is not any question as to what was

going on. I have no other alternative when somebody wishes to disobey

the law. There is a rule of law to comply with. The former

Attorney-General when the opposition was government knows that as well

as anybody does. You must comply with the law.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in no democratic society does a

government have the right to put duly elected local officials into the

position where they either have to ignore the mandate given to them by

the electors who democratically elected them to the positions they

occupy, or else have to follow the instructions of a government. That

is not a position which this minister should force districts into.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this. Regardless of what

those school trustees did in developing their position, they consulted

with groups all over their districts in public meetings and derived

their decision from the consent of people who elected them. On the

other hand, the minister developed a report out of a group that was

appointed to advise him. Having had the two positions, why did the

minister not open negotiations with the Vancouver School District when

he finally had the report in his hand? When did the minister receive

the report that he published this morning in conjunction with the

order-in-council firing the Vancouver School Board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, that's not any particular

secret. I've had the report in my possession for approximately two

weeks. There's no problem there at all, absolutely not. I'm wondering

if we want to go back a few years in history and have a look at some of

the reports that the opposition had prepared and never released. I made

a commitment to release that report, and I have.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, anyone who reads that report

will see that the thrust was to reduce staff in the classroom, and I'll

tell you, that is not.... When the Leader of the Opposition makes

reference that there was great

[ Page

5943 ]

consultation with the public as to what they wanted, I'll bet my last dollar

that the public didn't want to have the classes increase in size and teachers

taken out of the classroom. That is for sure.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I hope that after the next election

the minister will have his last dollar to spend — at least his last

dollar paid for by the taxpayers in this province. The minister says

he's willing to bet that last dollar to say that the citizens of

Vancouver were willing to countenance class sizes and to see class

sizes reduced. All we have is his opinion and his last dollar.

Mr. Speaker, what type of consultation did the minister do prior to

sacking the Vancouver School Board? Did he himself consult with people

in the city of Vancouver, or in the area covered by the Vancouver

School District? Did he discuss the issues that were contained in the

report with the Vancouver School Board? Mr. Speaker, we have no

information whatsoever — hard information — from the minister as to

what he did to consult with the people in Vancouver. All he did was

fire their duly-elected representatives.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

makes reference to whether or not there was any dialogue,

correspondence or communication with others in the city of Vancouver.

Well, I tell you I've got a letter from the mayor making abundantly

clear the problems that are going to occur in the city of Vancouver

unless a compliance budget is submitted so they can establish the mill

rate — can pass the validating bylaw and turn around and put it on the

mill rate.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I'll table this in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say this, and I quote from part of the letter:

"In Vancouver the advances amount to...."

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the date?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The date is May 1, 1985, in case you raise that one too.

"In Vancouver the advances amount to approximately $22 million. May

I request that the government act quickly to assure everyone that the

proper taxes will be levied and collected as the legislation

contemplates?" I'll file this letter at the end of question period.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This

minister had the report from his commission two weeks before that

letter came in to him. For two weeks he had an opportunity to sit down

and negotiate with the Vancouver School Board to help them reach a

budget. It's this minister.... I ask why this minister did not release

that report in sufficient time to allow the city of Vancouver to get

involved in their tax collection activities in sufficient time to

negotiate a budget with the Vancouver School Board that would have

satisfied both sides and allowed the city of Vancouver to proceed with

its tax collections on schedule.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I gave the Vancouver School Board every

opportunity. On Thursday afternoon of last week I said: "Would you please

reconsider? You've got Friday and the weekend to do so."

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: And so the report comes.

I will tell you that the Vancouver School Board majority — five to

four — who in the minutes refer to themselves as the majority party, as

far back as December said: "Under no circumstances will we comply with

the budget prescribed by the Ministry of Education." As a matter of

fact, you go through the minutes from December 1984 right to the

present time, and a constant position is taken: "Under no circumstances

are we going to submit a compliance budget." Under no circumstances

would the majority of the board accept any recommendations made by its

officials. They were coming in.... Many of them said: "Not interested.

Not interested. Not interested." And what did they do?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's exactly what they did. It was a political budget, not an education budget.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of the members of the Vancouver School

Board were very much aware of what was in their budget. They were very

much aware of what they were doing, and, as a matter of fact, they have

literally been inviting the government to take precipitous action,

which I frankly can tell you I found very difficult to do.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The bell terminates question period.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35

to ask leave to move adjournment of this House for the purpose of

discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely the

need for the Social Credit government forthwith to reverse its

order-in-council decision to dissolve the democratically elected

Vancouver School Board and to impose a government-appointed trustee in

its place; to follow up by entering into good faith negotiations with

all school boards in the province; and to reach an honourable

settlement with respect to differences which may exist between the

government and the school boards in this province.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will undertake to bring back an

opinion on this matter at the earliest opportunity. However, I would

caution that it does not appear at first blush that there is too much

difference between the present 35 and the one submitted last Thursday.

Nonetheless, we shall undertake to bring that back to the House at the

earliest opportunity.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the issue here

is one of urgency. When we were dealing with this issue on Friday, the

decision made at eight o'clock this morning had not been made. There is

some urgency with respect to the continuance of democracy at the local

level in British Columbia, and we feel that this is an urgent issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

[ Page 5944 ]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $214,384.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I rise in this debate to question the

minister not only in her role as Minister of Human Resources but as a

long-standing member and resident of the city of Vancouver. How can she

sit idly by in these times and allow her government to demolish locally

elected government in the city of Vancouver? There has not been a

time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...In the history of Vancouver...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...when this has happened.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will come to order. Thank you.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think any sort of perusal or examination of

the rules of debate during Committee of Supply will advise members of

the committee that the administrative responsibilities of the

department whose estimates are before us is the only relevant debate

that is allowed during Committee of Supply. There is no way one can

delve into debate that might touch upon a member's riding — only the

minister's estimates currently before us. The House has called for a

debate in Committee of Supply of the Ministry of Human Resources, and

I'm sure the committee will recognize that that is our duty at this

point and will confine debate to the estimates and to discussion of

vote 42, the salary vote of the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, with respect, it should be pointed

out that this minister's responsibilities in her ministry have to do

with a large number of people within her constituency and within the

city of Vancouver who receive assistance from this ministry. A great

many of those people are children. A great many of those children are

from families with single parents, families whose single parents are

worried sick about the future of their kids and about the future that

they will have in getting off the welfare rolls. This is the point that

has to be raised. I don't know of any other time in our history when

this has occurred — that a locally elected government has been

dissolved by a sweep of the pen...

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, hon. member....

MR. LAUK: ...and not one word in response from the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again you're.... The minister may wish to

enter into that argument, but that too would be inappropriate during

these estimates. We were called by the House to debate in Committee of

Supply the Minister of Human Resources' estimates, and that is what we

will do. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: In these votes Mr. Chairman will note that in

services for families and children there are many grants to

education-related facilities within the city of Vancouver. It is like

robbing Peter to pay Paul. What the education system cannot provide,

the Ministry of Human Resources will have to pick up the slack for.

Large class sizes, a lack of teaching assistants and a lack of services

for our schools will leave...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, hon. member....

MR. LAUK: Let me get to my point. ...a tremendous burden on

families that are presently being serviced by the Ministry of Human

Resources, and will increase the burden on Human Resources. This is the

same issue, Mr. Chairman, that arose when the Ministry of Human

Resources abolished, with a stroke of the pen again, the resource

boards of the city of Vancouver. For the first time, we were able to

relate local government and local representation in the delivery of

these kinds of services to families. This is the same kind of attitude

expressed by this dictatorial government this morning in that

order-in-council which eliminated the school boards of the city of

Vancouver. Why does this government not have faith...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I don't want to be

difficult about this, but we all know the rules in Committee of Supply,

and I'm sure you can relate your remarks to the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources, and not another

minister's estimates or administrative actions. Please proceed on vote

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, there was a time in this province....

And maybe the minister can inform me that there was a cabinet committee

which had as part of it the Minister of Human Resources and the

Minister of Education, for precisely the point that I'm raising: that

is, to deal with problems before they occur and become a burden on the

Ministry of Human Resources. This is what has happened. Who is best to

decide that? That's what happened when we developed the community

resource boards in the first place. Who can best decide this? Locally

elected boards, people that are close to the issues, people that know

the issues. I'm shocked indeed, Mr. Chairman, at what has happened here

today. In the history of this province, this has never happened before.

Neither you nor anyone in this chamber can point to a situation in our

worst times — during the war, during the Depression — where Victoria,

the government, has intervened locally to the extent of abolishing

elected people.

It should be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that in the city of

Vancouver they had their chance during the November elections, when

city councils and school boards were elected, to get people sympathetic

to their government.

[ Page

5945 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it has not yet been demonstrated

to me where this is relevant to the administrative responsibilities of

the Minister of Human Resources, minister's office.

