1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2129 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Committee of Supply: Department of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement estimates.

Mrs. Jordan — 2129

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2132

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2136

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2136

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2136

Mr. Rolston — 2137

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2139

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2139

Mr. Wallace — 2140

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2144

Mr. Richter — 2145

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2146

Mr. McClelland — 2146

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2146

Mr. McClelland — 2146

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2152

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2152

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2153

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2153

Mr. Wallace — 2153

Mr. McGeer — 2155

Mr. Phillips — 2156

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2158

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2158

Mr. Fraser — 2159

Mrs. Jordan — 2159

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2162

Mr. Chabot — 2163

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2164

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION

AND SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT

(continued)

On vote 238: Minister's office, $72,484.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Last night in this debate I think we saw a pretty classic

example of the actions of this government as they displayed

themselves in Opposition. They used to squeak and squeal when

they were in Opposition whenever they got the business. They're

still acting like the Opposition. They couldn't stand the heat

then, Mr. Chairman, and they can't stand the heat now.

At that time, when they were in Opposition, the carpet of

this chamber practically ran red with the blood of names of

innocent citizens in this province and people in this

Legislature through character assassination by the now Premier

of this province and many of his Members who sit with him. This

character assassination continues.

Mr. Chairman, last night the name of Bill Hesketh was

mentioned. I want to make it very clear for the record and the

public that, in my opinion, Mr. Hesketh is one of the

outstanding workers of the John Howard Society. He has served

this province well since he came here from England. He has

served the John Howard Society well. He has dedicated himself

to those people who have needed his help. Let there be no

mistake that this man's contribution is one worthy of praise

anywhere in this province.

I stand fully behind this man. I've had the privilege of

working with him and his associates. I resent the fact that his

name is brought up in the House.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): In the most complimentary

terms.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, you brought up his name. Mr. Premier, in a

debate like that, when you bring in the name of an innocent citizen of the

public, you leave them subject to all sorts of questions. I want to set

the record straight…however his name has entered into this debate, Mr. Hesketh's

name is above reproach. I'm sure the Minister would agree, From the Premier

on down, the Members opposite have all said that this is the most radical government

in the whole of North America. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the only group

in this House who is seeking to show the other side of the question are Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Social Credit Members.

The Liberals and Conservatives appear tired and uncommitted.

They're tired, and uncommitted to anything other than going

home at this stage of the session. I tell you, Mr. Chairman,

the people out there in the communities know what's going on in

this House. They are joining with this Opposition and the

Social Credit Party to help put the other side of the question

before the people. They're joining by the hundreds, Mr.

Chairman, every day. While we are only 10 here, we are joined

out there by tens of thousands outside this House.

These people are alarmed and they are concerned by the

actions of the NDP government. While the Liberals and the

Conservatives want to abdicate their role in this House, I

assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we will stay and fight as long

as that leader over there wants to throw his radical policies

before this Legislature, his radical actions and uncontrollable

actions before this Legislature, to try and force radical

policies…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: …that negate justice and equality before the

people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her

remarks to the estimates before us please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that last night to both the

Minister and the Premier himself.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, last night's childish tirade by

the Premier can only indicate that last night's questions and

statements hit this government and the Premier exactly where

they were designed, and that was in their conscience.

The NDP knows, the Premier knows, and the Minister of

Rehabilitation knows that the NDP Government are guilty of

using the senior citizens of British Columbia in a shameful

political sham before the election, during the election and,

regrettably, during this session. The Premier knows that he

has

[ Page 2130 ]

funneled over $20 million of senior citizens' money —

desperately-needed money by the senior citizens — into

handicapped companies rather than into the pockets of the

senior citizens and into benefits for senior citizens which

they so badly need.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that to drag the emotional red

herrings across this floor that the Premier did certainly only

serves to prove the point that the position does not make the

man.

It makes us feel, when we watch him break under the heat and

the questioning of his policies regarding senior citizens, that

he's tired and cynical at 40 and after only six months in

office. It makes us feel, Mr. Chairman, when he breaks out into

this emotional tirade when he's under pressure — and he's done

it in many areas, including TV — that he's not really concerned

with the plight of senior citizens in British Columbia today.

We wonder if, in fact, he is not willing to stoop to any

political depth to try and hide a weak policy.

That Premier has a Minister in charge of the Department of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, and while I may not

fully agree with the Minister's actions and his statements —

and I'm quite prepared to criticize them and offer him

suggestions — I do think he is quite capable of standing in

this House and answering the questions and putting his own

policies before the people.

