1984 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3675 ]

CONT ENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

School budget cuts. Mr. Rose –– 3675

Meares Island logging. Mr. Skelly –– 3675

Bus fares. Mr. Passarell –– 3676

ICBC premium payments. Mr. Cocke –– 3676

David Thompson University Centre. Mr. Nicolson –– 3676

Child car seats in motor vehicles. Ms. Brown –– 3677

Sale of liquor on Sundays. Mr. Howard –– 3677

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

On vote 39: minister's office –– 3677

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Reynolds

Ms. Brown

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Blencoe

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 3698

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have three separate

introductions. First, visiting Victoria from my constituency is Glenn

Gark from Campbell River, and I would ask the House to make him

welcome. Second, I notice an old friend of mine from Vancouver in the

gallery, and I would like members to make Paul Gill welcome as well.

Finally, visiting us in the Legislature this afternoon is a fourth-year

exchange student from Japan who is studying industrial relations at the

University of Victoria. Her name is Miki Muramatsu, and she is

accompanied today by Art Rippon. I would ask the members to make them

welcome.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, visiting our precincts this afternoon

are two of my constituency directors. I would ask the House to bid

welcome to Mrs. Lynne Kemp and Mrs. Lynne Morris from sunny Coquitlam.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature today is the

president of the Young New Democrats, Anita Kam, and I would like the

House to welcome her.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a friend

of mine who has a business in the riding of Burnaby-Willingdon and a

residence in the riding of North Vancouver–Capilano. Representing his

company, which is one of the leading consulting engineering firms in

not only B.C. but Alberta, is Mr. G.W. Elkington.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I can't see them, but I know that in

the gallery are 28 students from the community social services program

at Douglas College. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Loma

Kirkham. Would the House join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: On a question of order pursuant to standing order

25 and the motion on opening day relating to the special report of the

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, in order to preserve

the integrity of question period and the

interpretation thereof by Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if we could discover whether any cabinet ministers

have any lengthy answers to give to questions posed earlier today. If

so, the House will be quite prepared to give unanimous consent for them

to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the member is neither a point of order nor a matter that can be discussed at this time. The Chair so rules.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

SCHOOL BUDGET CUTS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Education; it concerns my riding of Coquitlam. There is a $2.1 million

shortfall in the school operating costs in Coquitlam, which means that

on a per student basis Coquitlam receives about $100 less per student

for operations and maintenance than any other district in the lower

mainland. I'd like to ask the minister whether he has decided to

increase the budget for School District 43 by $2.1 million.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: Well, we heard the same story about Surrey

yesterday. Since a lot of the trouble results from the faulty formula,

I wonder whether the minister decided to suspend his formula for a year

or so, so that something more appropriate to the needs of children can

be developed through consultation with the school trustees and the

teachers.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask a supplementary question to the

Minister of Human Resources. Since the Minister of Education refuses to

increase the funding for Coquitlam, one of the consequences in that

district has been that the school board has been forced to close

Brookmere Elementary School and abolish the Glenayre Learning Centre

for multiply handicapped children. In view of this fact, I wonder if

the cabinet would reconsider this whole formula, especially in view of

the fact that this is Learning Disability Week. I wonder what steps the

minister is planning to take to accommodate the absence of this vital

program at Glenayre.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I want you to understand that the

Ministry of Human Resources is financing the program. This program

takes place in an educational facility which is under the jurisdiction

of the school board. I have to say — and I'm going to be very frank

about it — that I think, when it comes to deciding on priorities, the

school board should be making the decision on the basis that the

priority is to serve the handicapped youngsters in that community. I

was disappointed to read in the newspaper the day before yesterday that

handicapped youngsters are becoming pawns in a dispute over educational

funding.

[2:15]

But having said that, and in response to a member who is asking a

caring question about a group of handicapped youngsters, I will say

that the funding of that program will continue through the Ministry of

Human Resources. The problems over its location, I suggest, could be

solved by the school board of that constituency. If that member has any

sway with that school board, I'm sure he will bring pressure to bear in

that area. In the meantime, please let me assure you that we will

certainly do our part of the job.

MR. ROSE: On a supplementary, I wonder if the minister would

assure the House that she will use her massive persuasive powers on the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to persuade him to stop

robbing the school districts.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MEARES ISLAND LOGGING

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Environment. A

number of residents of the Tofino area, including the district of

Tofino itself, have written to the minister to ask him to reconsider

the November 10 ELUC decision to allow logging on Meares Island. Has

the minister responded to the people from the Tofino area, including

the district of Tofino, and has the minister now agreed to extend the

moratorium on Meares Island under

section 4(

c) of the Environment and

Land Use Act?

[ Page 3676 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to some and not to others. No, I have not considered putting a moratorium on it.

BUS FARES

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Human Resources, who is responsible for transit. Can the minister

confirm that bus fares for people who commute from Surrey, Coquitlam,

Delta and other such areas to Vancouver will increase from 75 cents to

$1.25 to accommodate cutbacks in transit funding by this government?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. PASSARELL: Another question to the same minister. Is the

minister aware that many commuters in the lower mainland find the 67

percent fare increase exorbitant? What consideration is the minister

giving to restraining user charges alongside the slashing of government

funding?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to bring the new zonal

fare formula back to the House. I think the member is taking it a

little out of context, because when we mention Surrey, White Rock,

etc.... The fares have been set not by government but by the transit

organization responsible, and they are represented by elected officials

in the lower mainland. The fare from White Rock ten years ago was the

same price that it is being increased to at this point in time. I think

the zonal fare system is a very fair one, if you'll pardon the

expression, Mr. Speaker.

ICBC PREMIUM PAYMENTS

MR. COCKE: I would like to direct a question....

It's so sparse over there it is very difficult to direct questions

to anybody. Seven cabinet ministers away. But I'll direct my question

to the minister....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: In any event, some of the more mouthy ones are

here. I'll direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and

Communications. The motor vehicle branch office in Victoria no longer

provides motorists with the service of purchasing ICBC insurance. Will

the minister advise whether this policy has been applied throughout the

province?

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is yes, pretty well throughout the province.

MR. COCKE: Is the minister also aware of the inconvenience

caused to the B.C. motorists by this action, and is he prepared to

review the decision in order to minimize inconvenience to the motoring

public?

HON. A. FRASER: I think the opposite should be happening. There should be far more outlets for the public, not less.

MR. COCKE: It would appear to me that the minister has missed the point.

He has closed down outlets, and now he suggests there should be more outlets.

Can we have some consistency? Do you agree that there should be more outlets?

HON. A. FRASER: There are more outlets; they've been turned over to the private sector.

MR. COCKE: He has closed down a number of outlets, and he

says he has turned them over to the private area. Would the minister

confirm that the private outlets that are out there now will be further

enriched, but that we have lost a number of convenient outlets?

HON. A. FRASER: As far as outlets are concerned to the public

that we're all serving, I hope they'll have more outlets than they had

in the past.

DAVID THOMPSON UNIVERSITY CENTRE

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of

Education, whom I notice is jumping to the alert as soon as I stand up.

Because of the failure of the minister to respond to any of the

specific proposals to save David Thompson University Centre, the city

council voted to make an offer to purchase the centre from the province

for $1 and operate the institution. Has the minister decided to

consider this proposal?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The proposal has been received in the form

of a telex and, it seems to me, yesterday or the day before was

confirmed in writing. I have no further comment.

MR. NICOLSON: Notwithstanding that, under the terms of the

offer the provincial government would have to recognize and treat the

centre as it does other institutions in providing for formula funding.

Has the minister decided not to discriminate against the Nelson

proposal in terms of formula funding?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The decision with respect to the closure

of David Thompson is a decision which has been made. I think I have

advised the House on a number of occasions — the population, some of

the curriculum, where the students have come from.... I also felt that

it was patently unfair that the funds which were going into that

particular institution were in excess of double the amount elsewhere.

Advancing the concept of using formula funding for that particular

project does nothing more than detract from Selkirk College 25 miles

away, who were also competing for the same student population.

MR. NICOLSON: I ask the minister: who is the source of that information — Mr. Grant Fisher, a former administrator of Selkirk College?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know whether Mr. Fisher was an administrator of Selkirk.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you should know what the prejudices are in your ministry.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I do know that he was the

principal officer at Camosun, but I just want to verify that the

information which I had was confirmed with David Thompson and Selkirk

College, and it wasn't that which was

[ Page

3677 ]

advanced exclusively by the ministry. I've made that clear before as well.

CHILD CAR SEATS IN MOTOR VEHICLES

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. I'm asking it on behalf of the 500 British

Columbian students and teachers who attended the conference on traffic

safety and youth leadership which was co-sponsored by ICBC and the

Ministry of Attorney-General. It has to do with restraints and car

seats for children under the age of six. Has the government decided to

bring in regulations under

section 217 of the Motor Vehicle Act

requiring the use of child seats and restraints in motor vehicles?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MS. BROWN: A press release issued by the government stated

that it is estimated that the community-wide effort involving police,

schools, medical, etc. — the Click program — resulted in a decrease in

fatalities and injuries equalling $1 million in ICBC claims. Does the

minister not think that that kind of protection should be extended to

cover the children of this province?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the government is still looking

at bringing in those regulations. There are lots for those regulations;

there are lots against them, too.

SALE OF LIQUOR ON SUNDAYS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Inasmuch as public

funds were used to distribute a questionnaire by the minister with

respect to the sale of booze on Sundays, would the minister be prepared

to table that questionnaire and the responses to it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the questionnaire that the member is referring to. Maybe he could clarify it.

MR. HOWARD: I asked the minister, because of his lapse of

memory, about a questionnaire that he submitted. Included therein were

questions relating to the sale of liquor in pubs on Sundays. That's the

questionnaire that I asked the minister if he would be prepared to

table, together with the responses to it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of my ministry having issued a questionnaire recently regarding the sale of booze on Sundays.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister saying that he did not submit a questionnaire?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 39: minister's office, $208,514.

MR. BARNES: I'm looking forward to some response from the

minister to questions I put to her yesterday. If she would like to

respond to those questions, perhaps we could move on to some of the

other matters.