MR. LAUK: I'm trying to draw the analogy with the resource boards.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Analogies aren't appropriate. Relevancy is, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Do you have a prejudice against intelligence, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Every debate, in Committee of Supply or in committee stage of a bill, must be relevant. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Well, the minister should indicate what her salary

is.... Why is the minister receiving a salary — for the administration

of her department? But also she's receiving a salary for the

administration of...or her contribution to cabinet and government

generally. I would question whether or not — and there's precedent for

this in Sir Erskine May, although I can't reach for it at the moment —

each individual cabinet minister is responsible for their decisions in

cabinet. Was this minister present when the order-in-council to abolish

school boards was made, and how did she vote? Has she got the courage

to stand up in this committee today and tell us and her constituents

what stand she took for or against democracy? Did she vote for it? She

was against democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I would remind the

committee.... The rule in debate in Committee of Supply is simple, and

that is that we discuss the administrative responsibilities of the

department. Discussions which may or may not have taken place in

another forum are not of importance to this committee. We are here to

discuss the administrative responsibilities of the department. That is

clear, and I'm sure the member, who has participated in such a debate

before, is well aware of the limitations during debate in Committee of

Supply. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: The situation is a grave one, and I don't believe,

Mr. Chairman, with all respect, that it is completely understood by

that side of the House that what has happened here today is a dangerous

precedent. It will not go unanswered. It doesn't matter how you think

the political stripe of the school board of Vancouver is, or any other

school board. They were elected duly by the people of the city of

Vancouver, and this act by this government will be the seeds of their

destruction. You can bring in whatever policies or philosophy you want

under any ministry, but if you flout the will of the people in a

duly....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying it wasn't the will of the people in the

last election? I'm ashamed of you. Unless it goes your way, you don't

agree with it. That's all you want. That's all there is. And talk about

obedience to the law: what about the Minister of Health? The Chief Justice of

this province wants him to obey the law, and he ignores the Chief Justice of

the province. You're talking about obeying the law, you....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Thank you. Maybe we need a bit more time on this.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll call all hon. members to order, please,

and for the benefit of the committee read standing order 43, which

discusses irrelevance of debate. It further states that "the Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole, after having called the attention of the

House or of the Committee to the conduct of a member who persists in

irrelevance or tedious repetition...may direct that member to

discontinue speaking and, if the member still continues to speak...the

Chairman shall follow the procedures in Standing Orders 19 and 20,"

which I'm sure are well known to the members of this committee.

Now that we've had time to reflect on our own standing orders and

also the writings of Sir Erskine May, I'm sure we can proceed with

relevant debate that discusses the administrative responsibilities of

the Minister of Human Resources, minister's office.

MR. HOWARD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. You've mentioned

a number of times that we need to deal with the administrative

responsibility of the minister, but at no time have indicated what that

is. I want to submit to you that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk), up until the interruptions by the gentleman across the floor,

has been perfectly in order in talking about ministerial

responsibilities.

[2:45]

First, the Ministry of Human Resources Act passed by this

Legislature says: "The ministry shall have charge of all matters

relating to social and public welfare and social assistance." All

matters relating to social welfare, social well-being. Certainly

children in schools are a responsibility of this ministry insofar as

their social well-being is concerned, and any impingement upon the

opportunity for decent and quality education is an impingement on the

ministry's authorities and responsibilities. I would think the minister

would be the first one to stand up and acknowledge that, and to fight

for the rights of people under her jurisdiction. Secondly, under

"Principles," the Family and Child Service Act points out: "In the

administration and

interpretation of this Act the safety and well-being

of a child shall be the paramount considerations."

When you put those two together — that is, the responsibility of the

ministry to have charge of all matters relating to social welfare,

along with the safety and well-being of a child being the paramount

considerations in the administration and

interpretation of the act — we

surely have to look at the question of education in terms of the

well-being of a child. That's what the member for Vancouver Centre was

attempting to point out: that this government, having taken the totally

undemocratic position of wiping out a duly elected school board and

appointing one person as an authoritarian dictator over that board's

activities, is raising the question of the well-being of the children

under the authority of the Ministry of Human Resources.

[ Page 5946 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The estimates provide clearly what the

administrative responsibilities are of the Ministry of Human Resources.

If the member reads that, I think he will understand, certainly and

with some clarity, what can be allowed or not allowed under these

particular votes in this Committee of Supply.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the member for Skeena to come to

order, please. I'm about to recognize another member who has taken his

place in debate.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the problem that I'm having is to

direct my mind to the obedience of the law and the attitude and the

example expressed by the government of British Columbia, today and on

other days. It's not a question of

interpretation of

an act that would

be presented, let's say, to a court for

interpretation. It's a question

of how they interpret their role as government in this province under

the constitution, and under the conventions of democracy that have been

passed down to us through generations. The effort of this government in

the last little while has demonstrated to me that they will obey the

laws that they choose to obey, and demand that we all do so, and they

will disobey the laws that they choose not to obey. By contrast, the

Minister of Health has virtually and contemptuously ignored a judgment

of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And on the same breath...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. LAUK: ...this self-righteous Minister of Education stands up here today and says: "I'm for the rule of law."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Obviously his colleagues are not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me just recap again, and from Sir Erskine

May, the correct quotation this time. I paraphrased previously. Sir

Erskine May advises us that in Committee of Supply the administrative

action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for

legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in

Committee of Supply. Clearly, members are now discussing actions and

legislation involving other ministries, which is totally inappropriate,

irrelevant and out of order. I will ask all members of the committee to

limit their debate to the administrative actions of the Minister of

Human Resources. We have been called upon by the House to do that, and

that is all we can do.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I will leave the point on this basis,

that I ask the minister to state her views with respect to her solemn

responsibility to the people of the city of Vancouver. I leave it with

her conscience that she should be making a public statement, and she

might as well, with leave, say so in front of the committee right now.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, speaking to vote 42, I want to specifically

ask this minister.... I know the Ministry of Human Resources has many agreements

with societies, neighbourhood houses, and things of the kind. If, to save public

money, the minister had ordered an audit team to go in and see whether economies

could be effected by an organization in this way or that, even if it was done

legally, having had that report in her hands two weeks before, would it be the

policy of that minister to cancel the contract or fire the association or the

neighbourhood house or whatever it was that was delivering the service, without

showing them a copy of the report? That's a specific question, and I would

like an answer from the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver East continues.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the minister, who is responsible for a

very large department, whether in the circumstances I described — where

she had some disquiet on what she considered public grounds about the

operation of one of the programs that she contracts out in her

department — she would meet with the organization or neighbourhood

house concerned before firing them or cancelling the contract. I ask

that specific question of the Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, that's the first question

that's probably been in order, and that is to do with my

responsibilities in dealing with societies that we deal with within the

Ministry of Human Resources. Therefore I feel it is in order for me to

respond.

I think that the first member for Vancouver East would well know

that our Ministry of Human Resources does not appoint the members of

the societies we deal with. They are private societies, and it is up to

the membership, of course, to deal with any problems they would have.

No doubt there are boards who dissolve or ask their members to leave,

but that certainly isn't under our jurisdiction. We have no mandate,

legislative or moral. We would never have that hypothetical question

brought to us, because we simply do not have the responsibility

legislatively or morally to do so.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister seems to be agreeing that

something like this shouldn't happen without meeting the people

concerned. Suppose you had in one of your homes allegations of child

abuse, and you had an inquiry into that. In fairness to the operator of

that home, before withdrawing support from Human Resources for the

particular home, would the minister make available to the operator a

copy of the report that she had ordered? Would you do this before

cancelling out the contract with the home?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the hypothetical case which

the member brings to this House is one which would, under our

legislation, call upon us to investigate the safety and the protection

of the child. We would then, if the allegations warranted, remove the

child or children from the danger. If there were any proof that there

were some misdemeanour or some problem with the children, we would no

longer contract with that society. What that society does with its

membership and with its ability under the law to form as a society....

I would think the learned member from Vancouver East would know full

well what their opportunity is in that case. However, it would not be

under the mandate of the Ministry of Human Resources. We would protect

the child. That is the mandate we have, and we would continue to uphold

that mandate.

[ Page

5947 ]

MR. MACDONALD: The minister says they wouldn't cancel the

contract; they'd just withdraw the children from the home. Then the

home doesn't receive any money from the department, and they go broke

and they can't pay the mortgage on the home. You cancel the placement

of the children. Is this what the whole Social Credit government is

doing in all the departments? Without showing the report, or even

meeting with the people operating the home, would you take the children

and whisk them out of there? We're living in a kind of tyrannical

regime under this government, which fires duly elected school boards

without showing them a report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: That's an analogy, Mr. Chairman. It fires duly

elected school boards without showing them a report, and the minister

is saying: "I refuse to meet with them." Obviously in that case it's

political confrontation that minister was seeking. He has been all

along, for political reasons.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: But in the case of the Minister of Human

Resources, that's a different thing. It's simply a denial of natural

justice to take the children away from a home without at least letting

the operators see the report or meeting with them. I hope the Minister

of Human Resources didn't mean she'd do that, because that's the kind

of 1984 society that we don't want to see in this province.

MR. DAVIS: I want to talk briefly about group homes; more

particularly, group homes for the mentally retarded. I think the

government is to be congratulated, certainly the Ministry of Human

Resources is to be congratulated, with respect to Tranquille and the

decentralization of what had for literally decades been a major

institution in which large numbers of mentally handicapped British

Columbians were maintained.

As I understand it, there were some 400 mentally retarded residents

in Tranquille up until last fall. Over the last six months, and

substantially in the latter months of last year, the residents of

Tranquille were distributed across the province in great majority to

the communities they had originally come from. A very large percentage,

of the order of 75 or 80 percent of those people — more than 300 — are

now in homes in varying numbers — three, four, five, perhaps as many as

six — and are back in the areas from which they came, closer to their

relatives. Many of them had been in Tranquille for a long time. But

still, they are back into communities from which they had originally

come.

The entire operation, to put it in loose but

summary terms, has been

privatized. These people who are now in group homes are in homes run by

organizations — for instance, in North Vancouver the North Shore

Association for the Mentally Handicapped. It was a challenge. It's

still a challenge, but it was an incredible challenge for those

organizations which, while they had cared for people who were mentally

handicapped, had not faced operations on the scale which suddenly

confronted them. In North Vancouver there were several homes for the

mentally handicapped. Suddenly there was a requirement to create four

or five more.