The Premier said last night that there hadn't been any

constructive criticism or constructive suggestions. I point out

to the Premier that there are three bills, one of which is

under my own name, before this House which offer realistic,

practical and constructive suggestions towards the alleviation

of some of the most serious rehabilitation and human problems

in the Province of British Columbia. I won't mention the

details of them, but there's an On the Job Training Act

and a Minimum Income Programme. The Premier doesn't consider

this to be constructive. What an extraordinary reaction.

I and the Members of this side of the House have

consistently asked the Premier and Minister of Finance and we

are asking the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement to recognize the dire plight of the renting senior

citizen in British Columbia. Our constructive suggestion in

this vein is not only to meet the commitment made to the people

by the former government of raising that rental grant every

year, but to raise it at least by $50 a year. On the basis of

last year's figures and this year' s projections this would be

approximately another $3 million.

When we look at the tight rental situation developing in British Columbia and

the nothing but shattering rising cost of living which affects the senior citizens

so greatly and so personally, there could be another $3 million added to that

and we could raise it to a $150 a year. Mr. Minister, that total addition would

cost the province a little more than $3 million. Is that not a constructive

suggestion? The money is there. Use part of the $23-odd million coming from

the federal government to assist with the minimum income plan. Pass it on to

the citizens this way.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, that can be considered a constructive

programme — not only in its intent, but by the fact that it

cannot be taxed by the federal government out of their hands,

by the fact that the Minister has his own people in the field

looking at rent raises, and by the fact that the money is known

to be there.

How can the Premier be critical of such a suggestion? How

can he not accept such a suggestion? If he has a better plan,

then let's hear it in the House this morning.

If the Minister of Rehabilitation has given this matter much

thought, and I believe he has, then let him answer our

questions. If you won't accept this plan today, retroactive to

April 1, or whenever the bill of supply is passed, what

alternative do you offer the citizens of British Columbia today

to meet their plight?

I couldn't help but look on with some amusement last night

when the Hon. First Member, the Liberal Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, rose in indignation and unleashed a

vicious attack on me personally.

It only serves to show how bankrupt they are in their

arguments. The Liberals in this House, the people of Canada,

and certainly the senior citizens of Canada and British

Columbia, know that the federal Liberal government policy in

relation to senior citizens has for years been nothing short of

ludicrous.

If the Hon. Member for Point Grey wants to wallow in the

past, then let's remind him and let's remind the leader of his

party who sits in this House today, who we hope will speak on

this vote on behalf of the senior citizens and who was a member

of the federal House of Parliament when the Liberal pension

policy for 1972 was unveiled, what the Liberal largesse of that

day was to the senior citizens of Canada.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member should be

discussing the administrative responsibility of the Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, not commenting on the

policies of the other political parties.

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman, because in all reality the Minister

knows and I know and the Liberals know that one of his most serious administrative

problems, in trying to do something for the senior citizens of British Columbia,

is, in fact, the federal Liberal policies. I would be sure that Mr. Chairman

himself would appreciate the point.

[ Page

2131 ]

Forty-two cents a month increase the pensioners of British

Columbia got in 1972 from the federal Liberal government.

Forty-two cents, Mr. Chairman. And if I'm not mistaken the

Liberal Members of the House, where the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria sat, gave themselves something like a 20 per cent pay

increase.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement has to contend with this type of Liberal largesse

and we appreciate his problem.

But in 1972, under the duress of an election, they then gave

the senior citizens $3 per month, Mr. Chairman. Three dollars

per month across Canada. No recognition that British Columbia

has a higher percentage increase and a higher migration of

senior citizens than anywhere else in Canada. No recognition by

the federal government that the cost of living in British

Columbia is higher because we have a higher educated labour

force, that we have higher average wages, that there are many

other factors such as higher transportation costs, in a Liberal

policy that affects these people.

And now, Mr. Chairman, and this is where I fault the

Minister provincially, under the duress of defeat, the federal

Liberal government — and I might give credit to the Hon.

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Turner) at the federal level,

that he did kick his cabinet colleagues in the slats and made

them realize in part their obligations to the senior citizens —

has offered $17-odd more a month. It's a tired old Liberal

policy, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister has to contend with,

and we appreciate that, but we find it a little bit ludicrous

when that Member for Vancouver–Point Grey tries to fault the

previous Social Credit administration with every sin in

relation to senior citizens.