Just to refresh the minister's memory, Mr. Chairman, I was inquiring

as to the procedures involved in the issuing of court orders respecting

the apprehension of children at risk in the home. I had asked the

minister to indicate specifically what the procedure was involving the

case in Cranbrook. With respect to the situation, we didn't want to

dwell on the case as such but just the procedure involved as far as the

ministry is concerned in following through on a court order involving

supervision as opposed to apprehension. I would like to know if the

minister has available the specifics of that court order — that is, the

salient points, the directive that was issued by Judge Nimsick —

stating precisely the procedure that the ministry must follow in

satisfying the supervisory stipulation. I was asking the minister as

well to provide for us statistically the number of visits with respect

to that court order which took place in that case. I didn't hear the

number of visits. I'm speaking of the second order. As Mr. Chairman

will recall, there were two orders issued, one in August and a second

one in October,

[2:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think all of that

information on that particular case.... I thought we canvassed it

rather well yesterday, considering that we still have a coroner's

report to be made public and that we are restricted — both you and I —

in discussing that case in the absence of a coroner's report.

I did give you the numbers of visits. I'm going now by memory

because I don't have it with me, but I think I said that there were 22

visits, six of which I believe took place after the second order. I

think I mentioned the six. There were three agencies involved above and

beyond the visits that the social worker made. There were other people

in the community, all of whom had, on return to the court, given a

report of very good progress. I don't think I mentioned yesterday that

the concern of all seemed to centre around the capability of the

parenting. I think I reiterated my concerns that when there is a

tragedy like this, often someone is looking for a scapegoat. I

appreciate that you're not, but unfortunately the press reports on this

case seem to indicate that the Ministry of Human Resources was in some

way at fault.

During my discussion on this case yesterday I had hoped.... It was

very clear to me — again, we all have to wait for the coroner's report

— that a lot of attention was given to this family. The court order you

asked about was to make sure that the live-in friend of the household

kept away from the household. That was, as far as we know, complied

with. Again, the visits were all made in a very spontaneous way. The

household did not have a telephone. Our staff went at any given time

and I think surprised the family at any time,

[ Page 3678 ]

and they did confirm that there was no extra person living there other than the mother, the father and the child.

I just now have, as a matter of fact, the dates and so on of the

case. It stretches in time from August 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, September 1,

2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30 to October 6. At that time a

less concentrated arrangement was made. That is usual: once the family

starts to improve, the daily or the three- or four-times-a-week visits

are discontinued and the amount of time spent is diminished, but only

diminished according to the results. Every case is different. If in

another case, results weren't obtained, the concentration of the visits

would be continued.

Then they were continued on a weekly basis beyond that: October 11,

19 and 27 –– I think you and I talked yesterday about there being an

intervening time when there was a strike. It's a very difficult problem

for all of the children in British Columbia during a strike. It gives

me pause, to think that there should be some better arrangement in

terms of protection during that kind of a time. It's also a very sticky

problem for people who on the one hand are finding a strike and on the

other are trying to give service. It's very difficult.

The other dates, which I didn't have when I first got up but have

now, were when the family was seen on a less regular basis. Again, this

was matched to progress of the family. They were August 16, September

29, October 6, November 23, December 1 and December 16. As you know,

the court order ran out on January 6, and we had no jurisdiction.

We have had a lot of publicity of late that we walk into people's

homes and take children without jurisdiction, and the media reports on

that come down pretty hard on my ministry for doing that. As I

reiterate — and I really do this for the students in the gallery, who

weren't here yesterday — our ministry has absolutely no capability of

seizing a child for his or her own protection and keeping that child

beyond seven days. The Family and Child Service Act makes it mandatory

for anybody in the province to report child abuse or child neglect. Our

ministry then, on an allegation, suspicion or direct charge, can go in

and take the child for his or her own protection. At that time we alert

everyone in the community that we have that child in our care. But we

cannot keep that child beyond seven days, according to the act that was

passed in this House. The decision then goes to a court, and the judge

makes that decision; the Ministry of Human Resources does not make it.

The court makes the decision. They have all the evidence and witnesses,

and — as I refrained from saying yesterday and now want to make clear —

we have all the legal counsel there to support our social workers. We

always have that, and we do our best on behalf of the child. That's our

uppermost obligation and responsibility. After that is decided — and

although it may well be that we might differ, we are not above the

court of law and they make that decision — we follow whatever course

they ask us to take.

I think what you're really concerned about is that we actually did what

the court asked us to do. I want to say again today, as I tried to make clear

yesterday, that I believe our ministry staff did very well. We could have done

better if we had been with the child 24 hours a day. But if a court order requires

24-hour daily care of a child, it would not be to visit with the family in the

home; it would be to remove that child from the home entirely. So you see, this

order was to maintain liaison and keep the child in the home. That was the order

of the court, not us. We followed that order, and then we followed the steps

which were asked of us in the order. I'm sorry I don't have a copy of

the order here. It's public business and yesterday I undertook to get if

for you. Essentially it said that we were to make visits and help the parenting

skills of the couple involved; that we should seek as much help as we could

— which we did within the community, from three different organizations who

are all very adept at helping with family support and teaching parenting — and

that we would ensure that the boarder was not in the home to cause or pose a

threat to the child. We followed that; he was not there, and as far as we know

he was in Alberta — those were the reports we had through our office.

I don't know what I can do to elaborate more for you, except to....

If we move away from that case and address the general situation, I

think you know that the act itself gives us great power; but it's a

limited-time power, because the power rests with the court, where it

should rest. Quite frankly, we never asked for that power; we don't

want it. We believe it should be in the court, and we're content to

leave it in the court. By and large I think the act has stood the test

of time and has been a very good act for us to work with.

MR. BARNES: I really must thank the minister for clarifying a

few more points. She's quite correct that my concern is the successful

implementation of a court order, and I have some general questions

about that procedure and how it happens. It's true that we are talking

about the Cranbrook case, but it certainly is not the basis upon which

I am asking my questions. It just happens that in that case, I think,

those of us who are concerned about justice and fairness and respect

for families and all of those....

MR. R. FRASER: We're all concerned about that.

MR. BARNES: I think I made that quite clear. I said "those of us."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay, you'll get your opportunity to speak at

some point, Mr. Member, and with respect I would appreciate it if you

would realize what we're saying this afternoon; we're not attempting to

offend. I am trying to discuss this matter as rationally as I can, and

I think the minister is doing likewise. There is no intent to offend

you.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the procedure involving

court orders respecting the apprehension or supervision of children in

the home is a very serious question, as the member has pointed out. I'm

concerned that the procedure is consistently carried out, that it is

not a system of — let's say, for want of a better term right now — a

sort of hit-and-miss or casually implemented phase of the process. I

can appreciate the minister's

interpretation of that, but I'm not sure

who actually receives the order and how stringently it is carried out.

In this particular case, as the minister points out, the child was

only under an order until January 6, after which the ministry

technically had no responsibility. But did the ministry withdraw from

that case in a formal way? In other words, was there any formal

procedure with respect to terminating that order, although it was in

effect, presumably, for 60 days? I'm not certain. I haven't seen the

order, and this is one of the other problems I have. Presuming it was

in effect for 60 days from perhaps the end of October to January 6 — or

maybe from November 6.... But whatever that date was when that

termination took place, was the minister satisfied at the

[ Page 3679 ]

time that the case should not be continued? Obviously there was a serious concern.

Perhaps the case was brought to the attention of the minister

through the Helpline — I'm not certain. There are some questions with

respect to any case involving Helpline calls where a decision has to be

made with respect to entering and intervening in that home. I think the

ministry would want to ensure that there is no misinterpretation of its

role or no misunderstanding of how those events happened. I think that

that's what we want to establish in the House.

Let's say it's a question of general policy and procedure that I'm

concerned about, and I'm not clear with respect to who assumes the

responsibility. Is the order served on the superintendent of child

welfare or is it served on a regional director? What are the

obligations of the ministry with respect to fulfilling...? What kinds

of back-and-forth communication take place to satisfy this legal

document? This is not a casual order; it's a very serious order

involving someone's home and someone's children and involving the

reputation of the ministry. So I would just like to know if that

procedure is clarified in specific terms, and are we legally bound to

resolve it at the end of the order? Could we clarify that?

[2:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate that you are not familiar

with the procedures, so I'm pleased to go over them. But in order to

save the House time, I think you should really read all of the

procedures in our policy manual, and also a full description of the

procedures. They are detailed to our staff, and they follow it very

clearly and very exactly.

Let me look back now on the case of any supervisory type order. The

supervisory type order can vary from one that is given to us because a

household is perhaps not providing proper nourishment — a form of abuse

but not physical abuse.... It could be a complaint received by

neighbours, as this was, on poor parenting skills, not abuse. This

complaint did not come through the Helpline; it came from the

surrounding neighbourhood — concerned people who thought the parenting

skills were less than adequate. There may have been a deeper reason

behind that complaint, but that was the nature of the complaint. I'm

not saying they weren't suspicious of other things, but nothing came

out in the subsequent hearing. That kind of supervisory order can be a

very limited one. The court gives the order and then it's really at the

discretion of the staff, whom the court recognizes is better on the

ground, knowing what the situation is. In that case they obviously gave

a fair amount of attention to it, including the medical doctor who

examined the child early in the case. When we first took the child into

care for her own protection, there was a medical examination, and the

result of that medical examination was that there was nothing

exceptional. The child was healthy and there was nothing exceptional to

report.

Again, if I go back to this case, to answer your question, it didn't

come through a complaint through the Helpline, but in the ending of the

thing. You asked, in the first part of your question the last time you

were on your feet, whether there is formal termination. The order dies

with the date. That's the termination. The order terminates itself.

There isn't a formal going-back to the court to say that this case is

ended. I believe it would probably be better left that way unless, in

exceptional circumstances, we feel there has to be more attention

given. In this case — and everyone agreed — there wasn't any more

attention needed; everyone had done what they had promised to do,

including the parents, and there wasn't anything more to be done.

Moving away from the specifies, though, the supervisory orders are

really quite limited, they are not concentrated at all. When you think

about it, we've had many, many cases — hundreds, I suspect — in the

province where there has been an order, and we've done our best and

brought the families along. We've kept the families together and

they've lived happily ever after, as far as we know. They are success

stories because you don't hear anything of them. This one case is a

very dramatic case. There is nothing to say that had we kept on with

this case or had we been in the case earlier, the same result wouldn't

have happened. There is nothing to tell us that. In all the time I've

had the Ministry of Human Resources I've never, ever, talked to a

parent or parents or family friend who has admitted to child abuse —

not once. They always blame somebody else. There is always some other

circumstance: there's always somebody else. And when a child dies of

child abuse and hits the headlines, I find that people look around for

a scapegoat every time.

But let's be realistic. There are charges laid in this case and so

we can't take it any further. It will be for the court to decide who is

to blame. What we are doing in the ministry for prevention of child

abuse is the most important thing we should be talking about in this

instance. Long before child abuse was a popular, if you like, social

services phrase in this province or this nation, this province decided

to wage a war on child abuse — four and a half to five years ago. We

have done that, we are doing so now, and we will continue to do so. I

think that's your answer to child abuse — making sure that everybody in

this province knows that there is a possibility of child abuse and to

be alert, and that it is their absolute responsibility by law to report

any idea, notion, suggestion, allegation or suspicion of child abuse.