[3:00]

With one exception, the operation has proceeded smoothly. I know

only of one case where the local neighbourhood was upset; I'm talking

about people who were residents there before the home was established.

I think the ministry should look closely at certain guidelines as to

the kind of home. I'm talking about the physical layout of the home,

its relationship to close neighbours and the amenities available in the

home. But generally speaking this operation has been carried out

successfully. The North Shore association was concerned that it might

receive some residents which it was ill-equipped to look after;

concerned about some violent activity; concerned, of course, about

unpredictable activity by people who were at a disadvantage from a

mental point of view, So far things have proceeded quite smoothly.

In the one location in which there is a problem the situation is

understandable, from both points of view. The North Shore society had

been in a hurry to acquire a number of homes. It sought residences. It

found that in order to qualify for the money, in order to conform with

building codes, in order to meet the requirements of the Ministry of

Human Resources and other ministries, it could really only buy a new

home, because older homes would have to be virtually rebuilt to meet

many of the code, financial and other requirements. The North Shore

association — and I'm certain this has been true of others which took

on this assignment — had to buy new homes as opposed to older homes;

expensive homes as opposed to homes which might not have been as

expensive to the typical buyer of a residential property. New homes are

not only expensive but generally speaking, at least on the North Shore,

they're on smaller lots; they're crowded close to neighbours.

I would hope that future purchases — essentially they're purchases

by the provincial taxpayer, although the homes are in the names of the

societies — would have to adhere to additional requirements: namely,

that the land area which the home occupied was sizeable; that there was

a good-sized, I'll call it, back yard, certainly more room for the

residents; that it was reasonably shaded, separated, divided from the

neighbours — the residents in these homes from the neighbours and the

neighbours from the arrival of these residents. I think that

single-level homes are obviously preferable where residents have not

only mental but also physical problems. The homes that have been

purchased on the North Shore are typically three-storey, brand-new and

on tiny lots. I think that that is undesirable, and I would hope that

in future ministry guidelines prevent that happening.

As to process or procedure, the homes were purchased without

reference to or without any knowledge of the neighbours. Suddenly the

neighbours were confronted with the information that five or six

mentally handicapped people would be housed right next door to them.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: Well, it may be shocking, but the problem in the

neighbourhood is that the neighbours have a mental picture, which may

not be realistic, may not be reasonable. But as hon. members know, when

you're going to do something that's unusual — build a rapid transit

line, for example — you should talk to the neighbours.

Interjection.

[ Page 5948 ]

MR. DAVIS: No, that's the reasonable thing to do. I think the neighbours should have some consideration.

We only had one problem area on the North Shore. I believe that the

procedural sequence should be.... As I understand it, the association

which had the exclusive responsibility to buy where it wanted, except

for the financial and physical requirements, in one instance chose a

cul-de-sac where there were families with a number of young children,

where the interface was negligible, where tempers immediately flared,

where there was little come and go, and where, indeed, there was little

rapport between the two sides. The municipality has moved in. The

municipality has no direct jurisdiction in these matters, I find. It

has appointed an individual who will act as a go-between for the

society and the neighbours, and hopefully the difficulties which

existed....

MR. WILLIAMS: Meanwhile, back at the food bank....

MR. DAVIS: No, meanwhile the residents are there; they arrived around Christmastime.

I've been in those homes, particularly in the home where there were

difficulties. The residents are certainly well cared for. I'm told that

their situation is better than it was at Tranquille. I personally have

some concern. I know that at Tranquille the residents were able to roam

more freely than they are around these individual homes in otherwise

quiet neighbourhoods. I know that the residents, in particular in this

one area, are not allowed out. They are not as free to move about as

they were at Tranquille. I'm also sure that it's difficult for them to

get to the same kind of communal facilities that existed at Tranquille,

but there is some hope — and of course these are severe cases of mental

retardation — that there will be some possible employment; that they'll

be able to join others in the area who have been given tuition and

quite a few now who go to woodworking establishments, or others who are

able to do certain jobs, to perform certain assignments and to feel

useful — certainly to feel that they're a part of the whole community.

But there is inevitably a problem, especially when a group home is

located in an area with no prior consultation with the neighbours and

where the rights of both the residents of the group home and the

residents in the area who were established there before the group home

was established should be considered. I'm not pointing any fingers. I'm

not trying to say that anyone is at fault, but it's a difficult

process. In this case the Tranquille — I won't call it "experiment" —

transition to group homes from a large single establishment was

accomplished over a very short period of time. I would like to think

that the neighbours in the area would take a particular interest in the

residents who live in these group homes and in their progress, and that

they would, insofar as it is possible, become part of that tiny

neighbourhood in a larger community.

In conclusion, I tried to make the point that the group home

experiment — and I know the group home concept has been employed with

respect to others, especially the physically handicapped — has been

succeeding. I think it's a success in respect to the seriously mentally

handicapped, who have so far gone to North Vancouver. But I would make

a plea for the ministry to establish certain guidelines as to the

physical characteristics of the properties in which these people are to

be housed: particularly that the homes be on a sizeable lot, that they

be reasonably separated by hedges and otherwise from the neighbours to

protect both the residents and the neighbours, and that the process of

their arrival be arranged in such a way that they are fully accepted in

the neighbourhood from the outset. That's my main point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Today, when a school board has been cut off at

the top, when democracy has ended for Vancouver schools, when we have

this kind of experiment or change toward community facilities going on,

what do we get from the back bench of Social Credit on issues like

this? They're saying: "If they're mentally retarded, we want hedges

around the building." That kind of smarmy upper-middle class nonsense

is nothing short of disgusting in this day and age, and I just don't

want it to go unrecorded. It's that kind of phony upper-middle class

line about people with mental problems and difficulties being

integrated into the community. They should be integrated without hedges

— open to the full neighbourhood. It's just nonsense to hear that kind

of stuff.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the record of our

government in regard to the mentally handicapped is clear. It's been

humane. As a matter of fact, it has led all of the groups and the

decision-making in North America — this province of British Columbia.

I'm proud of what we've accomplished for the mentally handicapped in

this province.

I want you to know that besides all of the other services that we

have had and besides having led this country in regard to services to

the mentally handicapped, the closure of Tranquille probably stands out

as the most significant step forward for the mentally handicapped, if

not in this past decade, certainly.... I just don't have the

superlatives that come to mind. It is a breakthrough which I am proud

to say has been accomplished by this government, not in haste but with

a great deal of effort by my staff and the staff of the Ministry of

Health and the Ministry of Housing, and a good cooperative effort of

government, which has accomplished this achievement. And it is an

achievement. It's an achievement for the young adults whom we serve —

the mentally handicapped adults; it is an achievement for the staff;

it's an achievement for the associations, who, with government funding,

are accomplishing what would have been thought impossible some years

ago.

The member for North Vancouver raises questions which have been

raised over and over again. I want you to know that of all of the

places in this province which now boast group living in group homes and

an individual living experience for the mentally handicapped, none has

been done better than that on the north shore of the lower mainland. I

would like to pay tribute to the president of that association and his

board of directors, who have in all cases, in terms of where they have

made decisions, gone the extra mile to let the public, who will, for

the first time perhaps, receive a group home into their community....

They have been excellent in terms of communication.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's time and I think it's appropriate that we

perhaps discuss the system. We have gone through a lot of changes in

our ministry in terms of how we introduce a group home to a community.

It was always really under the responsibility of an organization, and

it still remains that way today. Some organizations have been much

better at that kind of communication. They have gone to their city

council, they

[ Page 5949 ]

have worked with the surrounding community, and

they have done a very good job, in many cases, of alerting the

residents as to what they intended to do.

I think the worst element, and the worst thing that we get in this

whole business of moving the mentally handicapped into the community,

is the surprise element. I think that the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour perhaps points out that in the past there have been

some surprises along the way, with communities who have not been aware

of what we were trying to do. I have found, almost every single time,

that when a community finally understands what we are trying to do,

there is absolutely no problem at all. They come forward, and they

become good neighbours. They become socially good neighbours and they

become helpful, and I have to say that we should give great credit to

our fellow British Columbians, who have done that in a very warm and

human way. They have embraced the mentally handicapped better, I would

say, in this province, in terms of what we call normalization or

deinstitutionalization, than anywhere else in this nation. We can be

proud of that.

[3:15]

So with those few words, may I just please say that where there are some problems

and where there is, if I may say so, ignorance of what we are trying to do,

our ministry along with the members of the handicapped associations and the

various people who take contracts for these kinds of responsibilities will work

with the community in every way possible. It does need the support of the members

of this House, of community councils and of the people in general.

But let me just leave you with this. In any place where we have had

a mentally handicapped residence, where they have for the first time

been able to be part of the community and part of the recreational

services, to go to the store, wake up and have a home to have breakfast

in, come home in the evening from maybe a workshop and have a dinner

that's cooked in a small area and with no institutional flavor.... In

all of those areas where that has happened, I have seen people who,

yes, at the beginning were not too excited about perhaps that service

being moved into their neighbourhood.... But I can honestly say that

with the experience comes an understanding. With the knowledge and with

the experience of being with the mentally handicapped, we have found

that the mentally handicapped have taught those neighbours a great

deal. And they do live in harmony. So I am proud of what's been

accomplished in that regard. I'm quite sure that the few problems....

I have visited the North Vancouver situation which the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour brings to our attention. It is a very

attractive home; it is well run. I think, in its first month and a half

or two months in operation — very few months — it's doing a very good

job for the mentally handicapped whom we serve.