We fault this Minister and this Minister of Finance and the

Premier of this province for not passing those $17 per month

benefits on to the senior citizens of this province.

In listening to the Hon. Liberal Member and his party in

B.C., who have Uncle Davey who weeps for the senior citizens, I

would remind him of the antiquated federal Liberal income tax

structure which punishes the prudent senior citizen and makes

it so difficult for this Minister to add some of the benefits

that I feel he would like to, without having it taken back by

the federal government and without, in fact, doubly taxing the

working citizens of British Columbia.

The federal government taxes the senior citizens in Canada and British Columbia

below the poverty level. Why, Mr. Chairman, when this Hon. Member enters this

debate on behalf of senior citizens doesn't he get on that hotline to Ottawa?

Why doesn't he support Mr. Turner, the Minister of Finance down there, in at

least allowing what Canada considers the poverty level as a minimum income tax

exemption for senior citizens who have worked hard

and saved and done without, who have had priorities towards their home and their

families, in a position where their income today is being taxed a second time

and that their actual pocket spending money is less than if they were on welfare?

I sympathize with the Minister in having to contend with

this.

Mr. Chairman, in British Columbia the Social Credit

administration brought in a programme for building senior

citizens' housing, believing that community involvement — and I

believe the Minister supports this approach — is absolutely

essential in order to see that all types of social services,

not just senior citizens, have an interacting relationship with

the community. So the local community put up 10 per cent and

the Social Credit administration, which the Hon. Liberal Member

says never did anything for senior citizens, gave the 30 per

cent cash grant to these projects. The only strings attached

were that the buildings be of an acceptable standard,

convenient for senior citizens and hopefully in a location

where the senior citizens could take

part in the community — an

outright cash grant. No loan, no interest to be paid back.

And what did the federal government do? What was the federal

Liberal policy, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister has to contend

with? They loaned them back their own tax money — not through

an accepted Crown corporation, a government agency, so that

there could be a low interest rate of 1 or 2 or 3 per cent,

just to cover administrative costs, but through private

agencies with private money so that the senior citizens of

British Columbia had to borrow the money to build their homes

and pay an interest rate anywhere from 6 to 8 per cent. Not a

low interest rate, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask the Minister if he is going to continue a policy

whereby the province will grant money rather than lend it and

prevail upon this little band with the Liberal largesse to give

their grants outright, so that the senior citizens can really

have low cost housing. They want to be independent. Don't

shackle them with interest rates that they can't possibly meet

in these days of high cost of living.

I mentioned last night that it is our opinion that this

Government has unleashed inflationary forces in British

Columbia that were not necessary, by giving to those that have

and putting those that have not in the position where even what

they have is being taken away by inflation.

Why, Mr. Chairman, hasn't the federal government brought in

responsible price and wage guidelines to Canada? It is going to

have to come. It has consistently been the position of the

Social Credit Party in this Opposition that this must be an

undertaking in Canada until inflation is brought

[ Page 2132 ]

under control. Instead of doing this we had a policy of

planned unemployment and spiraling inflation.

The Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement in the

Province of British Columbia must accept part of the

responsibility of the policy of his own government in relation

to the cost-price squeeze in which the senior citizens find

themselves today.

I hope that when the Liberals stand in this House to debate

this estimate, they will back the Social Credit Party and the

Opposition Members in asking for a rent granters increase — and

let's go for $150, Mr. Minister — and that they will back our

efforts to have the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement have the freedom he needs to put those $17 benefits

into the hands of the senior citizens.

Mr. Minister, last night I asked you some specific questions

and you didn't answer them so I'll go over some of them again.

The two paramount questions are:(

l) will you raise the senior

citizen renter's grant to $150 a year as of April 1? (2) will

you pass on the rest of the benefits of that $17 and bring it

up to $225 a month?

We would like to know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, about your rent sleuths. I don't criticize the

Minister for having people go out in the field and do this. I

think this is necessary. Most of the landlords in British

Columbia are responsible, honest citizens, looking for just a

fair return on their investment. But there are abusers — he

recognizes it and frankly I think he's to be commended. But we

don't really like you not revealing their names because of what

you call the 'snooping' Press. If there are reasons not to

reveal their names, Mr. Minister, I can accept this. But we

would like to know basically what they are doing and how

successful they have been and what exactly are the findings.