Further, those people who, through some problems that they have within

themselves, feel they can take advantage of children are given the

warning from all of us that we will not tolerate child abuse in this

province. We have all the law and the power, and all the checks and

balances on that power, to protect those who may be given an allegation

of child abuse erroneously. We are very conscious of that and very

concerned about that.

We believe that we have probably the best system in this nation

against the possibility of child abuse. When we meet it, we do the best

thing we can with it. There are going to be some who slip through the

net, because we have strange people in this world. Better than that, I

can't help you with any more legislation or any more policy — with any

more commitment than we have from this ministry. Everybody in our

ministry is concerned about child abuse, whether they are a typist in a

office, a family financial-support worker, a social worker or a clerk

somewhere who is receiving and filling out forms. They are all

concerned. Just as we took on the responsibility of teaching other

people in our Ministries of Health and Attorney-General, we also went

outside government to other agencies such as the nursing profession,

physicians and surgeons, hospitals and the teaching profession — anyone

who cares enough about the subject. We have gone out, and we have

helped them to understand how to deal with it at the community level.

We will continue to do that; we do it all the time. There is a

commitment within all of my staff.

So when I respond to you, you can be assured that the process is

being followed properly. Your continuation of this subject today after

having the same explanation yesterday

[ Page 3680 ]

leads me to believe that somehow you don't believe

that there's enough of that within the system. I want to assure you

that I have followed it very closely, and that I believe those kinds of

protection and insurance are not just in one person's hands; other

people are checking that one person within our ministry so that it

doesn't get off the rails and maybe into one person's file and not be

bothered about. I want you to be assured that that doesn't happen.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister. There

probably aren't very many more questions that could be asked on that

specific case. I am satisfied with the sincerity of the minister

responding.

My concerns, as hers or yours, are with respect to ensuring that

these young people are protected and that the system works efficiently.

I know that four or five years ago the minister was concerned enough

about the integrity and security of families in the province to assist

those in stress and at risk, those under the threat of breakup or

disruption due to economic situations, social stress and so forth, and

she introduced the family support workers. At that time, I think, the

deputy minister as well as the minister expressed enthusiasm about this

program. They felt it to be a cost-efficient system permitting families

to remain together and reducing the likelihood of apprehensions of

young people from families. At that time it was described as a

cost-effective and efficient way to provide services of an

extra-statutory nature. From a fiscal point of view it was a good idea

and probably saved hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of

dollars.

I'm asking the minister now — and I am away from that specific issue

— to address the decision to remove the family support workers on the

basis of the economics involved. I know there are other factors; in

other words, there are philosophical differences involved as well.

There are people who are of the view that the community, for better or

for worse, is the best option with respect to assisting people with

social difficulties, and there are those who feel that the time has

come in our contemporary society for realistic social programs, in

terms of the complex nature of society, and that it is not possible to

rely entirely on the good will of neighbours, churches and community

organizations that in the past have provided a valuable service. These

institutions themselves are under stress and just aren't able to

absolutely take that responsibility.

The Ministry of Human Resources took an initiative at that time

which was in fact given considerable praise. It was a very good

initiative that, I think, was looked upon as a model. It was the same

with the PIRT program, which involved assisting families who had

retarded children or stress problems in their homes. I believe that was

another one of the ministry's initiatives that was an attempt to keep

families together, to avoid institutionalization of people — taking

them out of the homes. To be fair, initiatives have been taken, and at

the time the attempt was considered to be respectable and hardly

politically motivated. I acknowledge that. My question centres around

the government's change of direction from concern about this kind of

cost-saving to a different approach. It is as though the government has

made an about face fiscally in terms of its responsibilities to provide

services for the family, particularly in the Ministry of Human

Resources.

One of the problems, as I said yesterday to the House, Mr. Chairman,

is that to take a ministry such as Human Resources and make charges

without any substantive base is probably not that productive. So I'm

not inclined to take that approach, because I don't believe that. I was

a social worker for 15 years myself, and I know the difficulty involved

in working in the human services with affairs connected with people. It

doesn't tend itself to too much rigidity. I think we have to accept

that as a fact of life.

[3:00]

So with respect, I am asking the Ministry of Human Resources, which

does distinguish itself from the other 19 ministries in the government,

because it is dealing specifically with people requiring assistance....

We have several statutes with respect to how this can be done, so if we

can think in that context when we talk about the budget, we may have

some hope of shedding some light on priorities, based on quality — not

just based on economics or on dollars and cents. As I listen to the

people in the community speak about the government's restraint program

to senior citizens who've lost their day centres.... You have Silver

Threads here in Victoria, and the problems they have.... Mind you, they

had a fire that caused some problems, but also there is something

better than $163,000, I believe, that was involved in their grant from

the government which is being cut back. That is one, and there was

another one in Vancouver — the 411 Seniors' Centre, I believe, on

Dunsmuir. They're all over the province.

But the point is that these centres represent a connection for

elderly people — counselling services, supportive services,

interpretive services with respect to different government programs

that are available to them — so there is a vital service in place. The

government has decided not to fund these centres any more. It has

stated that there are other centres in the province, and they are not

receiving any service, so why should these 24 centres? I believe there

were that many that the government is ceasing to fund.

With respect to programs for the disabled, programs for the mentally

retarded, support programs for families in stress, programs in the

schools that were assisting people who were having difficulty coping in

a regular setting and required support.... We can go on and on and on

with special programs that are not statutory obligations. They don't

come strictly under the concept of social assistance, in terms of

providing a means of income, but they are support programs that the

government has stated quite clearly that it does not feels do not come

under its purview or its responsibility.

This contrasts with the government's position of a few years ago

when it recognized the need to assist the family because it was a major

institution in our society, and hopefully still is. In fact, I believe

the government has recently announced the month of May as family month

— for good reason, because I think families should be supported. We all

believe that families should be supported, but families are made up of

all these individuals we are speaking of. They're made up not only of a

husband and wife, or maybe even a broken home, where there's no husband

and no wife....

A family is a unit of people — two or more who are related in some way.

There are many ways in which this can happen in our society. I

support that concept, but I have some problem trying to relate the

budgetary thinking of the government to the strict concept of saving

money. We are asking these questions of the government on the

opposition side and in the community, realizing the difficulty and

trying to elicit a response that will satisfactorily explain the

government's

[ Page 3681 ]

thinking. The problem that we have, and that I'm

sure the government has, is that to measure the dollar savings probably

will involve some biases — matters of opinion. Many of the people in

the field of human services take the position that preventive

programs.... Any program that will keep a person out of stress, will

keep them from being unemployed or will keep them from requiring

special assistance is a good idea. Once they get into the system of

economic and social deprivation through the judiciary or corrections

system, or find themselves in need of long-term maintenance and

extended long-term services at the taxpayers' expense, it gets very

complex and costly. But that is indirect and you can’t make that case

as easily, because that person may be anywhere and requiring help at

any point in time. The supportive concept has been the basis of

experience and understanding; people who are emotionally and

psychologically healthy, and economically secure; who are able to feel

that they are productive and have a place and voice in society; who

have access to some power and are regarded with respect. All of these

rather intangible qualities matter in the long run, and this is the

question that I think we have to address when it comes to a debate on

government spending priorities and spending policies.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

I appreciate that there will not likely be a general consensus in

this debate, especially at this point; nonetheless, if we can begin to

think a bit about it perhaps that is the direction we should be going.

We aren't going to have an absolute accord on these points. Quite

obviously there are those who believe that people should pull

themselves up by their own boot straps and not be assisted at all. They

believe that people should be subjected to the "survival of the

fittest" concept and that they should make it on their own. Having been

a football player, an athlete and a competitive person for many years,

I can understand that. I've had to do a lot of bludgeoning from time to

time in my profession in order to stay alive. But at the same time it

isn't necessarily the only option open to us in terms of the overall

benefit to the community, or to one's self, because there is a price

attached to any direction you take. If you exercise great force to get

what you want, there is a price to pay for that, as there is if you are

a passive quiet person who believes in cooperation and consultation, in

trying to reach mutual consent on a given question.

We have differences in this House and I recognize them. However, the

minister should stand and confidently explain to the House how we are

saving money as a government and how the people of British Columbia are

benefiting from the removal of specific programs — in light of the

heavy stress placed upon the population today and the fact that in

excess of 200,000 people are unemployed. Also, with a multiplier

effect, there are something like 245,000 people on social assistance —

the government refers to 113,000-odd single units of people. Large

numbers of people in the population are under stress and trying to

survive in society at a time when the cost of just about everything is

going up, and the government is stating that it does not have

sufficient revenue to provide these essential services. Although they

are not statutorily the responsibility of the government under their

existing legislation, it is still the government's concern and a matter

of principle; it is a good idea to invest in encouraging people to be

able to subsist in society.

There is the philosophic view and then there is the practical view.

There is the problem of dollars and cents. The government, in its

judgment, has reduced the Ministry of Human Resources' budget from

something like $1.307 billion to $1.281 billion — about a $25 million

difference, in round figures, What's the benefit there? In analyzing

the budget and taking a look at where the costs have been reduced, I

find it is primarily in the direct services field and in social

assistance to the recipients. I would like the minister to respond to

this specific question of economics, keeping in mind that the national

poverty for a single person — you could take a couple or someone with

children and so forth — in a city the size of my constituency in

Vancouver, where there are half a million or more people, is in excess

of $900 per month.

A single person in the city of Vancouver under our provinces social

assistance program will receive $375 a month — and that's being

generous, because they will get $325 if they're applying for the first

time. This amounts to approximately $4,500 per year, clearly one-half

of what Statistics Canada suggests is required for such a person in

contemporary society. That is an unfortunate situation. What do those

people do? How do they survive? How much money are we saving? What

would it cost to provide them the minimum as stated by Statistics

Canada? Would that be unreasonable? How many dollars are we talking

about? Furthermore, where would those dollars end up? What would those

people on social assistance do with their dollars? They'll pay their

rent, they'll buy food and clothing, they'll probably enjoy a few

amenities and take in a few cultural events. They'll perhaps have a

holiday that they deserve, or maybe they'll even buy an extra pair of

shoes. In some instances they'll get into the personal luxuries as

well, and maybe they'll get some toiletries or whatnot. But on $450 a

month, I think there's no one in this House who would deny that a

person in that situation could hardly make a move. They would be lucky

to be able to pay their rent, let alone go out and enjoy anything. What

happens to the mind and emotions of a person like that? What do they do

in their spare time? What kind of life is that for, say, 400,000 people

in this province? What are all those people doing?