MRS. WALLACE: Following along with what the minister has been

saying, I am sure that she is aware of Skeleem Village, which is

operating a very good institution for the mentally handicapped. The

residential boarding facility in connection with that, under Cedar

Lodge Centre, of course has been into some difficulties — the licence

has been returned — and along with that is a school which is operated

by the Cowichan School District at Cedar Lodge, and towards which the

minister contributes a great deal of funding because of the students

who attend that school.

The minister will also be familiar with Charles Hoey School, which

is a school that involves a great many young people who have

difficulties and learning problems. Out of the minister's funding,

under one of her votes dealing with child and family services, are some

very definite funds being made available to assist those children in

that school situation.

We also have in Cowichan something like 14,000 in receipt of social

assistance allowances. Our average family size in that area is 3.8, so

we're looking at something between 4,000 and 5,000 children who are

attending school in Cowichan and being supported by this ministry's

finances.

The Chairman has indicated that there's a difference between what we

discuss in estimates and what is covered by the Ministry of Human

Resources administration act. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, and I think

you will agree, that when you have a minimum of 4,000 children

supported by Human Resources in a school system, and two of those

schools are specifically for people with mental and emotional

difficulties, we are talking about a ministry that relates very closely

to what happens in the education system. We're talking about a ministry

that has to be concerned about those children who attend those schools.

We are finding in Cowichan a situation where the school board has

declared that the minister's compliance budget will be approved by a

vote of six to three against it, because that's the kind of legislation

that that minister has come up with.

The Chairman has said that there's something different about the

budget discussions in Human Resources and the ministerial act. What

we're facing in the educational facility is exactly the same. We're

facing a situation where we have one piece of legislation which says

that the school districts have the opportunity to vote on a budget, and

in another piece of legislation we're having a statement made which

says that no matter how they vote, that is what's going to happen; that

is going to be passed. We're having absolute dictatorial, authoritarian

decisions made that override any democratic decision.

I don't think that that's the way this minister would have the

decisions made relative to the children under direct care of the Human

Resources ministry, nor would she have those that she gives grants to

for other organizations to deal with those children.... There is no way

that she would want those kinds of decisions being made under an

authoritarian type of direction, as has been done with the educational

system in Cowichan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As your debate relates to the

Ministry of Human Resources it is in order; as it relates to other

ministries it is not in order. We are discussing a vote that has been

passed. I'm sure the member is well aware of that.

MRS. WALLACE: Education is an extremely important part of every child's life. It begins, as far as the public system goes....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee has been advised

many times today that we are discussing the salary vote of the Minister

of Human Resources. The Education estimates have been discussed by this

Legislative Assembly, and we cannot permit ourselves to reflect on a

vote that has already been passed. Please, to the administrative

[ Page 5950 ]

responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources; no other estimate.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that there is

anything in the estimates of the Minister of Education relative to the

legislation of the Ministry of Education. What I am concerned about is

the fact that this minister is responsible for funding for some 4,000

children, at a minimum, who attend schools in my constituency. I'm

concerned that she be concerned about the quality of education those

children are receiving; that she be concerned about what's happening

and what has happened in that particular school district where the

majority — two to one — representing public opinion in that

constituency are opposed to cutting back on our children's education,

much of which is paid for by this minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again, we are to discuss the

administrative actions of a department. That is all that is open to

debate. The member is well aware of that; the member has debated many

times in the Committee of Supply and is aware of all our standing

orders with respect to relevancy. I'm sure the hon. member for

Cowichan-Malahat can relate her remarks to the vote before us now.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to relate it to that.

Under the minister's responsibilities, under services for children and

families, this minister is responsible for residential resources for

children in care. I would suggest that there are a great many children

in care under the responsibility of this minister in the

Cowichan-Malahat constituency. She is responsible for the support for

children and families in their own homes, and grants to funded agencies

and to ministry-operated services for children and families. Whether

the Chairman agrees or not, children do go to school. When they go to

school, what happens in the school system affects those children in

care under the Ministry of Human Resources. That's her administrative

responsibility. I am concerned. I would like that minister to tell this

House that she is prepared to stand up and fight for those children to

ensure that they have a fair and equal opportunity to education. When

you have that many people in receipt....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, you're taxing the Chair.

The item you state in the estimates is quite appropriate, but it does

not extend to educational services. I have the details in the notes

before me now. I don't want to be difficult about this, but I'm going

to have to be. We are discussing the vote of the Minister of Human

Resources. I cannot let it stray any further than it already has.

MRS. WALLACE: I take it that the Minister of Human Resources

is not concerned about the quality of education that the children in

her care receive. Is it your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that she is not to

have any concern about those children?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if the minister has that concern,

the minister can bring that argument to the estimates of the Minister

of Education. At this point we are discussing the administrative

responsibilities of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not concerned about the Minister of Education.

What I am concerned about are the children who live in my constituency who are

under that minister's care, and I would like to know whether or not she

is concerned as to whether they will have an opportunity to a fair and just

system of education, whether they will be able to fit themselves....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please proceed on vote 42 — with some relevancy, please, to the Ministry of Human Resources.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I would ask the Minister of Human

Resources whether or not she is concerned about the quality of

education those children under care will receive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not appropriate, hon. member.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Point of order. It appears that the

member who has the floor is attempting to do indirectly what she is not

permitted under the rules to do directly, and as a result I'm offended.

I'm sure the House is offended by the willingness of any member of the

House to have that degree of disregard for the rules of this House. I

think lawlessness is inexcusable in any form.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, I know there's been a

lot said here about repetition and relevancy, but I would cite a book

that has probably not as much relevance here as May or our own rules;

but it certainly has a great deal of stature in the federal House, and

this is what it has to say about relevance and repetition: "1.

Relevancy is not easy to define." I understand the Chair is having a

great deal of difficulty with it right now.

There is an attempt by the member to relate back to the

interdependence of human services, whether they be in Human Resources

or Education. One impacts upon the other, and I don't think there's any

getting away from that. What is relevant is a matter of judgment. It

goes on to say: "In borderline cases the member should be given the

benefit of the doubt." Now with a great deal of respect, Mr. Chairman,

it is a matter of judgment, and it is a matter of judgment for the

Chair. I'm not attempting to repudiate the Chair. What I'm asking the

Chair to do is give as much leeway as possible to the member, and be

understanding as she attempts to relate her remarks to the relevancy of

the issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the member cite the source?

MR. ROSE: Page 98,

chapter 7, paragraph 299.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What authority, please?

MR. ROSE: Beauchesne.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll cite to the member standing order 1 in our standing orders, Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia ,

which says: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or

other orders, the usages, customs and precedents, firstly, of this

House and, secondly, of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be followed as far as they may

be applicable to this House."

[ Page

5951 ]

Secondly, as far as the rule of judgment and what may or may not be

permitted in Committee of Supply is concerned, I am bound by Sir

Erskine May, who states that the administrative action of a department

is open to debate, and that it must be the administrative action of

that department.

MR. ROSE: Do you have a citation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 739, paragraph 3, of Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition.

MS. BROWN: I just want to clarify for the Chairman the

responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources. The Minister of

Human Resources, according to the Family and Child Service Act of 1979,

as amended at one time or another, is responsible for the

well-being.... It says that the well-being of a child shall be the

paramount consideration. Under "Interpretation" it says that a child is

a person under the age of 19, and it designates that the minister, or

someone appointed by the minister, is a guardian. That can be the

superintendent of child welfare, who is the deputy minister sitting

beside her, and who has been designated the guardian of children in her

care.

[3:30]

According to the Family Relations Act, the superintendent of child

welfare has the power and duties for everything respecting the person

of that child. That means the health, education, culture and human

resources of the child, and the laws that affect the child. Under the

minister's estimates it is quite in order for me to question her about

children and health in this province, because either she or her deputy

has that responsibility under this act. By the same token, it is quite

within my responsibility to question her about the education available

to children under her care, in the same way as I question her about the

quality of day care and foster homes, child abuse, and every other

thing that happens to the children under her care.

The act is absolutely clear that she has to answer for everything

respecting the person of the children under her care. It does not make

sense, Mr. Chairman, to say that one cannot question the quality of

education, or that minister's concern for the quality of education,

which the children under her responsibility, and under the

responsibility of the superintendent of welfare, are receiving at this

time.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

wouldn't want the House to be swayed too strongly by the opinions of

some members of this House regarding interdependence. If you'll pardon

an agricultural phrase, interdependence could be milked to a

faretheewell, so much so that if you stretched your imagination far

enough, you could debate anything you wished under any minister's vote.

It seems to me that there are several references, both in Beauchesne

and Sir Erskine May, which talk not just about relevance but about

strict relevance. I think it should go without saying, Mr. Chairman,

that those things which relate to agriculture ought best to be debated

under the Minister of Agriculture, despite the fact that children eat

food. I think matters regarding education ought best to be debated

under the Ministry of Education, despite the fact that they are

children who have other concerns under the Ministry of Human Resources.

I think the matter of strict relevance needs some attention in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to respond to all of the arguments so far,

I think a careful perusal of the statutes will indicate that

responsibility for the education of children ages 7 to 15 is a

responsibility of the Minister of Education. Currently, we are debating

the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, and therefore

discussion about education would be most inappropriate and not

relevant. If the member wishes to continue on vote 42, and with some

relevancy to the Minister of Human Resources, that would be

appropriate; but that would be all.

MR. ROSE: What our side has been attempting to do, Mr.

Chairman, is to tie in the implications for the welfare of children as

a result of the action that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) took today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's not appropriate or relevant.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I asked a question....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. We have had, hon.

members, well over an hour's discussion on this subject. I think the

ruling of the Chair is clear.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think all members are now aware of standing

order 43, which I have cited on a few occasions today and on other

occasions, and which states that the chairman of the committee shall

call to the attention of the committee the conduct of a member who

persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition. The chairman may direct

that member to discontinue speaking, and if the member still continues

to speak, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall follow the procedures in

standing orders 19 or 20.