Are senior citizens being gouged in some instances as we

believe they are? Are some of them literally being turfed out

into the streets by inflation and irresponsible landlords?

There are other questions about that, but perhaps the

Minister would like to cover the field and then I'll ask

after.

I asked the Minister some specific questions about Mincome.

The first was in relation to the application form. The Minister

still hasn't answered in this House in the oral question and

answer period or under his estimates. I quote: "Your answers

will in no way affect your elibiligy…el — el — eleg…"

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Eligibility.

MRS. JORDAN: -for Mincome assistance." Mr. Minister, do you

stand by that statement? Is it not compulsory and will not be

compulsory for elderly citizens to answer this questionnaire if

they choose not to? Will it in no way affect their

receipts?

We want to know the actual cost to date of Mincome, the

number of citizens receiving it and the average payment —

single and double or couple.

We would like to know about the Mincome advertising

programme. Who devised the ads? Whose voice is on the ads? What

expenses did that voice receive and what remuneration British

Columbia must accept part of the responsibility for the policy

of his own government?

I have some more specific questions, Mr. Minister, relating

to last night, but perhaps you'd like to answer those and I'll

ask the others at a later date.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the Hon. Member

to the order paper 152 which gives you a breakdown of all of

the people on Mincome, how many there are and how many are

getting what what amount of money — the average is $42. There

is also on the order paper answers to questions relating to the

advertising. I can't really tell you who are on the ads, who

were the voices, except that they were the voices of two senior

citizens and that they were paid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be Votes and

Proceedings.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm sorry, Votes and Proceedings. In

respect of the Mincome form, that's not an application form.

It's needed for statistical purposes to comply with the federal

regulations. I replied in the House the other day, I think, on

about five different occasions that I am not going to say that

people are going to be punished if they do not return the form

up to now — and it's four weeks on Thursday that we sent it

out. We have almost 75,000 forms back out of 108,000 that we

had to send out. So we're in no way concerned. The forms are

coming back and we're prepared to wait two or three months

anyway.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not prepared to do any prophesizing. The

thing is that the cooperation we're getting from the senior

citizens is really astounding. So that's it. I'm prepared to

wait and see.

I want to just go back. The Hon. Member constantly refers to

the fact that we won't pass on something to the senior

citizens. We said in the campaign and in the House last

October that we were guaranteeing $200 a month to people and

that we would make up their income.

There was a departure from the previous government's practice. For instance,

we treated couples as human beings and individuals and paid

[ Page

2133 ]

them $200 each, which is not what the previous government

did.

Our commitment was $200. The programme is four months old.

With the handicapped, it's costing about $5 million a

month.

The Hon. Member might be interested in knowing that in 1966

there was a supplementary allowance for senior citizens which

the province was paying out. It was $25 and on January 1, 1967,

it was $30. At that time the GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement)

was introduced by the federal government. There were 20,000

people in receipt of the supplementary allowance. As soon as

the GIS was introduced, the former government cut everybody off — 20,000 people. They didn't pass on the increase. They just

kept it and dumped it into general revenue. What we're doing…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, you're darned right we do. But that's not

difficult. We've got nowhere to go but up since we've taken

over, so there's no problem.

The thing is that we said that there was a saving of about

$24 million. You've been wanting to know what we're going to do

with the money. Well, last night we announced what we're going

to do with the money. We've put up the social assistance rates.

We're making it possible for the working poor, the people who

are working at the minimum wage level, to come to us and ask

for assistance up to the level that we're giving to social

assistance recipients. That's what we're doing with it. We're

on our way to a guaranteed minimum income for everybody. That's

what we're doing.

I was in the House in 1969 when the former Premier talked

about doing it. He had lots of opportunity to do all sorts of

thing but he didn't do it. We're doing it. We're having

discussions with Ottawa at the same time but we know that

they're going one way and we're going another, so we do it

anyway. That's our commitment. In doing the kind of things we

do, we tend to nudge the federal government in the direction

that we're going in anyway.

I think one can be optimistic about the kind of sharing that

we can expect in the future. Next month we're going to have

discussions with the Ministers on two particular things. One is

the children's allowance. The other will be on a redefinition

under the Canada Assistance Plan of the income test.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, we haven't done too badly up

to now. We take quite a bit of the credit for the increase that was given in

January.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I don't know. You never spoke to them.

I don't know how you can take any credit; you were never there.