[3:15]

MR. R. FRASER: What jurisdictions pay more?

MR. BARNES: I think that is a specious interjection on the

part of the member for Vancouver South. Mr. Chairman, I'm not

interested in getting into confrontation; I'm trying to appeal to your

sense of fairness. Now the member is suggesting that because someone is

suffering more somewhere else, it's okay for this person to be

suffering a little bit less. It's a matter of degree. It's a matter of

attitude. We are hopefully attempting to give people the very best

opportunities and options we can, and it's just a matter of priorities.

When he says, "What other jurisdiction?" it begins to change my

attitude, because it seems as though he prefers a debate in the

confrontational sense rather than one where we can address these

concerns with some sense of responsibility.

I've said all along that the Ministry of Human Resources is a unique

ministry. It is different than the other ministries. It is not a

ministry of small business, industrial development and the other

things. We're talking about human beings. We're talking about the

people who pay for the budget. These are the people we're asking to pay

a 4 percent increase on

[ Page 3682 ]

their income tax this year and another 4 percent

next year — 8 percent over two years — on top of what they're already

paying. We're asking them to supply the main portion of the almost $8

billion budget this province has. Even major industries don't match

what people pay out of their pockets in this province. So I think that

those people deserve some attention, some respect and some opportunity.

There are many tragic stories in this province as a result of

restraint. I don't suggest that the economic conditions of the world

are the fault of the provincial government, but I'm saying that the

provincial government has a duty to do its best on behalf of these

people in making its fiscal policies and setting the direction for the

people of British Columbia, with a sense of achieving recovery.

So this is what I'm asking: does the minister feel that the Ministry

of Human Resources should be viewed in the same light as the other

ministries when it comes to cutbacks? We say that we can't hold

people's hands and give them any more than we can afford, but I can say

to you, Mr. Chairman, that we can't afford not to pay more attention to

the crumbling homes and the suffering of people in this province.

The young people who are going to our high schools and our

universities with the hope that they're going to be able to fit into

the workforce are being sadly disillusioned and alienated by

circumstances I think we could correct and improve upon.

I would like to address this question on the basis of the rationales

with respect to the cuts. These are expressions that I'm carrying on

behalf of people in the community; these are not expressions that I am

bringing to you off the top of my own head. People in every aspect of

the cuts that have taken place are saying: "Are they fair?" They are

saying: "Are they economic? Are they going to be efficient? Are they in

fact going to save money?" Some of them are saying that the government

has another agenda; some of them are saying: "The government is

philosophically opposed to doing these things; that's why they're doing

it."

Now if the government is philosophically opposed, then I think that

we have to concede that the government was elected and it is

philosophically opposed and therefore it has a right to implement its

philosophical views — political or whatever. But the government has

said all along that it would not undermine the quality of service, that

it would merely restrain the cost to government. It has said it would

not undermine the quality, and that's where the problem comes in. We're

asking the government to give us assurances. There are questions that

we want to ask. How does a government follow up on the privatization

program, for instance? A number of programs have been contracted out.

Are these going to be further eroded after one, two or three years?

Will they just disappear from government view and the view of the

opposition, the view of all the MLAs? What will happen to those

programs and what will happen to those people? Are they going to just

disappear? It's okay for the privatization to take place as a method of

providing service. But will it be an efficient method? Will people find

themselves being rejected because they are too expensive? You know, the

more troubled a product is — for instance, the transition houses are

going to be taken over by private societies in the community.... If a

difficult case comes along, and it's a fee-for-service situation where

there are costs involved, there is a possibility that the operators of

those facilities will begin to become selective in terms of who is the

best bet in a numbers game, and there will still be those people who

will be alienated and left without service. This is one of the concerns

that, I think, we need to address.

I've been talking for about half an hour, Mr. Chairman, and I'm

surprised that you haven't indicated that I should.... I suspect it

must be getting close. However, I am going to address other matters

when I terminate these comments. If the minister would like to respond,

I will be pleased to take my seat.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member has covered a

wide range of subjects, but I'd be pleased to try to quickly address

them, because I appreciate having the questions more than you having

lengthy answers.

First of all, let's just take the budget in total. The total budget,

which has been debated for the last two weeks, amounts to $8.3 billion.

There are three ministries in this House, three responsibilities in

this House, which have taken $5.1 billion of that total expenditure:

Health, Human Resources and Education. Everything else in the budget —

the building of roads; the paying of the ombudsman and the

auditor-general; the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; the

Attorney-General ministry; Consumer and Corporate Affairs and all of

its services; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, with all of its

services for the mining industry; Environment; Finance; the great

Ministry of Forests, one of the main revenue producers; Industry and

Small Business Development; Intergovernmental Relations; Labour; Lands,

Parks and Housing; Tourism; Transportation and Highways; Universities,

Science and Communications; all of the programs for student employment

and for transit services — comes in after the $5.1 billion spent for

Health, Human Resources and Education. You asked me to justify cuts

within the ministry, and I really will address that, as I have done

before. Of those $5.1 billion, $1.3 billion will be spent this year on

the Ministry of Human Resources.

In the past few years, prior to the recession, when we have had

increasing revenues coming into this province, we had the capability,

the opportunity and we also had the luxury of being able to do some

programs which other provinces haven't done up to now and probably

never will. We had the luxury and the opportunity and we had the

delight of introducing new programs. I had to laugh, though, Mr. Member

for Vancouver Centre, when you said that we were lauded for those

programs, because I'm going to tell you as clearly as I can that the

only time we have been lauded for those programs is when they have been

reduced or cut off. We have heard nothing of how good the programs have

been. I can elaborate on that to a great extent, but I'm not going to

take the time of the House. I really had to smile when you said that we

had been lauded for them, because not from that side of the House nor

from across the country have we been.... Well, from across the country

we have been, but certainly not within the boundaries of British

Columbia by representations from social services groups, because we

have not.

What are these decisions based on? You covered a wide range, and I

would really like to explain all of them. I have an explanation for

every single one of them. For example, you mentioned the largest one,

the one really connected with the case we discussed earlier today and

yesterday, and that is the family support worker program. That program

wasn't in existence five years ago. It's a short-lived program. It was

one of those programs which was desirable in times when we had a lot of

money. Referring again to the total dollars spent in help in social

services, Human Resources being a very major

[ Page 3683 ]

part of that $5.1 billion of a $8.3 billion budget

for the whole province for the whole year, I can tell you that revenues

to that budget in these last two years have reduced dramatically.

Let's take the Forests ministry alone. It is only 40 percent of its

capability — only 40 percent of its revenue coming into the province to

spend on social services. When you get a dramatic decrease like that,

when you have people laid off from work and not sending moneys to

government, when you get all of the other attendant services, when

money isn’t coming in, that is the practical place that we are in right

now. That's what we are facing. It's just as simple as that. We have

less revenue coming in so we are trying to retain the outgo of services

to the best place, and we have to target it to the very best place we

can.

You mentioned the family support workers. They were a good thing to

do when we had the dollars, when we had the 100 percent of the forestry

revenues coming in and 100 percent of all the others coming in. We

don't have it today. That is one of the newer programs, and they were

all based on a fairly consistent note. We are bound by statutory

obligation to provide — morally, I might say, too — income assistance

through GAIN for people in need. We will continue to do that. We have

to protect that. Not only is it our responsibility and our moral

obligation, it's also statutory in this province and all across this

nation. We can't take a lot out of that, but it is increasing, as you

have pointed out. We took a look at decisions based on the most

recently added programs, because those were the ones that were put in

when we had an awful lot of money. Secondly, the family support worker

was supplementary help to the social worker. They were a supplement to

what the social worker was already doing in that community. It was

desirable and nice to do, but it wasn't done up to the point in time

that we first initiated it in this government. It was one of those that

had to go, because it did spend a lot of money.

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

The third thing and one of the other reasons that we made these

decisions was that there are alternatives available. Let's take the

transition house that you mentioned. You said you wondered if they are

going to be selective. We have 600 services throughout the province all

done this way. There are only 22 services in the city of Vancouver that

differ from the whole 600 throughout the province, and that's the one

we're putting into.... We're getting out of the business, is what we're

doing. But we're still providing the money for an organization to

deliver that service. And you ask if they are going to be selective.

Are they just going to take the easy ones? That's why we put them in

that agreement. We can cancel that agreement at any time. We can change

the policy and agreement as times and the pressures on our ministry

change. That is why we believe that the one transition house that's

going to be changed will be as good a service as all of the others in

the province — certainly as good as the one we've had there.

It also will be the same with the children's services that we are

putting into an agreement, but we're still paying the money out. It's a

fallacy to say that it is not going to cost the Ministry of Human

Resources money, because it is.

MR. BARNES: Will it be cheaper?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, we are not really looking for

cheaper. We are looking for better. I think that we will be consistent

with the rest of the province, where a very good system is in place.

You asked about the seniors, and you mentioned the societies....

Again, you have to make choices. You want to make the choice that....

Perhaps you would like to say to the seniors that all the services we

have.... Are you going to cut out long-term care for seniors? Are you

going to reduce Pharmacare for seniors? Just what are you going to

attack?

[3:30]

There was only one service to the seniors, and you mentioned it. The

411 Society and the Silver Harbour Centre in North Vancouver — Silver

Threads here — were very good services. But over the years they have

ceased to be volunteer services, as they started out to be. They have

become staff-oriented services, which have been excellent. No one

argues with the kind of service they deliver and what they do. But, Mr.

Chairman, may I just say to you that there are 156 of those centres in

the province of British Columbia. We only gave partial funding to 22 of

them, and those are the ones to which we have given nine months' notice

to find alternative sources. At the end of March we are not funding

them any more. You could ask why we don't go ahead and fund them. But

you tell me where you would have reduced it. You see, there aren't that

many options in the Ministry of Human Resources; we can't take it away.

I want to address the group that you speak of — the young people.

You say that according to the Statistics Canada poverty line these

young people are going to be badly done by because of a new policy that

we have just initiated. When they are under 25 years of age, we believe

that they should have their income assistance reduced from what they

had before. That was so we could retain families and children at the

same level as they had last year. We would have liked to have increased

it, but we have retained it at the same rather than reduce it. But you

see, when you quote the yearly poverty line from Statistics Canada or

from the Canadian Association of Social Workers or whatever.... Let me

assure you that our statistics prove that young people don't stay on

for one year. Thirty-eight percent of the young people who go on income

assistance today will be off in one month; of the remainder, 50 percent

will be off in the first four months of coming on income assistance, on

welfare. So you see these people aren t staying on. They are the mobile

group. They are the group that can go and seek jobs,

whereas the

families with three or four children cannot. That is why they are

finding it more difficult, but we are retaining their income assistance

at the same level. You wanted to know why we made the decision — that's

why.