Maybe while we're just catching our breath, I'll read standing order

19: "Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole shall

order a member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw

immediately from the House or Committee of the Whole for the remainder

of that day." Such action, I think, may soon be appropriate unless we

can return with some relevancy to the debate and the estimates of the

Minister of Human Resources. I think that's perfectly clear.

To vote 42, please.

MS. BROWN: Is the Chairman ruling that it is not possible to

discuss under the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources the

quality of education which children under her responsibility get?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct.

MS. BROWN: I challenge that ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no challenge to the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it is not possible to discuss the care of the children of....

[ Page 5952 ]

[Interruption.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will cite to the member standing order 61(3) on page 22:

"The Chairman shall preserve order and decorum in the

Committee of the Whole and shall decide questions of order and

practice. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Chairman shall

state his reasons for the decision and shall cite any standing order or

other applicable authority. Mr. Chairman may invite submissions from

members but no debate shall be permitted on any decision. No decisions

shall be subject to an appeal to the House."

I think the last sentence is the applicable phrase.

If the member for Burnaby-Edmonds wishes to continue on vote 42, we

will continue discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Human

Resources.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am very distressed that a

precedent has been established during the debates of this estimate that

should not be permitted to stand. It is not possible to discharge our

responsibility to scrutinize the responsibilities of this ministry if

we cannot ask questions about the children who are in her care. We have

to have the right to question the quality of care which these children

are having, whether it's health care or educational care, foster homes,

day care or anything else. This ministry and this minister are

responsible for the well-being of too many children for a precedent to

be established saying that we cannot question her either about the way

in which she discharges her responsibility or the way in which she

fails to discharge her responsibility.

I'm not challenging the Chairman's ruling....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I accept that point.

MS. BROWN: I'm merely saying that I am very, very concerned

about a very dangerous precedent which may be established, and I would

like the Chairman to reconsider that. I can understand your impatience

with the debate around the whole area of education. But please think

carefully. You cannot expose the children who are under the

responsibility of this minister to not being protected by the kinds of

questions which must, and often have to be, raised by the opposition

members concerning their well-being.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that point is well taken. However,

where another authority is applicable, particularly another authority

that's responsible to the Legislative Assembly or to Committee of

Supply in respect of a ministry, then it is only during that minister's

estimates that we may discuss the responsibilities for children that

the member has already mentioned. In this case, or in the case of

Education, Health, Transportation and Highways, or in fact anything

that the member might want to touch on, there clearly is another

authority and another minister responsible to the committee. At this

point we are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Human

Resources; clearly only where that minister has authority, which she

does not have for dealing with education, is the debate relevant.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can assist the

members, although it's interesting that the official critic for the

opposition would not be aware that the Family and Child Service Act

clearly refers only to children in need of protection and to those, of

which.... We have some 7,000 children in care in this province. She

ignores, as have all the other speakers in this debate on this

particular question of whether or not this debate on education should

be imposed upon this ministry's estimates.... They ignore completely

that there is a body of people who are totally responsible and have the

responsibility for children in this province: that is, the parents. It

is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources. We do not

take on the responsibility for all of the children in the province.

There are some children who, because of the circumstances, because

of protection, because of abuse, because of some concern that they must

be removed from their home, do become the responsibility of the

Minister of Human Resources, through the superintendent of child

welfare. But please don't allow the contents of the Family and Child

Service Act and the responsibilities of the Ministry of Human Resources

to be taken out of context, because then this ministry, through its

estimates, would have to be responsible for every single minister in

this House. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has children in

cars, in automobiles on the highway; the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Schroeder) has children on farms, in his responsibilities for

agriculture. So any kind of debate around this subject is, frankly,

unbelievably naive; however, I suspect that it is being done on purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I think your ruling should be upheld.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling will be upheld, hon. member. Thank you.

MR. ROSE: I hope you won't regard me, Mr. Chairman, as

tedious and repetitious before I even get started, because I haven't

spoken in this debate before. I spoke on a point of order. I think I

can put my questions pretty succinctly. Are there, under the Minister

of Human Resources, any child prostitutes? Are there any native Indian

youngsters, orphans, or handicapped youngsters? Are there any

youngsters that have been convicted of juvenile crimes? Are there any

immigrant children who do not speak the language or have been abandoned

by their parents? Are there any abused children among the 7,000

children under Human Resources?

Question two: do they go to school? Question three: if there are

and colder schools, will that throw an extra load on the Ministry of

Human Resources?

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the member, who should be aware

of the rules, that irrelevance and repetition in debate applies to the

member's own arguments or arguments used by others. The minister may

wish to respond with respect to what is appropriate to that department.

Hearing none, I will ask the member to continue on vote 42.

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask the minister whether or not she

encounters a lot of problems with child suicide threats and other

serious social problems due to broken homes, unemployment, lack of food

and a great number of other things. Does she believe that counselling

supplied in any form by the school, privately or through her ministry,

can help to overcome some of these problems? If counselling is

[ Page

5953 ]

being denied by cutbacks in the school, will it impact on her ministry negatively?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question, with respect to administrative

services or any services supplied by that ministry, is in order. As it

reflects services provided by another ministry, it is not in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, to assist the member who

has asked the question, those who come under that category of children

in care are referred and do have reference to some 900 social workers

in this province, do have special counselling paid for by the Ministry

of Human Resources, and are assisted in very many special avenues. The

answer to that is yes, they are assisted, and we will continue to

assist. There will be no change in that.

MR. ROSE: In view of recent developments, which I shall not

specify but which are well known to this House, does the minister

expect her ministry to assume an extra load?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer a purely

hypothetical question. If the member wishes to bring some specifics to

this House, I will be glad to find the answer for him.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I was told a month ago that it takes

about a month to get a counselling appointment with the Vancouver

School Board....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: She asked for specifics. The report of the ministry

suggests cutting counselling and special services. Now if the

counselling is already very slight in a system that shall remain

nameless, and that's going to be cut back even further, how will that

impact on the minister's department?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is a decision made by an authority that

falls under another ministry, then it would not be appropriate for the

Minister of Human Resources to answer that question.

MR. ROSE: Suppose a Crown corporation such as B.C. Hydro

decided to fire 3,000 of its employees. Would it be inappropriate to

ask the Minister of Human Resources or some outfit in the federal

government such as Canada Manpower or Unemployment Insurance about the

implications of that firing from one ministry — that is, Energy — into

another ministry called Human Resources or Housing? I think we're being

unduly restrictive here. I've done my best to stay in order.

MR. D'ARCY: I have already discussed with the minister and

her deputy, both today and in the past, the subject of my questions

today. I have two basic ones, Mr. Chairman.

I don't like to name names, so I won't, but there is a constituent

of mine in care in Creston whose care is presently being funded by the

Ministry of Human Resources, who have stated their intention to turn

her over to the care of the Ministry of Health. I would like, first of

all, to register my objection to that procedure. I also want to ask the

minister this. In my discussions with her and with senior people in her

ministry, they have indicated that there is primarily a medical reason,

a series of medical opinions which I did not see but they assured me

they had, as to why this patient should be receiving extended care from

the Ministry of Health. They also said that a secondary consideration,

although certainly not the primary one, was that they felt there would

be a cost saving to the government in general — certainly a cost to

their ministry, but a cost saving in general — but they emphasized that

that was not the key thing. The key thing was that in the medical

advice they had it was in the patient's best interest to be moved into

extended care. And I accepted those opinions at the time, because I'm

not a doctor and neither is the minister and neither are senior staff;

we're all governed in all these things by medical opinion.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

In any event, since that time I have been given a medical opinion by

a doctor in Creston. I have already made this available to the

minister. I'm not going to read the entire statement, except to note

the closing sentence, where the doctor, Dr. Paterson, says: "In my

opinion it would be a gross detriment to her condition for her to be

placed in an extended-care unit. I sincerely hope such a step is not

contemplated."

Further, in a conversation with a practitioner in Trail, who looked

after this particular patient when she was a resident of Trail three

years ago, he expressed the opinion that, while he has not examined

this patient recently, he is satisfied that her condition has improved

markedly since he last saw her, and in his view this in itself is proof

that she is being well served at her present location of residence.

I'd also like to point out, and I'm sure the minister is well aware

of this, that extended-care costs — depending on who you talk to — are

somewhere between $70 and S200 a day per patient, depending on whether

you only talk about the staffing or whether you consider all of the

fixed costs. I understand — and the minister may wish to correct me —

that the costs to her ministry and the Health ministry are somewhere in

the neighbourhood of $50 to $75 a day in the present circumstance.

Clearly there is a grey area here, and that's really my second question

regarding this particular situation. I would like the minister and her

deputy, hopefully in consultation with the Ministry of Health, to

determine the actual relative costs between extended care and care in

the Endicott Centre for this patient. Compare the actual costs to

government, rather than being concerned with costs to one ministry or

to another, because even though the minister and her staff have

indicated that this is not the primary consideration, naturally

everyone is concerned about the cost to the public purse of every

government service these days.

I also want to point out that I understand as a laymen, from

information that's been given to me, that it's important for patients

with severe disorders — which this one has — to be in an atmosphere

where there is in fact a mix of other residents and other patients. I

suppose the best analogy could be drawn to playing an individual sport.