No, neither was your leader ever there. You know, he's the

famous man with the empty seat.

You were talking about the renter's grant. We've already

made a change to the renter's grant in respect of people under

65 where there is a couple. That's not my department. I'm quite

in favour of that. We're getting money to the senior citizens

in a different way, through the Mincome. That's quite

reasonable.

Again, we will review the situation in the fall when the

programme has been operating for some months. You know, we get

a programme going and four months afterwards people tell us

that we have to start introducing a cost-of-living bonus. The

initial cost-of-living bonus that we introduced averaged $42

which was quite a bit of catch-up over the years that you

people didn't do anything.

You've referred to the fact that we're the most radical

government in Canada — well, in North America. If being radical

means that you deliver money to people who need it, that you

deliver money to children who need it, then I plead guilty. We

are radical in that sense.

As for being inflationary, there's a possibility of $60

million more going into the economy. There will be the sharing

from the participation of the federal government. I'm not as

pessimistic as you about the federal government. We've been

talking to them continually since about October 1. We've made

some pretty good strides, in terms of my department. I'm not as

down on them as you are.

In respect to the rents, I announced in January that we had

had three people — who were not paid, who agreed to do it for

nothing — make some inquiries on our behalf in terms of the

letters that we got. We found that while there was some rent

gouging and we did speak to some landlords — and some, not all

of them, did roll back — we felt the industry was substantially

cooperative. I met with the two apartment owners'

associations. They gave me the reports of surveys they had done

and I said at that time, November of 1972, that they had been

extremely cooperative. In no way were we critical of those two

organizations which have membership of most of the apartment

owners in the lower mainland area. They were extremely

cooperative. There was only one instance where there was an 8

per cent increase.

But we did find, as I said last night, that there were some

very serious increases in terms of private hospitals. So all in

all, we've lived up to what we

[ Page 2134 ]

wanted to do. There was a great deal of discussion about the

responsibility of landlords not to gouge people. We agree that

we would not go the route of rent control. The only solution

for that kind of situation is more housing stock. We've said

all this before.

Just one final thing. The Member keeps referring to low-cost

housing. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs said during

his estimates the other day that the days of low-cost housing

are over. We're building housing for people. There's no more

low-cost housing.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, that's your kind of economics. I can't

deal with that kind of thing. I think I've answered all of the

questions that you asked.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: You may not be satisfied with the answers,

but I've answered them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I meant to be in

a committee. If I have to sit here and wait through a whole

series of people…We in the Opposition parties cannot attend

to committee work. Now, if you're going to recognize Government

backbenchers….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you'll please keep the shouts down on

the extreme right. The question is, Mr. Chairman, we can

operate and function effectively provided there is some

latitude and generosity shown by you in recognizing Members. I

have a meeting on right now. The Government has an enormous

number of backbenchers. Therefore I have to either be in the

committee or be here waiting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is well taken. The

Hon. Member for Dewdney is prepared to give up his place to you

at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Hon. Member for Dewdney but,

Mr. Chairman, a certain amount of this is going to…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A certain amount of this is going to have to devolve

upon you. We are quite willing to cooperate with the Government, despite the

mismanagement of the House Leader up to now. But we do need to have a certain

amount of flexibility so that we can attend…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The flexibility will be

granted. I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Great. Very good. Mr. Chairman, the

points I want to put to the Minister deal with both Mincome and

the increases in welfare and also the assistance to the working

poor. I repeat what was said last night by a spokesman for this

party. That is, we appreciate and are in favour of the

announcements of the Minister in this regard.

However, we are still faced with the problem which appears

to be increasing as a result of his recent statements and the

recent changes in policy. This is the problem of what you might

call incentive. Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, let

me go back to the Mincome as passed last fall.

The situation is that if a person gets any income

whatsoever, the full amount of it is deducted from the Mincome

payments. This has been illustrated very clearly in the case of

the $17.12 by which the federal government will be increasing

pensions in April of this year. If your income is around $200 a

month, $17.12 is a substantial increase. Yet, as the Minister

has made clear on a number of occasions, this will not be

received by the recipients of Mincome.

The point is this. We have people who are senior citizens

but are capable of earning a little on the side. But if they do

that, every dollar that they earn will be deducted. We have

senior citizens who have a little saved up and thus get a

little bit of investment income, perhaps only $2 or $3 or $10

or $15 a month. That again will be deducted from the Mincome

payment in its entirety. There will be no provision made for

keeping any of these moneys which they either earn or get from

minor investment income.