Let me just tell you again, talking about poverty lines.... The

Statistics Canada poverty line as of October 1983 is $19,502 a year.

That is what they consider the poverty line in Canada.

MR. BARNES: For what category?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: For a family unit of four — that would be one couple with two children or one mother with three children.

Now let me just address that. On income assistance in this province:

a mother with three children, with one child in day care and two at

school, has a gross potential disposable

[ Page 3684 ]

inco me of $15,880 per

year. Let me take a clerical worker in my ministry, a financial

assistance worker, who carries a lot of responsibility — she's the

person you see when you go in to apply for welfare. A family assistance

worker 2, step 4, who is a single parent with three children, and, like

the welfare mother whom I just described, has one child in day care and

two at school, has a net disposable income of $18,400 per year. She

goes to work every day. She has to dress for that job and pay for

transportation to that job. Her disposable income is $18,400 as opposed

to the $15,880 of a single parent on welfare in identical

circumstances. You can say that we're not paying financial assistance

workers very much, or you could say that we should be paying the other

person less in comparison. I don't know what line of reasoning you take

from that. All I'm saying is that I believe very strongly that we are

doing our best. If you are going to say that we are putting everybody

on the poverty line, let me say that there are many people working in

this province who, if they wanted to give up and didn't want to pay for

their transportation, clothes, shoes and so on that they require for

that job, would not really be very much better off. It is a very fine

line; it is a very difficult decision to make. It is one of those

problems that we always face in our society: what is the best decision

to make in terms of income assistance and how much should it be. We do

not want to kill people's incentive, but neither do we want to be told

that we are keeping everybody on the poverty line, because there are

lots of people who are working very hard to keep themselves off the

poverty line.

I haven't addressed all of the things, because I could be here for

the same 30 or 40 minutes. You wanted to know what we based our

priorities on. We base our priorities in the Ministry of Human

Resources on giving the best service and best care to the children's

services. Family and children's services is really the largest part of

our ministry. We hardly ever talk about it. We talk about income

assistance because it takes so much money and so many people are taking

it, but you very seldom hear talk of the family and children's services

in our ministry. But I really believe that the decisions we have made

have been based on a very clear understanding that those we cut out in

this time of recession were those we had done without before — and very

well — and can do without again, considering that those revenues aren't

coming into government to pay for them. So we had to make some very

difficult decisions, but I want you to be assured that the decisions we

have made have been based on the best priorities we can have for the

people we're serving, those people and families in the province who are

most in need of the care and the help.

MR. BARNES: I'm going to let someone else speak in a minute,

but I just wanted to remind the minister.... I'm not going to be very

long; I'll let someone have an opportunity to intervene. But the record

should clearly show that although the minister has given her and the

government's rationale for the budget and the priorities they have set,

it should be remembered that the government has also done something

rather noteworthy: it has taken an amount of money from resource

revenues that could have gone into consolidated revenue and could have

paid many times over for most of these services. In fact, only a small

fraction of the $470 million being made available to the B.C. Railway —

which was a decision by the government to retire a historic debt....

All I'm saying is that that amount of money could have been active in

the economy instead of sitting in the bank and being used for other

purposes.

Obviously the government feels that that is the direction it wants

to go in, but it is doing so at a price. I just wanted the record to

show that when the government talks about it not being able to afford

these services for people, that's just a matter, really, of what is

important to the government. It is pursuing a course of action that

some people describe as punitive and even vindictive in some instances.

It's a course of action that seems to suggest that the government

believes it has the power to implement programs of restraint despite

the consequences.

I have to say that this is not a new initiative but one the

government has undertaken for several months now, and we're beginning

to feel the consequences. The Ministry of Human Resources is itself at

risk. Although the base programs such as social assistance remain in

place, they are being reduced instead of maintained. They're being

reduced; that is the key point. The ministry itself is being subjected

to a very risky kind of surgery, shall we say — maybe even open-heart

surgery. We do not fully appreciate the consequences yet. I suspect

that as the months go by, as more and more of these programs are

privatized and as the government succeeds in convincing the public that

it has no direct responsibility for these fundamental programs and

services to people, we will experience increased costs in practically

every other support system in the community. It will be one of those

conditions that happens when people go out for themselves and don't pay

attention to their neighbours. It'll be just the opposite, I think, of

what the government is suggesting, because it's the government that

must set the tone.

The government must show heart and take the lead, especially when

stress as a result of hard times is upon all of us. It's not just

visiting the so-called poor in the traditional sense. We have a whole

new class of poor people in this country and in this province: people

who have been active in the past, working people who have earned their

way and have paid their dues, people who find themselves being crushed

and being laid off by their employers as a result of restraint and so

forth. Those people are the new ones who are being asked to reduce

themselves to virtual poverty; to sell off their pensions; to get rid

of their superannuation funds, their savings accounts, and so forth; to

get rid of their camper or their extra automobile, their summer home or

the endowment that they had set up for their children. All kinds of

things are happening to these people, which throws them into the

poverty line as well by virtue of circumstances. I hate to think that

the ministry is viewing all those people out there as being indigent or

being people who have not contributed to society and who do not have

the right to fair treatment in return for their many years of

contribution to the economy and to society.

Now where and who are these people? Well, they could be you or I; it

could be those members over there at any point in time, and that is

exactly what is happening. I could read into the record some of the

tragic stories, but I think that I know what they are. These are people

who could not believe.... And I'm sure many of them were calling people

names who were on social assistance just a few months ago and now

themselves are experiencing, unfortunately, the degrading situation

that is involved in asking for assistance. I say "unfortunately"

because no one should be ashamed to ask for assistance when they're in

need in our type of society

[ Page 3685 ]

where we're ask to contribute and to keep the society together.

We're all asked to pay that price at one time. Hopefully we'll never

have to collect, but when the time comes to collect, and you have to go

and face the government and try to get some assistance on the basis of

your personal situation, then you're reduced to the numbers game and

are told: "Here are the regulations; here are the rules." You're going

to be required to reduce yourself to a level of far less than what

you're accustomed to, far less than what is good for your stability and

far less than what is fair and right. Many of these people have

temporary problems and should not be reduced to such a point that

they're beginning to feel ashamed of themselves. So I think that's a

factor as well that we have to consider when we have these rigid rules

about everybody under a certain age — 25 and under — being treated

differently than those 26 and over.

[3:45]

The minister said yesterday in response to some of my questions that discrimination

came in many forms, that she was not setting a precedent, despite the ombudsman's

ruling a few years ago with respect to the 31 and under age group concerning

social assistance rates. But the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under

the

chapter "Equality Rights," states: "Every individual is

equal before and under the law and has a right to the equal protection and equal

benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination

based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental

or physical disability." So the minister may have been confusing imposed

age restrictions, which is what she was saying yesterday about people who go

into beer parlours, people who are retiring at a certain age.... She mentioned

certain other examples of discrimination. I think the record should show that

these are age restrictions, as she pointed out, based on some of the reasons

she gave. But there is a difference between what she is doing to these people

and what their fundamental rights should be, and I think that was made quite

clear in the investigation by the ombudsman.

I will permit some of the other members to speak, Mr. Chairman, and I'll make some further remarks later.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I won't be very long, but I

couldn't help but think, when I was listening to some of the questions

from the member for Vancouver Centre, about senior citizens. When my

colleague from Coquitlam came in here with his grey hair, I asked him

if he knew very much about the senior citizens' counselling program. He

said no, and I must admit I don't know an awful lot about it myself. I

thought, well, the minister is here in her estimates, and it's one of

the groups of people in our province, and I think it's a great unused

resource that we could be tapping. I wonder if the minister, before I

get into some of my questions, could explain to us exactly how the

senior citizens' counselling program works.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am really pleased to respond, because

the senior citizens' counselling program is unique in this province. It

was started by a member of this House who sat on this side of the

House, a former Social Credit administrator, and she was very close to

senior citizens' services. She was very good at addressing the concerns

of seniors, and maybe some members of this House will remember Isabel

Dawson, now deceased. Isabel brought in that program, and what she

based it on was using the resources of these remarkable people who had

been in all walks of life — some in business and some in service

industries and so on — but who had reached that time in their lives

where they shouldn't be put on the shelf but could be used.

We started the senior citizens' counselling service in about 1968 or

1969 and it has been going strong and growing younger every year. It

really is a good service and I get together with them as often as I

can. Every time I'm in a community I like to meet the senior citizens'

counsellor, because they're just filled with inspiration of the work

they do. Now let me tell you what they do.

They are listed and available to any senior citizen in the province.

They are in every community. If they have out-of-pocket expenses, they

can bill us up to $100 a month, but we seldom get a $100 bill in any

given month. They answer questions around income tax time for seniors

who have to file a return and help them with supplementary income

questions for both the federal and provincial administrations. They

will assist them in time of a bereavement, when one of the couple

passes away and problems arise in terms of what to do with some of the

papers that come to them. Some people get very confused at that age,

and this really is a remarkable service. Some people use the seniors to

a very great extent, but I am sure there are many people in our

province who do not know that we have that service. It has been going

on for many years. Once every two years all the seniors' counsellors

get together to try to improve their knowledge and the service that

they give. We have one person designated in our ministry who keeps in

constant touch when there is a change in the federal pension program,

as there has recently been, and we get the information out to the

counsellors. They're bound to get a question just the minute it comes

over the TV, so all the information is given out to them.

It is a very good service and I am delighted you gave me the opportunity to pay tribute to them; they do a very good job.

MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the minister for the explanation. I

might suggest that she send a copy of the short speech she just gave to

all the members of this House, with a list of the names of the

counsellors around the province. We so often hear of people needing

help and assistance, and I think it is extremely important that every

member know who the counsellors are in case they get letters from

people looking for some assistance.

I wonder if the minister has looked into the possibility — maybe the

next time all the seniors get together — of trying to expand this

program. The senior citizens in this country, especially those in

British Columbia and the ones I talk to in mv constituency seem to

appreciate this time of restraint even more than other people do. Maybe

that's because years ago a lot of them went through a depression, that

I certainly never saw. They seem to appreciate the fact that this

government is taking the bull by the horns and tightening up levels of

service and government expenditures. I wonder if the minister would

consider asking the senior citizens at the next meeting for suggestions

of where we could get other seniors involved in programs and use their

experience to assist people in need.