If you were playing tennis or bridge — which is a mental sport — with

someone, it's greatly beneficial to be playing against someone who is

somewhat better than you are. Someone who is a great deal better isn't

much help; someone who is equal or worse is not much help; but if you

can play tennis or bridge — I use those two examples — it's a great

help to have an adversary who is somewhat superior to you but not a

great deal. I think this is true in this particular case. It's

important for a patient with a severe disorder to have that kind of a

mix. I'm certainly not

[ Page 5954 ]

putting any knocks on the extended-care health system, whether it be

in Creston or in Trail, or anywhere else, but that kind of atmosphere

would appear — and I only say this as a layman — to prevail in the

Endicott Centre for this particular patient.

I also fully realize that it's difficult to make new rules, to apply

province-wide, only because of the needs of one patient. The fact is,

though, that as the elected representative of the area I have to be

concerned with each and every constituent, and I have to be concerned

with this constituent's family and this one particular patient. I would

like to have intimate knowledge of other patients with similar needs

around the province, but the fact is that I don't, and it is this one

particular patient that I would like the minister and her deputy just

to consider reviewing, to take into account this person's needs in

order that she can live the fullest life that she possibly can get

within the limits of the resources of the province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

So there are those two questions, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask the

minister and her deputy to get a medical opinion, as I have done or

attempted to do, and also to conduct a cost review to government of

maintaining this patient in her present circumstances.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the

problems with the case which the member for Rossland-Trail has brought

to the House. He very kindly has discussed it with me on more than one

occasion. I certainly understand the problems which he has with it as a

member. I think the House should know, first of all, that this case was

one which the Ministry of Human Resources provided for on the same

basis as would have happened if this member had stood on his feet two

years ago and pleaded with us to be able to relieve a family of a very

stressful situation.

The story behind this case is as follows. A young adult needing

extended care, one who has been diagnosed under the Ministry of Health

as needing extended care, was in the care of her parents. Those parents

were waiting for an extended-care bed, and those that were offered did

not suit them. In order that we would relieve them of a burden —

because the parents fell ill and were not able to care for their very

severely handicapped child — we were asked if we couldn't provide a

temporary situation, and we stepped in and did so.

If this member, or any member of this House, were to present such a

case to us today from the floor of the House or by a phone call, we

would look into it. If the circumstances warranted, we would rush to

the assistance of the parents. We know what a burden that is, and when

illness falls and the adult in their home can no longer be cared for,

we would give them assistance. We did that at a cost of about $33,000

extra each and every year for two years. The member is really asking us

to continue that very unusual circumstance. In this case, what you're

really asking for is something that should rightfully be asked for

under the Ministry of Health.

The Endicott Centre, where this service has been offered, does not

have an extended-care service. It is not licensed for extended care. It

is not suitable for extended care, and it is not suitable for this

patient. Therefore we had to add an extra $33,000 for round-the-clock

assistance to this particular patient. It was an unusual circumstance

which we met because we wanted to assist the parents. Since that time,

we have been looking for an extended-care situation which would fit

this person's needs. We have found some. I should say that the Endicott

Centre and the people involved and the professionals in the Ministry of

Health have found some.

[4:00]

The decision, then, was to place this adult in an extended-care bed.

It was the decision at the time she was moved to Endicott Centre, where

there was not an extended-care bed that could be readily available to

her. Since that time, although others have been offered to the family,

they have turned them down. So at this point in time all we are doing —

after two years of extra service above and beyond the call of duty — is

saying that the Ministry of Health, whose responsibility this is under

extended care, will be accepting the responsibility, and this patient

will be moved.

The extra amount which is being spent may well go to serve somebody

else who is in such a crisis situation. It could well go to that. So it

isn't really a question of dollars; it is the question of meeting the

need of a very difficult crisis situation at the time. We were pleased

to do that, but it is not our area of responsibility. Even though it

wasn't, we did not shirk our responsibility to assist that family, and

we thought that was a good decision and the decision that should be

made.

The Endicott Centre is not licensed for extended care. You bring up

the case of a medical opinion. You were kind enough to share it with me

prior to the question in the House, and I am most appreciative of that.

The Ministry of Human Resources is not in a position to deal with

different medical opinions. We leave that with the Ministry of Health.

That is not our responsibility. We wouldn't want to take that on. But

it has always been the plan for this very severely handicapped adult,

with a lot of service problems to be met, to be under extended care in

the Ministry of Health.

You ask the question whether it is more costly or less costly. I

think the important thing is that the need is met, and at this time it

is not being met except with an extra expense. I would say that if you

were to give the option of round-the-clock care to several thousand

other people in the province, they would probably take it. Again, what

would be the need of putting up extended-care hospitals then? If we are

going to license non-extended-care facilities and then just keep adding

a salary for one-to-one care, I would think that would be an

inappropriate expenditure of tax dollars. So as best as I can say,

we've given that family tremendous service. A very great amount of

money has been expended on that one patient. That patient is in a

facility that is not licensed for extended care, and will be moved to

extended-care. A different medical opinion has upheld the ministry's

decision. The one-to-one care, which the family would like to retain,

was done on a crisis basis and was not meant to be continuing even as

long as two years, as a matter of fact. But we were pleased to do it

when we could and would continue to do it if there was not an

extended-care bed for that patient, but there is more than one

extended-care bed available.

MR. D'ARCY: I'd like to thank the minister for giving a basic

history of the case. The real point that we're dealing with here,

though, is the fact that both she and Health have stated that they have

a medical opinion, but they haven't produced that medical opinion. They

have not produced a statement from anyone who is licensed to practice

medicine in British Columbia, from anybody who has ever examined this

particular patient, to back up their opinions. What I'm

[ Page 5955 ]

asking for here is simply that the minister, perhaps in consultation

with her colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and her

deputy, make an undertaking before the chamber today to obtain

professional medical opinions.

I have been told — and I can't document this — that the only

examination made of this patient on behalf of the Ministry of Health

was done by a person who is not a medical doctor but who is in fact a

physiotherapist. It may have been a very well-qualified

physiotherapist; perhaps he was very well qualified in other ways, but

he was not a medical doctor. That's what this whole issue hinges upon.

In all my discussions with professionals within my own region and

within the Ministry of Human Resources, with the minister and with her

officials here, they have stated that they have a medical opinion

indicating that what they are doing is correct. But I've never seen

that opinion, Mr. Chairman.

I'm asking that, if the minister does not have it here today,

perhaps she will at least indicate that she will attempt to obtain such

an opinion. Otherwise I can only go on the medical opinion I have. I

realize that not all doctors think alike, just as all lawyers don't

think alike, but I only have the one opinion, and that indicates that

the patient should stay where she is.

Again, I would ask the minister also, regarding cost.... It's

always been unclear to me whether the $33,000 annually which the

minister and her ministry are putting into this patient — and everyone

is greatly appreciative of that — is over and above what it would be

costing the government to have this patient in extended care. Once

again we have to ask how the cost of an extended-care patient is

compiled. Is it only in terms of the staffing costs? Does it include

the fixed costs of the building, especially if the extended-care unit

is attached to an acute-care hospital, as are most extended-care units?

Certainly in the Kootenays they are, in any event. In view of the fact,

of course, that there is a waiting-list for almost all extended-care

units, you really have to look at the overall costs of extended care.

With those two questions, I really.... I told the minister

before I opened my remarks on this that I did not want to debate it,

and I still don't; it's too sensitive and too personal to the people

involved. But I would like her to at least undertake to get a second

medical opinion from a medical practitioner or practitioners, in

addition to the one that I have given her today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, first of all to answer the

question, that $33,000, give or take a few dollars — it might be more —

is over and above the cost of every other patient. It's that plus the

$33,000.

The operative phrase, I guess, that I'd like to leave with you is

that the needs for this patient cannot be met at Endicott Centre. They

are not licensed nor are they able to meet the needs of this patient.

But also I would like to say that it really is a Ministry of Health

responsibility. Usually in those cases — in fact always that I have

known of — a team of professionals thoroughly investigates the case

before making that decision.

I will certainly be pleased to undertake to find out how that was

done and when it was done. I'm happy to tell the member that I will

certainly look forward to getting the results of that inquiry, and I

will share it with him.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister determine whether any one of

those professionals was a medical doctor licensed to practise in

British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to do that in an inquiry to the Ministry of Health.

MR. PASSARELL: I have four specific questions to the minister,

basically regarding her estimates and the constituency of Atlin. The

first one is that many children — not under 18 but say in the 20 to 25

age bracket — are returning home to their parents because they are

finding it very difficult to live in the cities further south in the

province. Often many of these adult children are too proud to take any

type of welfare. I was wondering if the minister, in her consultations

with the other jurisdictions across the country, has come up with any

idea of some type of tax relief for parents who are faced with adult

children returning home who are too proud to take welfare, staying

underneath their homes. Is there any type of tax relief she has come

upon through consultation with the federal and other provincial

jurisdictions across the country? Is the minister pursuing this idea at

all? It is an expense to the parents who have their adult children

returning home, too proud to go on any type of social assistance. The

parents themselves are burdened with the costs.

The second issue I would like to raise is in regard to the

caseworker in the constituency of Atlin, particularly in the town of

Cassiar. This is an individual by the name of John Nuyens who has

performed an excellent service to the ministry for the past four years.

One of the problems that Mr. Nuyens has to face is that he covers a

great area geographically, being stationed in Cassiar, when he comes

over to visit the six or seven communities that fall under his

jurisdiction. For instance, when he leaves Cassiar to go to Atlin once

or twice a month, it's 350 miles one way. The ministry has given him a

vehicle. A disturbing rumour has it that if Mr. Nuyens quits, the

ministry will not replace a northern caseworker; the Human Resources

services will come out of Terrace, where Mr. Nuyens was performing a

service in Cassiar. This whole service, if he quits or something

happens to him, God forbid, will be done out of Terrace, which would

add an extra 500 or 600 miles onto the area the caseworker would have

to pursue up in the constituency of Atlin. I'd like to know from the

minister if this is true. If something happens to Mr. Nuyens, will the

entire Ministry of Human Resources be serviced out of Terrace?