During the fall I went into this in some detail with the

Minister in this House. I gave a number of examples. Basically,

in terms of investments, the cutoff is something around

$20,000. If a person has put aside a nest egg of $20,000

throughout his life, it's worthless to him under the Mincome

provisions. That has, of course, been changed slightly by the

federal changes. Obviously, my figures are not still accurate

from that point of view. But the principle remains the

same.

For every single dollar that a person gets, either from investment income or

from a little work outside, a dollar is taken away under Mincome. We think that

is most unfortunate. For example, with respect to earnings, I had a gentleman

come to see me

[ Page

2135 ]

a short time ago. He'd been working as an enumerator. He's a senior citizen

an active and capable fellow. He's retired and wanted to go out and earn a few

dollars as an enumerator during the last federal election.

He went from door to door checking people off on the list

and doing the normal tasks of an enumerator. That's not a

well-paid job. On an hourly basis, it probably works out to

something under the minimum wage for the province. It's paid on

piece work, according to the number of people who are recorded

on the lists, so the minimum wage doesn't apply. But it's not a

well-paid job.

He got lots of healthy exercise and he says he enjoyed it.

He met lots of people. He found it a lot of fun and then he

found that every single dollar he earned was taken away from

him. Every single dollar, every single cent was taken away from

him by the Mincome provision. Now quite clearly, if he's on

Mincome he's not a wealthy fellow.

Quite clearly, here's a chap who's willing to do something —

a useful job for society — trying to help us in our electoral

process in the democratic system. He's trying to do something

useful. He's trying to keep himself alert, aware and involved

in normal society, and he's doing a pretty good job of it. But,

whatever he gets in the way of money is taken away in its

entirety.

Now, we have provisions that came out — increases that were

announced last night — and again, as I said, we welcome them.

But the principle that we talked about in the past and that I'm

talking about now remains, as far as I can see, unfortunately

in the proposals of the Minister. That is: if you are going to

subsidize the income of a person earning, for example, $320 a

month — if you're going to bring it up to, say $400, to use

round figures; in that $80, there is apparently no allowance

whatsoever in that area for giving him a credit for extra

work.

In other words, if he earned $340 instead of $320 — $20

difference — if he earned $20 more, what would happen, as far

as I can see, is precisely the same thing that happens under

Mincome — that $20 would just disappear. There would be no

benefit for going out and working a little harder, working on a

Saturday or something like that, and hustling and getting that

extra $20. It just wouldn't happen that it would wind up in his

pocket.

I'm not saying that it's an easy problem for the Minister to

solve. I'm not saying that you can make blanket regulations

which are going to be applicable in all circumstances. But I do

feel that we have to have some recognition in Mincome and in

the welfare payments and the supplements that are paid for the

working poor, to take account of this problem.

My own recommendation, which I made to the Minister last fall, was that we

should use the two to one rule. That is, that if a person earns $2 you should

at least give him a credit for one of them — allow him to keep one of

them. If you take away 50 per cent, which is what you're doing, I think it's

a pretty savage rate of taxation or confiscation, especially when you are dealing

with people who are not earning a great deal of money. Nevertheless, it will

allow a person like the man I mentioned to keep one dollar out of two; it's

better than not allowing him to keep any dollars at all.

It's a lot better to allow him 50 per cent of what he earns — to tax the poor, if you want to call it that in terms of 50

per cent, than to tax the poor at the confiscatory rate of 100

per cent. Not even the wealthiest in this country are taxed at

the rate of 100 per cent — at the rate of confiscation. Yet the

people at the lowest end of the scale are treated this way.

We just feel that in principle it's wrong. It's wrong in

terms of fairness. It's wrong in every respect and certainly

it's wrong in terms of initiative and in terms of trying to

change the mental attitude of many people who perhaps are

feeling that it's not worth struggling, they may want to give

up.

In other words, in terms of incentive to get them off the

rolls of the working poor or the welfare rolls, or whatever

else it might be, if you have a system which confiscates every

dollar they earn outside of or below the limit, you are, I

think creating a psychological climate in which you are keeping

these people down instead of giving them the opportunity to

come up.

I know it's a difficult thing, I mentioned that a moment

ago. I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy for you to do.