When I was listening to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes) talking about how this government is punitive, I couldn't help

but think of the minister's comments about a mother and three children

— one in day care and two

[ Page 3686 ]

in school — getting a gross income of $15,880. I

find it very hard to understand how any person or any member of any

party could think that that was a punitive measure. That is certainly a

considerable amount of money for a government to be giving out in

assistance, and is not anything near a starvation level. It is an

adequate sum of money, and I think the majority of people in this

province would think that also.

The next time this seniors group gets together, would the minister

consider having them come up with a program where we could use more

senior citizens and the wealth of experience that they've gained in

their lifetimes? When you look around this great province of ours and

this city of Victoria, where there are a lot of retired people, you

realize that people are getting younger. In my constituency there's a

large percentage of retired people who get out and work at election

time, and who do work in between those times. They're energetic, but

they're not working anymore. They've done their time in the field of

work and are on pensions and enjoying this province. I'm sure a lot of

them would like some suggestions from the government as to how they

could assist even more. As the minister said, they wouldn't be looking

for money. That's why the majority of your senior citizens' counsellors

don't bill up to the maximum; they just charge what their expenses are.

It could be a very inexpensive way for a government to get assistance,

and I wonder if the minister would consider that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: A small committee of seniors is meeting

to address changes or better service for those councillors — if it

could perhaps be better. There may be a different delivery that we can

do and an expansion, as you say. If you or any member of the House have

any ideas how that can be improved or how we can improve our

communications in that regard, I would be very pleased to receive those

ideas. That small committee is meeting shortly, and I would like to

have your ideas. You will be pleased to know the budget for the service

throughout the whole of the province is $250,000. In any given year, it

reaches just about the bulk of the seniors in the province.

I thank you for the question, and I will see that the list is distributed to all members.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to

raise with the minister, and then I want to make some comments about

the decision to change the funding for the Vancouver Transition House.

The minister made a statement about the potential of a unit 4 to

have an income of $15,000 a year. I wonder if she would like to break

that down for me, because I recognize — if the latest figures I have

are correct — that the basic allowance for a unit 4 is $450 a month for

a single parent with three children. Shelter allowance is $455 a month,

if necessary. In fact, if they have accommodation which is cheaper than

that — if they should be so lucky, and I don't know if it is possible

to get accommodation below $455 a month — then they don't get the full

$455 a month. That adds up to a total $10,860. Day care allowance and

earnings exemption are in there as well. If she would explain to me how

those two figures bring it up to $15,000, I would be really interested.

I also realize that if she becomes pregnant she gets another dietary

allowance. Still, I think that a figure of $15,000 shouldn't just be

thrown out; there should be some explanation, and the explanation

should state very clearly that what we're talking about is a basic

support allowance of $450 a month for a single parent and her three

children.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The second comment I want to respond to was the comment about the

termination of funding for the seniors groups — Silver Threads and

others — which, I agree, started out as volunteer organizations and

then evolved into being paid tasks, but not with outrageously large

incomes. To suggest that one of the reasons for that is that most of

the workers is those organizations are women.... More and more women

are finding that one way to deal with poverty is to get paid for your

work. Women are finding that they cannot live on pensions left to them

if they are widowed — or have no pension at all. Rather than

volunteering and then going on income assistance, they try to make an

income for themselves, whether they are 65 or over. At a time when they

are ready to break out of the poverty cycle by working, we're hearing

that this is something that should not be encouraged and that everyone

is being encouraged to go back to being volunteers again.

If you look at the statistics on poverty for this country, you will

find that most of the poor people in Canada, including British

Columbia, are older women. Many of them are volunteers. I have no

objections to volunteerism; I think it is wonderful. But I think that

if these women find that they can earn a decent living and be able to

support themselves, this is not something we should be opposed to. I

regret that the government finds itself in a situation where Silver

Threads and other organizations like that are going to be forced to go

back to relying on volunteer services — not because there's anything

wrong with volunteerism, but because it says to me that there are some

women who are going to lose their income and join that large group of

the community who make up the poverty statistics of this province.

That's the only statement I want to make on that one.

[4:00]

I want to speak specifically, though, about the decision to change

the funding for the Vancouver Transition House. I think we need to put

the Vancouver Transition House into perspective. This is not just one

isolated facility serving Vancouver which, in order to take some

cost-cutting measures or to balance the budget or whatever, the

government is deciding to privatize, to take it out from under its

jurisdiction and give it to the private sector. The Vancouver

Transition House is part of the history of the women's liberation

movement in this country. It's not something that was discovered by

government and put into place by government. The Vancouver Transition

House came about because women perceived the need for that kind of

shelter, and women went to government and in an attempt to raise the

consciousness of government suggested that this need would best be met

by public funding. Prior to Vancouver Transition House, women were

being battered; it didn't start with Vancouver Transition House. Women

were being battered and abused then, as they are now. The difference is

that wealthy women and middle-class women who could afford it would

pick up their kids and go and stay in a hotel or move in with a friend

or a relative, as the case may be. They would try to deal with that,

and it wasn't talked about. Nobody wanted to talk about the fact that

they were being beaten by their husbands, because there was shame

attached to that.

[ Page 3687 ]

What happened with the inception of the women's liberation movement

was that women said: "Until we start talking about the kind of violence

we experience in the home, it's not going to stop. As long as we keep

hiding it in a closet or pretending it doesn't exist, we will continue

to be battered — some of us, as in the case of Maude Bevan in Prince

Rupert, to the point where we become disabled for the rest of our

lives, or, as in the case of Mrs. Dallowall in Richmond, to the point

where we are murdered — dead — as a result." So women started talking

about the violence taking place in their personal and private lives and

in their homes. They decided that simply because middle-class and

upper-class women had other resources was not a reason to ignore it,

because most of the women in this province, as in this country and in

this world, are poor and didn't have access to those resources. So they

were forced to stay in those family units and in their homes, and take

that beating year after year until one of two things happened: either

their husband died, deserted them or disappeared, or they died

themselves. Even to this day, when we look at the statistics on

homicide involving women where women are the victims, we are appalled

at the large number of them who are the victims of battering and murder

by their spouses.

The decision to change the funding for the Vancouver Transition

House and to dissociate ourselves from responsibility for that

particular resource could not be coming at a worse time. We have one

year left in the United Nations declaration of the decade to change the

status of women in this world. If you look at the United Nations

declaration, you ought to go back to 1948 to their declaration on human

rights.

Article 5 is the one that deals with torture, cruelty and

degrading treatment. And the declaration of 1948 in

article 5

proclaimed that that was one of the things that was the responsibility

of governments to change — not individuals each in their own private

lives, not non-profit organizations, not churches. It said that

government should take responsibility to protect its people, its

members, from being subjected to that kind of treatment.

Mr. Chairman, in 1975, the United Nations International Women's

Year, at the international conference in Mexico which was at the

beginning of the decade, one of the subjects raised at that point was

cruelty to women. It said women all over the world should unite to

eliminate the violations of human rights committed against women and

girls such as rape, prostitution, physical assault, mental cruelty,

child marriages, forced marriages and marriages of commercial

transaction. The conference also requested that specialized agencies to

provide assistance for the attainment of these objectives be the

responsibility of governments.

So the Vancouver Transition House is not something that came

full-blown out of the imagination of the NDP government, which was the

government of the day, nor of the Social Credit government, which is

the government of today. In fact, we were ahead of that conference,

because at the Royal Commission on the Status of Women for Canada, one

of the 267 recommendations of that royal commission report, which was

tabled in Ottawa, dealt with the establishment of shelters for battered

and abused women and their children. When we became the government in

1972, we didn't imagine, create or initiate that project; it was the

women in Vancouver who approached the then Minister of Human Resources

and said: "This should be at least a pilot project; this at least

should be a beginning. Why don't we start here and see if in fact it

has any impact on the lives of women in this city, if it does a

service." The Vancouver Transition House, Mr. Chairman, started out

being funded in a voluntary way — that was the beginning — and then it

was changed, and the ministry then took on full responsibility for the

protection of the women of Vancouver against violence directed at them

by their spouses in the home.

It was never intended that that was the only transition house which

should be funded that way. Many of the women who gave birth to that

transition house are still alive today and are still involved in trying

to fight against the violence which persists against women in our

community, as evidenced by the federal commission report on violence in

the family, which shows one in every ten married women still being

battered by their spouses in this country. So the violence is not

decreasing. But the decision was that that was to be the first of a

number of transition houses, that there would come a day when there

would be not one single community anywhere in this province which did

not have a place of refuge, a place of shelter to which battered and

abused women and their children could run, Mr. Chairman, when the need

arose. That was the dream, the plan and the hope of those women who

spearheaded this first transition house. It never came about; it never

happened. As a result of that, non-profit organizations such as the

Life Line Society in Burnaby, some of the church groups, groups in Fort

Nelson and the Maud Bevan House in Prince Rupert, which came about as a

result of that woman being battered to the stage where she spends the

rest of her life in a wheelchair, moved into the breach and tried to

carry on that task, but it was never the intention that they were going

to be ultimately and permanently responsible for meeting that need. In

fact, when you read their annual reports and attend their conventions,

as I have year after year after year, they look at the Vancouver

Transition House, and their aim and their goal is to be like the

Vancouver Transition House in terms of secure funding, in terms of

being able to pay their staff decent wages, in terms of being able to

supply a service 24 hours a day. That was their aim and that was their

goal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we're being told that because the Vancouver

Transition House is the best, because it has the most secure funding

and because it is able to give 24-hour-a-day service and to pay its

workers decent wages, the Vancouver Transition House is to be changed.

It is to be turned over to a private society. Its funding is to become

insecure, the way other transition houses are.

Let's use the transition house in my riding of Burnaby Edmonds as an

example. It is funded by the Life Line Society, which is a non-profit

organization perceiving a need and trying to meet it. Their funding is

being renewed at the same level as it was last year, which means it has

not taken into account any cost-of-living increases for the people who

work there or the increased costs of heat, light, telephone and all the

other services that go along with it. The result of that is that

they're going to have to reduce their staff hours. The only way they

can continue to have the staff without paying them starvation wages is

to say: "You'll get the same pay, but you needn't work as long." Who is

hurt by that decision? It's not just the staff but also the community

that needs that service. The battered women in Burnaby are the ones who

are hurt by that decision. They're the ones who suffer as a result of

that decision.

The transition house cannot afford to have 24-hour-a-day staff

coverage of that particular location. There is someone there from 8 in

the morning to 8 at night, and that's it. After

[ Page 3688 ]

that, the people in the house are on their own.