The third question I have to the minister is emergency shelter,

which falls under her ministry. Has there been any funding increase

from last year? This is an extremely worthwhile project in areas in the

far north having emergency shelter in case of fire or some type of

personal situation.

The last question I have to the minister is in regard to the

apprehension of native children by the ministry. It would be very

difficult, I know, for the minister to answer this question at this

stage, but I'd like to know how many native children have been

apprehended in the Atlin constituency in the last two years. How many

of those children have been placed in non-native homes?

Those were four specific questions that I ask the minister. I won't bother the Chairman with education at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question

from the member for Atlin on a federal-provincial agreement on tax

relief for parents who would take in

[ Page 5956 ]

their teen-age children, and some of those who are returning home

and who are beyond the 19 years where they do have a tax credit....

Over 19 a tax credit is already given to them; they can claim an

extension if they are in an educational program. That is possible now,

so there doesn't have to be any negotiating in that regard. We're also,

you'll be pleased to know, negotiating with the Ministry of Labour in

this government, and also with the Ministry of Education, in a joint

submission in order to assist those young people in terms of

re-education, retraining and so on. What we're really saying is that

they're at home because they aren't out working and able to provide for

themselves in their own domicile. That is going on. Also, we've had

some excellent meetings, I think, with the federal people, both Hon.

Flora MacDonald and Hon. Jake Epp, regarding both of their portfolios

in regard to addressing this need. I think there is something quite

substantial coming out in a joint representation that will meet the

need of that age group.

[4:15]

So when you ask if I've been negotiating, the answer is yes, but in

a different way than you suggest; more to see independence promoted

rather than tax relief for the parents. I'd prefer that we help them to

get into the job market, train and retrain for that, rather than try to

fix the tax situation to assist.

The second concern you had was regarding the worker in Cassiar. As

you know, we put a worker there just in the past five years. It's a

fairly recent thing. There wasn't a worker there at all until four and

a half years ago. You need not be concerned. We don't anticipate

anything happening to Mr. Nuyens. We believe the service being

delivered there is — as in all of our ministry offices, I think — a

first-class service.

Your question regarding emergency shelter: we are still providing

emergency shelter service, and will continue to do so. The amount of

money last year was about $3.1 million; this year it's $3,234,638. So

we are consistent in providing that.

In answer to your fourth question, how many native children

apprehended in the Atlin area, I would not want to guess. I could find

that out for you. Perhaps that question should be on the order paper.

But I would like to address your next question in regard to native

children: how many that are apprehended would be looked after in native

Indian homes, as opposed to non-native Indian homes. In all respects,

we attempt to get a native Indian home to assist with the temporary

home or the fostering of a native Indian child. It is sometimes not

possible, but in all cases we make really an extra effort to make sure

that is done. We try very hard to do that.

You may know that our province was one of the first to have an

agreement with a native Indian band. The Spillimacheen band and

ourselves have struck an agreement, one which I'm pleased to say we did

with a fair amount of good negotiating. It resulted in, I think, a

fairly good plan. At the present time we are also undertaking the same

kind of a plan with yet another band council. So we think that kind of

organization and commitment to having the native Indian children looked

after by their own people has been well carried out and well considered

by this ministry.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to do two things in my

comments this afternoon. The first is to make some general remarks

about poverty: where we are and what I think needs to be done about it.

In the concluding

section I want to ask some questions in specific

about some of the things the minister has been saying about the numbers

of people in British Columbia in receipt of social assistance. I'll get

to that at the end of my comments.

One of the things one discovers, in doing some research — if that's

the proper word — into poverty lines in British Columbia, is that

you're always having to work with information that is a couple of years

old. I think all of us recognize, in terms of the distribution of

wealth in post-1983 British Columbia, that there has been a marked

accentuation of the trends evident in the first part of the eighties.

That information indicates that between 1981 and 1983, poverty among

families in British Columbia had risen from about 9.4 percent to 14

percent of families. Those are Statistics Canada figures. One can only

hazard a guess as to what has happened to that percentage since 1983,

when so many more people in British Columbia have lost their jobs, lost

their UIC and gone onto the social welfare rolls. Among singles —

"unattached individuals," as described by Statistics Canada — for 1981

to 1983, the percentage of those unattached individuals in British

Columbia who live below the poverty line went from 34 percent to 37

percent, in round numbers. That's 37 percent of the unattached

individuals in British Columbia living below the poverty line, as

determined by Statistics Canada. God only knows what those numbers are

today. I'm not going to try to hazard a guess.

I cite those dated figures to suggest that poverty does exist in

this province. I don't think it needs to be proven. I think it's a fact

that we all agree upon. I think we need to talk about it more than we

do, and I think we need to talk about it from a philosophical point of

view rather than simply talking in terms of numbers.

I think a good starting point for philosophy for any government with

respect to dealing with poverty and dealing with income distribution

would be the

preamble of the Canada Assistance Plan. I want to read the

first part of the

preamble: "Whereas the Parliament of Canada,

recognizing that the provision of adequate assistance to and in respect

of persons in need and the prevention and removal of the causes of

poverty and dependence on public assistance are the concerns of all

Canadians...." It goes on. The important thing in terms of the

philosophy, I think, is: "...recognizing that the provision of

adequate assistance to persons in need." We don't do that in British

Columbia. Our legislation doesn't even have a title that reflects that

philosophy. Our legislation has the title: "Guaranteed Available Income

for Need Act." Yet the philosophy of the Canada Assistance Plan, which

pays half the costs — not incidentally — calls for the provision of

"adequate" assistance. Those people who are calling for an amendment to

the legislation changing the name from "Guaranteed Available Income" to

the "Guaranteed Adequate Income" have my full support, Mr. Chairman.

The philosophy of the Canada Assistance Plan when it was designed

was clear: financial assistance through the tax system delivered by

government was to be available in adequate numbers of dollars to all

people in need. That philosophy does not exist in British Columbia.

First of all, the determination of how much money will be paid to

people in need is based not on their need but on the government's

political will and what the government believes it can get away with in

terms of limiting that amount. It is the "available" money in a very

real sense. It is the money that the

[ Page 5957 ]

ministry is given by the government, not based on the adequate

requirements as set out in the Canada Assistance Plan but rather based

on what the government thinks it needs to make available to persons in

need, simply to meet some political determination that it has.

On top of that, Mr. Chairman, the idea that the Canada Assistance

Plan called for, which is supposed to be a universal program in this

country, included the idea that supporting people in need was to be

done through government. We are now moving into a situation in British

Columbia where in fact more and more we are going back to the charity

models of the 1800s. You see that in terms of food banks, in terms of

soup kitchens, in terms of other assistance that is provided that none

of us ever see on a day-to-day basis and which is outside the tax

system.

That does a couple of things. Firstly, it sets up a means test of

the worst possible kind: those people who are prepared to suffer the

humiliation of standing in line for soup or for a food hamper. It

easily weeds out 80 or 90 percent of the people in need, because they

won't do that. But it does more than that. It says to society that we

have a government that believes it is not responsible either to the

Canada Assistance Plan or to some basic human dignity in terms of

ability to cope financially in our society.

It goes further. Contrary, I think, to the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms — but that's yet to be demonstrated in the courts — the

government goes further and sets up arbitrary and discriminatory

features in how it's going to allocate welfare. For example, if you're

under a certain age, you get less; if you're over a certain age, you

get more. If you're a mother with two children under 12, you get a

different rate than if one child is over 12. And on and on it goes. We

have a situation further than that. If a mother is receiving an

orphan's allowance for a child, that allowance can be deducted from the

measly amount that's provided. The system is full of those kinds of

inequities. Hopefully all of them will be dealt with in a proper way by

the challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately

those kinds of amendments weren't brought in, either as a package of

regulation changes at the same time as the Attorney-General brought in

his bill, or, more properly, weren't brought in years ago when they

should have been brought in.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to go through all the categories of

recipients that are included in the manual. They go on and on and are

totally unfair and totally inappropriate, in my mind, and add to the

poverty levels that we see so visibly in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I've talked without defining "poverty line." On December 13, 1984, the minister was quoted in the Times-Colonist

as saying: "The poverty line changes with everybody's opinion." To a

certain extent that's true, Mr. Chairman. One group in Canada perceives

that B.C. welfare rates are 51 percent of what they should be to meet

the poverty line. Another group suggests that our welfare rates in

British Columbia meet 53 percent of the required moneys to bring people

up to the poverty line. So clearly there are differences of opinion.

But I think most people in British Columbia would be satisfied if

the minister would recognize that the differences of opinion on this

matter relate to minor elements. There is no difference of opinion

among people who know and who care about the fact that overwhelmingly

people in receipt of social assistance live at 50 percent of recognized

poverty lines.

Now there are exceptions and anomalies — it's more expensive in

Vancouver than it is in Salmon Arm, and so it goes. So there are great

differences. But for the minister to reject calls for increases to

welfare rates on the basis that "the poverty line changes with

everybody's opinion" is just not on.

[4:30]

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Council on Social Development has done

this kind of study. The Senate has done these kinds of studies under

David Croll. He's no raving left-winger, that one, but a respected

Liberal, member of the same party that the former Attorney-General was

a member of — at the same time too. The third group I am referring to

is Statistics Canada itself. These three groups have come up with

figures that tell us that the B.C. welfare rates are about 51 to 53

percent of what is required to live on in this province. That's not

living well; that's living at a minimal standard. Under each of the

different ways in which these figures are calculated, these are minimum

standards. Yet the minister says it's just a matter of opinion.

Presumably the minister could get up and say it's expensive. If we

are to meet these basic requirements, it would be very expensive to the

Crown, I agree. It would be under the present management of our

economy, when 240,000 people or thereabouts are on welfare in British

Columbia. So clearly, in conjunction with raising these rates, there

has to be an economic plan that puts every single individual who wants

to work back to work in this province. My call for an increase in these

rates should not be understood in isolation. It needs to be understood

in the context of a properly run economy, when we wouldn't have 240,000

people.... But even if we do have 240,000 people, as we do at the

present time, and we have to almost double the rates to meet these

various standards.... The minister could say: "Well, that would add

another $900 million to my budget." In fact, it wouldn't, because the

money is cost-shared. I recognize that it comes down to the taxpayers

as well. But in terms of provincial government expenditures, those are

cost-shared dollars.

That $450 million would do more for the economy of this province

than $400 million blown on an overrun at Expo 86. The money that will

be spent by people in receipt of assistance in this province will be

spent here on bread, on soup, on transportation, on housing, on

clothing, and just once in a while on going to a movie. That's where it

will be spent. That money will help to revive the economy of this

province. It won't be spent on trips to Hawaii or money invested in

various endeavours that do not bring the kind of return that direct

dollars spent in local communities would bring.

Mr. Chairman, the government reminds me of a statement made almost

2,000 years ago about bread and circuses. Give the people bread and

circuses, to paraphrase the quotation, and they'll be happy. All we get

in this province is circuses. We don't even get any bread. And what

bread is available has to be provided by charity, through private

organizations such as soup kitchens or food banks. It's appalling. If

you're going to give us circuses, give us bread too.

Mr. Speaker, we don't take the same.... My light is on and I'm only halfway through.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to intervene, just so

that my colleague can have a sip of water and then rise to his feet and

carry on this brilliant speech which he is presenting to us.

[ Page 5958 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for calling you Mr. Speaker. I elevated you prior to the actual event.

Mr. Chairman, we seem to have a different philosophy when it comes

to feeding people than when it comes to providing health care. We don't

say to people, when they go to their doctor or when they go to

hospital: "We will pay half or two-thirds of the cost of that visit,

and you have to go down to a health care bank to get the remainder." Or

if you have to go to hospital to have an operation and it costs $5,000,

the government doesn't say: "Okay, we'll pay $3,000. You go out and

find some charitable organization to pay the other $2,000." But that's

what we do with food and hunger and shelter in this province. Why can't

we have the same philosophy?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, it's not just a few radicals on this side of the House

who might be calling for an increase in welfare rates. The list of

organizations, communities and councils around this province that have

endorsed the call for the establishment of assistance at a reasonable

level, as defined.... Maybe there is some better way of defining it

than one of these three groups that I've cited have so far defined it.

That's fine; let's go through that process. Let's get a legislative

committee to work to help define what that level is. Maybe it varies

around the province, but we could do that kind of work if we had a will

to do it.

But that aside, the list of organizations is dozens long, such as

the city of Vancouver, the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of

B.C., the Okanagan South Women's Centre in Penticton, the Prince Rupert

Labour Council, the city of Duncan, School District 28 in Quesnel, the

city of Trail, the Beaconsfield United Church in Vancouver, Kiwassa

Single Mothers' Support Group, the city of Fort St. John....

There's a left-wing town. The city of Fort St. John council endorsed a

call for the establishment of assistance rates in this province based

on some reasonable poverty line.

Mr. Chairman, I suspect that one of the reasons the government isn't

prepared to raise welfare rates is that if it did it would have to

consider raising the minimum wage as well. It prefers to have people

working at minimum wage, so they can earn a total of about $7,000 a

year — not even enough to pay the rent in many cases. It prefers to

have people earning those levels of income, because it knows that if it

were to raise welfare rates, it would also have to, in tandem, raise

those minimum wages. I'm going to talk a bit more about minimum wage

rates in the labour estimates. I see those two issues as linked, and I

think that's the reason the government won't do it. It's afraid of

offending that small part of the small business community that persists

in paying the minimum wage to their employees.

Mr. Chairman, there is ample documented evidence to support the

kinds of things I'm saying. The United Way has done excellent work, and

I refer to the November 1984 report on the cost of basic living. I

don't think the debate should even have to happen. There is no question

about the fact that people are living at less than the poverty line.

There is some doubt about whether they are living at 45 or 50 or 55

percent of the poverty line, but no doubt they are living below the

poverty line by about half. That is a disgraceful situation in this

province.

Mr. Chairman, you look at a particular category of people in receipt

of assistance. You took at the HPIA group — handicapped persons' income

assistance plan — paying, I think, at the moment, $6,577.68 a year —

$548.14, if my memory is correct, a month. In any event, it's

$6,500-plus a year. The poverty line in the rural areas of British

Columbia is $7,500 — a thousand dollars more than is paid to people on

handicapped assistance. That's supposed to be a pension to people who

are unable to work. You know what the poverty line is in Vancouver for

that same individual? It's $10,238. Persons on a pension because of

their handicap in the lower mainland are earning because it is an

earning, not a benefit; it's an earning 65 percent of what it costs

them to live, if they can live at the poverty line.

Those rates have been frozen for the last few years.

Section 8 of

the GAIN Act was never proclaimed,

section 8 being the one that allows

the government to bring in indexing. Do you remember, Mr. Chairman,

how, for so many years, old age pensions used to be a political issue

in this country, because people in their post-65 years were poor? We

finally began, bit by bit, struggling over the years, to get the senior

citizens' pensions up to a more reasonable level, and we indexed them.

We don't hear the same kind of political tumult about senior citizens'

pensions now that we did in the old days. That's because there were

fights to bring them up to a more reasonable level, and indexing was

put in place. Why hasn't indexing —

section 8 — been proclaimed, so

that these rates too, once they are brought up to a proper level, can

be indexed on a quarterly, or at worst six-month, basis?

Our goal in this Legislature should be to wipe out welfare. That

should be our goal. Those people who need assistance, whether they're

handicapped or whether they're single parents who would require some

kind of assistance, should be on a pension. Call it what you will,

whether it's a guaranteed annual income, a pension or whatever you want

to call it, that's what they should have, and then we should say that

there will be no more welfare. We should wipe it out. That should be

our goal in this province.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Give those people who cannot work a pension, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the difference? It's semantics.

MR. GABELMANN: There is a big difference between earning a

pension and having to go down to a dinky welfare office and stand in

line for half the money you need. One earns a pension when one has a

right to it, and somebody who is handicapped in this society, who can't

work, deserves that pension and has a right to it. Mr. Chairman, that's

all I'm going to say on poverty. I've made the point that I wanted to

make, I hope.

The minister, quoted in Hansard .... The photocopy doesn't

indicate what day it was; it was probably late last week. She said:

"Fifty percent of the people who come on income assistance today will

be off income assistance anywhere between three months and eight months

from now — on their very own. They do not stay on the caseload. Fifty

percent of the rest of them are off in the following four months."

[ Page 5959 ]

Let me just paraphrase what she said. Fifty percent are off within

eight months, some as early as three months — anywhere between three

and eight months. So fifty percent are off in eight months, and fifty

percent of the rest are off in the next four months. That means 75

percent of the people on social assistance are off in a year, according

to the minister's figures.

Let's just try to go through this, because I'm not very good with these numbers.

In round numbers we have 240,000 people on social assistance.

Seventy-five percent of that is 180,000 people. Therefore in the last

12 months 180,000 people who were on social assistance are not anymore.

There's a new 180,000 people who are on to replace them, presumably.

Now the year before the rates weren't quite as high. So say there were

only 150,000 people on who came off welfare in the previous 12 months,

two years ago. We're now up to 330,000 people in two years who have

been on welfare and have come off. Now I would guess — and it's hard to

calculate; I'm not a statistician — that in ten years, based on the

numbers of people who have been on welfare in British Columbia over the

last ten years, over a million British Columbians have gone onto

welfare and gone off again. Absolute, palpable nonsense, Mr. Chairman.

Now the minister is going to come back and say to me: "Oh, there

aren't 240,000 people on welfare." She always uses a different figure.

The figure she uses whenever she talks in the public about welfare

numbers is the figure of family heads, which ignores the spouse and the

children who happen also to be on welfare. So I would like to ask her

how many different people since 1976, including women, children and

husbands — and it may take a few minutes because you will have to ask

the computer this question, I suspect — have been on welfare in British

Columbia.

[4:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the last question that the

member has posed, and it's really the only question.... He says

that I'm fond of using a figure that is different than his. But you

see, when you're talking about turnover.... I did try the other

day, obviously unsuccessfully, to explain to the members opposite that

the turnover rate, the people coming into income assistance and going

off income assistance.... We try to shorten that time if possible.

We try to put all sorts of opportunities so that we can get those

people into independence as soon as possible. The member himself said

that that was his motivation. I'm not sure it's everybody's motivation

on that side of the House, but he said it was his motivation.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The negative member for Vancouver East

isn't in his seat. If he wishes to speak, maybe he should speak from

his own seat, Mr. Chairman — the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams).

At any rate, to the member for North Island, the numbers of people

you can take is over.... I think you mentioned 235,000 or 240,000

people on income assistance, including children. There's nothing wrong

with using that figure except that it's usually not children that go

out and get a job and change the turnover figure. So on the one hand if

you want to discuss the turnover figure you must discuss the heads of

households only. That's where you wish to transpose that figure and use

the figure of all the dependents of those heads of families, but if you

do, you distort the very premise on which your ar