Quite frankly, I don't know how the people who want to come to the

house get in after 8 o'clock, especially when we know that most of the

batterings go on late at night. You know, he comes home drunk, and that

triggers it off. According to the notes I've received from them, they

have found that there is quite a problem because husbands know this.

Once they have discovered the location of the house and they know that

there is no staff on duty after 8 p.m., then they show up on the

doorstep. Sure, they can phone the police, but it takes a while for the

RCMP to get there. In the meantime, the women have to undergo the

harassment and the threats, and they are terrified.

There is absolutely no way that the minister would say that that is

good service or that it is adequate service. Anything short of 24 hours

is not good enough. The house is authorized for ten beds, which is all

they're allowed. Those beds are always occupied, and they have

occasionally managed to squeeze in additional beds. They sometimes go

up to 12 or even more, and then they find that they have to start

moving people out. They have to refer them to other places and try to

find other resources to put them up. What do you do? Turn them away?

The Vancouver Transition House says that it had to turn 548 families

away last year. That's the figure they give. No doubt Burnaby didn't

turn away quite as many, but they had to turn some people away.

[4:15]

I notice the minister is sighing. I'm sorry that this is so tedious

and repetitious for you, but I think it's something that has to be said.

They tell me that the staff are tired all the time, and they are

discouraged and overworked. But they carry on, because they recognize

the importance of the service they supply.

Life Line would like to be like the Vancouver Transition House. The

Fort Nelson group would like to be like the Vancouver Transition House,

and so would Fort St. John. Vancouver Transition House, prior to the

decision of the government to change its funding.... I hope the

newspaper quoted the staff person incorrectly, because we are told that

if a new person isn't found to start a transition house prior to the

deadline, battered women are going to be put up in hotels and motels

until a new service is developed for them. I hope that's not true,

because a whole new speech could be given on that one.

In any event, the Vancouver Transition House had a confidential

address and protection and security for 24 hours a day. They were able

to offer social services and emergency assistance when other agencies

were closed. They had a 24-hour-a-day crisis line that was answered by

one of their workers. They were able to give advice and aid to children

as well as women who were in crisis and, if necessary, refer them to

other resources. They also did quite a lot of telephone counselling.

The Vancouver Transition House was involved in providing community

education and legal, medical and financial information. They

participated on community boards, such as the Justice Institute, the

YWCA and Munroe House. They gave workshops and presentations on

battered women. They worked with the police, doctors and many other

professionals in the community. They also were a resource for all of

the other transition houses in the province. They travelled around and

helped other communities that wanted to establish transition houses,

because they had the expertise and they had the longer experience,

having been the first and the best.

They had a child-care counselling program, with two positions which

offered appropriate intervention, educational programming and support

to mothers. They worked as advocates for children and also would work

as a liaison with community agencies and as a referral service for the

appropriate community agencies. They had a very unique followup

program. If you go to the annual convention of the transition houses

around the province, they tell you that they haven't got the resources

or the funding or the capability to do any kind of followup. But the

Vancouver Transition House could, Mr. Chairman, because they had the

resources and they had the secure funding. They could work with the

family after the parent and children left the house, in terms of not

just referring them to counselling but by monitoring them and helping

them to establish a new life — one without violence or abuse.

The Vancouver Transition House also recognized that it has a social

responsibility in terms of its relationship with government and the

community. It felt that part of its job was to pressure government into

taking more and more responsibility for meeting the needs of the

community in this area. Raising the consciousness of government — that

was one of the responsibilities which the Vancouver Transition House

saw as being their mandate for existing. They believe very strongly —

and I think everyone is coming to recognize this now — that violence is

not something that should be left to the individual who is the victim

to take care of. We don't do it in any other part of a person's life.

If you're assaulted on the streets, if you're assaulted in a public

place by anyone other than your spouse, the law steps in. The community

takes responsibility for protecting you from further assault and for

punishing the person who has assaulted you. The family is the only

arena in which violence is allowed to proceed unchecked and the

community and government says that it has no responsibility.

Battering is assault, as is every other kind of violence. It's a

crime, and the responsibility that the Vancouver Transition House took

in this area was to try to petition the Attorney-General's ministry, as

well as the federal Minister of Justice, to have the laws of the land

not just amended so that they would take more responsibility and

jurisdiction over this area but to have even the weak laws that existed

implemented in a way that they're not being implemented at this time.

I was at a conference at which the keynote speaker was a family

lawyer by the name of Nancy Morrison. She was once a judge on the

family court bench, and her argument was that we don't really need

transition houses and wouldn't need them if the law were implemented

and if the law was doing its job. Unfortunately the law is not being

implemented, and the law is not doing its job. Unfortunately

governments and society abdicate their responsibility in this area. The

one resource that we had in this province which served as a model, not

just for British Columbia but for other provinces as well, is being

gutted and destroyed by this government.

Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no question but that the quality

of service which that transition house will be able to give will be

reduced. Look at the other transition houses struggling to survive as

non-profit organizations, unable to give the 24-hour coverage, unable

to give followup service, unable to deal with the counselling and the

referrals. Understaffed as they are, underpaid as they are, with

insecure funding, limited community education and no continuous

child-care programs....

The withdrawal of the government's commitment to battered women and children could not have come at a worse

[ Page 3689 ]

time, because it's coming at a time when women are

losing support in a number of other areas. They're losing the Human

Rights Commission, they've lost the rentalsman, and they're losing

legal aid and legal services because of the cutback in that area.

They're losing the financial aid services and emergency services.

Cutbacks in the native court services and the wiping out of the Women's

Health Collective, the Vancouver Status of Women, Planned Parenthood,

post-partum counselling, Project Parent, homemakers, community

involvement services, Mosaic — which worked with immigrant women — and

a number of other services which women have come to rely on, not

because they want to be dependent but because they have a need for

those services.... All of them are being cut out from under them at the

same time as the government has chosen to launch an assault on the one

transition house service in this province and country which should be a

model for all other transition houses and services in terms of meeting

the protective and support needs of women who continue to be battered

by their spouses, and their children.

By withdrawing these vital, essential services, more pressure will

be put on the already overburdened and underfunded private agencies and

volunteer groups. They can't pick up or meet the need, or deliver the

service to the extent that it is needed. It can't be done, Mr.

Chairman; it is a step backward in the government's recognition of and

commitment to women and children in this province. It is a further

assault being visited upon those people by an uncaring government.

As I said, it couldn't come at a worse time. One more year is all we

have to meet the mandate outlined by the plan of action for the decade

of women, as established by the United Nations in 1975, and instead of

working toward our goal we are working away from it. We are leaving

women at risk and increasing the jeopardy in which they find

themselves, and we're being told it's happening because the Vancouver

Transition House was better than the others around the province, so the

Vancouver Transition House had to go. What about a commitment to

excellence? I thought that government had a commitment to excellence.

If that were the case, then the commitment would be to raise the other

transition houses to the level of delivery of service that the

Vancouver Transition House is at, not the other way around.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me go back to the

beginning of the address by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I really

want to read this into the record because I had planned to do that when

the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) took his seat.

When I made the comparison earlier today between the single parent

with three children, one in day care and two at school, I said the

gross potential — notice I said potential — disposable income was

$15,880 a year. If she was on welfare, that would include everything

that she gets on welfare, and so it should. Because she gets some of

those funds from the federal government in terms of the child tax

credit, for example, should not...?

The member sighs. Why should you sigh? All of the information,

income assistance, maximum earnings extension, Christmas bonus, day

care, school start-up allowance, family allowance, child tax credit,

medical funding, etc.: the comparable person in the same community who

is going to work, a single person with three children, one in day care

and two at school, has a net disposable income in reality — and this is

one we can say in reality and not in potential, because we took an

actual case — is $18,400 a year. So that just clears that up. Just for

the record, I'm pleased that you asked the question. I don't want to be

accused of saying something that is a little exaggerated, because it

isn't; it's reality. That's exactly the amount.

I also want to refer to the member's comments regarding the seniors.

You were mixing apples and oranges just slightly there, if you'll

forgive me for saying so. We were talking about a seniors centre with

paid staff. I made the comment that they had nine months' notice to

make alternative funding. I do expect there will be some paid staff

there; it doesn't mean that all paid staff will go. If you look back in

history, those centres were started voluntarily. Of the 156 throughout

the province, many are totally voluntary. Only 22 of them were

partially, not totally, funded by us, and it is only that service in

itself that is being taken away. It amounted to approximately $1.1

million in our total budget last year. It was an option we took because

we think they can find alternate funding. We believe they will be able

to.

You make the comment about these elderly people being in the midst

of poverty. I think you are quite aware of what the OAS federal amount

is. Also, depending upon other sources of income, if one is in need,

the GIS is added and they get the GAIN for seniors provincially. So in

total, a single in need.... You are only talking about those in need,

because if they have other sources of income.... Not that you are not

concerned about them, but you weren't bringing that to our attention.

What you are concerned about is that category in need. The single is

$568.26 a month, and a couple is $1,036.94 a month.

[4:30]

We also know that that is the group that doesn't need as many

clothes and things like that as they do when they are younger. They are

of that age group that makes. In fact, I have really, frankly, had

great comments from seniors in our province who feel that for the first

time in their lives they have some disposable income, which they never

had before when they were raising their families, and that they are

better off today than they have ever been before in their lives. Now I

know there are some exceptions to that, and I am certainly not

disagreeing with the exceptions. The trouble is that in this business

we tend to blanket. We tend to do that and make blanket statements, and

then we are caught up in that and that is used as the actual statement.

I suggest that that has been done a fair amount, especially in

discussions on social services, for some reason or another.

I am really anxious to address all of the comments that you made on

Vancouver Transition House. What is your point? You've made a comment,

Mr. Chairman, and your whole address is surrounding...all of your

comments are as if Vancouver Transition House or the service for

battered women in the city of Vancouver will no longer exist. You know

and I know — and hopefully the world will know one of these days if

many, many people don't try to disabuse them of the suggestion — that

we will have a service for battered wives and battered children in the

city of Vancouver. It will continue. Let's go back to the history of it

as you did. I give great credit to the women who did bring to the

attention of everyone and anyone who would listen to put such a

service. Yes, Vancouver was the first, but I also give credit to this

ministry, who saw that it was a need not just in the city of Vancouver

but throughout the province. We expanded the service to all of the

smaller communities in the province, and

[ Page 3690 ]

we now have 22. But if there is a need in a tinier

community that can't afford...if there is not a viable need for a

24-hour or a 7-day-a-week service, we also have a financial capability

to assist those small communities for a safe home situation — not on a

month-to-month basis but on a needs basis, which is the most practical

way to address the very tiny communities. So in effect we have all

through the province a service, and we are very pleased that we have

it. You see, we're not changing the program in the city of Vancouver;

we are getting out of the business of operating it ourselves. That's

really the difference.

Let me tell you what the cost is of operation. The cost of operating

the transition house in the city of Vancouver is around $350,000 a

year. I am going to get you that figure in about two shakes; I had it

here a minute ago. At any rate, I want to read into the record what

other people are saying about the transition house. Let me just read

you one particular letter because I think it's important. It comes from

the community of Richmond, which is close to the city of Vancouver; it

is in the area just outside. There is the Chimo personal distress

intervention service in the community of Richmond. Let me just quote

from a letter that they sent to the supervisor and staff of Vancouver

Transition House:

"Dea r Staff,

"On behalf of the board of directors of Chimo Personal

Distress Intervention Service in Richmond, I wish to take exception to

some of the comments made by your spokesperson, Donna Clay, that

recently appeared in the press. These comments implied that all

non-profit society transition houses provide a second-rate service

because of the understaffing. Despite the fact that our staff salaries

and benefits at Nova House are considerably less than those of

Vancouver Transition House, we have nevertheless been able to attract

highly qualified staff, whose dedication has compensated for the less

than desirable level of staffing. Not only have we been able to serve a

similar number of clients (109 women and 160 children in 1983) and

contrary to Ms. Clay's comments, we have provided an educational

program whenever a request has been made, and have conducted a followup

of our residents.

"One other point deserves comment. It is the board of

directors of a society running a transition house that must 'hustle for

funding,' not the staff, whose sole responsibility is to serve the

clients.

"While we agree that it would be desirable to have

government-operated transition houses throughout the province, and

higher staff levels, we think that this point can be conveyed without

denigrating the services offered by the other transition houses and,

most important of all, without leaving women, who might need to avail

themselves of transition house shelter, with the impression that no

good service is available to meet their needs after March 31, 1984.

"I trust that future statements will be more carefully

worded so that we can work together to support each other in providing

the best possible service to women in need."

This is signed by Dr. Lois Karabilgin, who is the vice-president of

the Chimo personal distress intervention service in Richmond. I think

she makes the point that if we are all as concerned as the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds conveys to this House and as concerned as the women who

represent the service in the city of Vancouver, then I think we should

not prejudge. We have had an excellent service through the whole of

this province. It has grown very quickly within the last four years. We

have 22 transitions houses throughout the province in just four years'

time, including a service in tiny communities in just a very short

time. I don't think we should have a blanket condemnation in advance of

those very good organizations which have applied to operate this house.

We may perhaps even have two services in the city of Vancouver when

need be. Why should we condemn them in advance?

I think that what we are

doing is simply making the Vancouver service consistent with the rest

of the province. It's going to be under new management, true, but let

us not condemn in advance that new management. I trust they will do a

very good job, and like all of the 600 other services we purchase on an

agreement basis with societies and organizations throughout this

province — a very varied group of services, such as services for

children, battered women, the mentally retarded, or whatever the

service is — the city of Vancouver will be consistent. And if they're

not delivering the service, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds suspects

they will not be able to do, I can tell you here and now that that

group we will be having an agreement with will not be providing the

service; we'll find somebody who can properly do it. That's the

flexibility we have with these agreements, and that is the

responsibility and the accountability we have with these services. So

let's talk about the kind of service that will be there in the city of

Vancouver for the women in need and not give the impression that there

will not be a service there after March 31.

Vancouver Transition House, as I said, had a budget of $350,000 in the past year.

MS. BROWN: Once again I just want to get the figures

straight, because the minister throws out figures and I wouldn't want

to leave the impression that Vancouver Transition House is a luxury

hotel by any means. I want to make some comparisons. Vancouver

Transition House last year, for that $350,000, dealt with approximately

350 families, which works out to about $1,000 per family, who would

stay there for an approximate average of about two weeks, I think. I

want us to compare that with what it costs in corrections, for example,

where the figure is something like $60,000 a year to keep one person in

jail. For that $350,000, Vancouver Transition House hired ten workers,

two child-care workers and one supervisor to provide service for 24

hours a day, around the clock. If it costs us $1,000 to help someone

who is being battered, I don't think that's so expensive. I don't think

that's unreasonable at all.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We're not arguing that.

MS. BROWN: Okay, so we're agreeing on that. That's fine. Let

the record show that the minister didn't throw that figure out to show

that Vancouver Transition House was being overfunded in any way.

I don't mind the minister taking credit for the fact that there has

been some expansion. There are now 22 other transition houses around

the province. But let the record show that every single one of those

transition houses had to fight to come into existence. I was a part of

some of those battles for those houses to be licensed and made

legitimate by the ministry. It wasn't easy. The ministry didn't go out

and

[ Page 3691 ]

initiate the establishment of any of those houses. The communities

perceived the need, and then they had to sell that idea to the ministry

and convince the ministry that that need had to be met in that

particular community. Once it's in place, take credit. But let the real

credit go where it starts, and that is to the women in the community

who tried to raise the consciousness of this government in terms of its

responsibility to women.

The minister asks what I want. I do not want Vancouver Transition

House to be contracted out. That is the bottom line. I am saying that

despite the quality of service that other transition houses, including

Chimo, Life Line, Maude Bevan and the others are able to give as a

result of being part of a non-profit organization, their quality is not

as good. They have not been able to meet the needs in as effective a

way, despite whatever letters you may get from whomever. I do not want

to become a part of that internecine battle that is going on there. The

quality of service that you can get from an organization that is open

24 hours a day, staffed 24 hours a day, with adequate staffing and

secure funding, by workers who are making a decent income, cannot be

compared with.... As I read into the record and said to the

minister about the funding that comes for an organization like Life

Line in Burnaby, where they have had to cut back their hours, where

there is no staffing after 8 o'clock at night, where the women get

harassed if their husbands find out what the address is.... I'm not

saying that the other houses aren't doing the best they can; they are

doing the best they can. But their best is not as good as it could be

if they had the kind of secure funding and protection that Vancouver

Transition House has been able to have simply by virtue of the fact

that the government took full responsibility.

The decision now to contract it out to the private sector is not a

good decision. It is going to affect the quality of care. The decision

that, in the event it is not possible to find someone to deliver that

service by the deadline, the ministry is going to put the battered

women and children into motels and other short-term

accommodation.... If this comment is correct — and I hope it isn't

— then that really is a giant step backwards. The kind of service that

a family gets in a transition house is not delivered by a motel or a

hotel.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Why would you say that on the floor of the House and leave that impression?

MS. BROWN: Is the Ministry of Human Resources intending to

put battered women and their children into motels and other short-term

accommodation in the event that no agency can be set up and

arrangements made for financing a shelter by the deadline established

by the ministry?

The other thing is that service to battered women is not one where

individuals, groups, societies or boards should be out "hustling for

funds," as was read by the minister out of that letter. That should be

a responsibility of the community at large, as manifest in our

government. We take responsibility for education and health. We take

responsibility for violence directed to everyone else in every other

circumstance except violence in the home. It's time for us to recognize

that we also have to take responsibility for the violence that children

and spouses experience in the home. That's all I am saying.

[4:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, we have taken

responsibility, and the record of this government is clear. I've

already said it. I don't need to repeat it; it's taking up the time of

the House. But I do want to respond, because it is in the record now

and it will probably be in the press that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds is accusing the Ministry of Human Resources of putting

up battered women and their families in motels as a solution to closing

out their direct service in Vancouver Transition House. The answer is

no, no, no. We are not going to take that route. We have every

indication that by the time we need to change management we will have

sufficient — in fact very adequate — services to put in their place to

continue the service and not change the policy or the service. But to

just do it under different management — that's what it's all about. I

would like to give credit to the ministry, who have, I think, a good

record in the past in this regard; I'm proud of my ministry's record in

that regard. I think we have proven that we can deliver a service

throughout the province, and we can have good accountability through

that kind of delivery of service. So just in case there is any

suggestion that we are going to have that service in an inadequate way,

please let me set the record straight.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, like all speakers, I promise to be

brief; like all promises, I probably won't be. I have two or three

short questions to place before the minister before I get into the

other part of my remarks. They are in a sense statistical. She may not

have the numbers at her fingertips, but if the numbers aren't present,

the policy responses will have to do for today.

I want to ask whether it's customary of Human Resources to demand a

wage assignment if a citizen in need of money is awaiting a WCB appeal.

Is that question understood?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, it is.

MR. ROSE: All right. I want to know if it's possible for the

minister to tell me how many citizens are under a wage assignment when

receiving social assistance while waiting for WCB appeals. Finally,

under what legal authority are wage assignments required?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To the member for Coquitlam-Moody, the

answer to the question is yes, we do require a wage assignment, or in

some cases ask for a wage assignment. The reason is that it is a

payment that is given....

Once the WCB payment comes through, it is given retroactively back

to the ministry to provide to other people who are in need. I don't

know how many — I can't give you that figure, and I don't know if we

could get that figure. I'm not so sure; we probably could do so with a

lot of work. I don't think, though, that for purposes of discussion you

really need the number. It isn't a great number, but it is a fact that

that is our policy.

But overall, that authority is given through the GAIN Act, and if

one looks at what income assistance is all about, it's help to people

in time of need. If, when that need is over, they have a lump-sum

payment, which again would be retroactive in this case, you can hardly

expect us not to have an assignment. We could be highly criticized, as

a matter of fact, for not taking an assignment of wages. I don't think

there is anybody who is awaiting WCB payments who wants us —

[ Page 3692 ]

the province, the state or the taxpayer — to pay twice. They want to

have their WCB payments because they cannot work, but once they get

that lump sum, I don't think they also want to retain the other, which

is the income assistance payment which the taxpayers provided to hold

them over. So it's on that basis that we take the assignment. I think

it's a fair policy, and we haven't really had any problems — I

personally haven't had any as a minister in this regard.

MR. ROSE: Well, thank you, to the minister. I'm quite certain

that many people would agree with the minister that no one should be

paid twice. I wouldn't suggest, however, that it's likely that many of

these people would be running around in Cadillacs because they were

paid twice.

I'm concerned about this for a couple of reasons, and I'll get into

those shortly. I'm looking at the Canada Assistance Plan, and in the

preamble

it says that "...persons in need and the prevention and removal of

the causes of poverty and dependence on public assistance are the concerns of

all Canadians," and that parliament "is desirous of encouraging the

further development...." Then they go on in the act to define what need

is. "'Person in need' means a person who, by reason of inability

to obtain employment, loss of the principal family provider, illness, disability,

age or any other cause...is found to be unable, on the basis of a test establ