But if it's possible under the federal government Guaranteed

Income Supplement — the federal GIS — to give a two to one

allowance, or I should say, a one for two allowance, surely

it's possible under provincial schemes, both under Mincome and

under welfare and under assistance to the working poor, to do

the same thing. It's not insurmountable and if we don't do

this, in my mind, we are simply forcing people into the very

categories that allegedly we're trying to get them out of.

If we just do not give them any credit whatsoever, for any

initiative they show; if we don't give them any encouragement

when they try and get out of their low income levels, if they

try and rise above it, in my mind, we are simply creating a

situation in which the mental attitudes of these people will

be, "What the hell, it's not worth trying, I can sit here

earning $300 or $250 a month. I know I could earn a lot more if

I tried, but it's really not worth it." Because he doesn't know

whether he could get up to the level at which the Minister

would stop paying him money. In other words, he doesn't know

whether he could cross over the level….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw the term "what the hell".

[ Page 2136 ]

I think that's certainly…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll certainly withdraw "what the

hell."

AN HON. MEMBER: What the heck. What the heck.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My more brilliant colleague behind me…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I gather you've withdrawn the remark.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Well, what the heck. O.K. What the

heck's the difference anyway?

But as far as this goes, we have to get people out of a

mental attitude. It's just as important to get them out of a

mental attitude as it is to get them at a different income

level. The Minister, I'm sure is fully aware of this.

This system that he's set up, I think is good from the point

of view of income. There's no question that it's an improvement

and we in this party appreciate the fact and we're delighted

that it apparently is going to be a scheme which will be funded

with joint federal and provincial funding to the tune of about

50 per cent more by the federal government and the provincial. We think this is right too. I see I have support

from one of the cabinet Ministers for my suggestions here. But in any event, I wonder if the Minister could comment on

this. What plans does he have to change Mincome from a

confiscatory plan in terms of the people that I have referred

to? What plans does he have to change the assistance for

working poor and the welfare schemes so that they too make some

provision for incentive?

My real fear is this: while in this House we will talk

glowingly about improving the lot of these people, at the same

time we will be creating mental attitudes which will pass on

from generation to generation, which will mean that in the long

run we really won't be doing a great deal for them.

Now, these are relatively simple points. It's perhaps

difficult for the Minister to come out with a full-fledged

plan, but I would like some indication of his future

intentions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: I appreciate the comments of the Member. We've been grappling

with this; we did talk last fall about it. Let me just make reference to the

working poor, You're anticipating a little bit of what we're attempting to do.

We're looking at an allowable earnings exemption in the way that exists now

for $50 for single people — there is $100 for married people on welfare. We're

looking at that kind of possibility.

I'm not as negative, frankly, about the…I don't feel

that the kind of incentive or disincentive the people worry

about with this kind of thing…it's not my experience that

this kind of thing won't happen now that we've been much more

generous in the money that we're making available. However, on

that side, we are certainly looking at it.

Now on the Mincome thing, it's an entirely different

situation. First of all, if we are successful over the next

couple of months with the federal government to get the whole

thrust of the CAP changed to an income test rather than a means

test, then you know, it's very possible to do the thing the

Member wants to do. You've got to remember that the federal

people take money off as well. What we're looking at, and I

think we have to be responsible in this, is that we are, of

course, seeking sharing. They're not going to share in the way

that the Member is suggesting. That's why we hope to have these

discussions with them.

Just in reference to the person you talked about in terms of

work; I personally don't feel that it's necessary for us — it

shouldn't be necessary for us to count as income the kind of

work that people do at Christmastime, during elections and that

kind of thing. We've talked about it, and it will become a

matter of policy. I don't think that around Christmastime when

people have a chance to earn $120 — I don't want to see that

deducted at all. I don't want to see it deducted in terms of…

AN HON. MEMBER: We exempted it this year.

HON. MR. LEVI: We exempted it this year, and as a matter of

policy we're going to continue that. If there's an election,

we'll exempt that too. After all, it is mostly senior citizens

who are doing a lot of this work. Again, it's a windfall and

they're entitled to it. By the time we go through all the

business of deducting it and that kind of thing, it is a cost

factor anyway — some times a severe cost factor. So I think

that I appreciate the Member's remarks. He's pretty well right

on in what he's saying.

But we have to find a method in co-operation with the

federal government in respect to the Mincome people. But I will

be announcing which technique we're going to use in terms of

the working poor; I am having a press conference next Tuesday.

We will have more details on the way we're going. But, I very

much appreciate his remarks and I agree with them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Unfortunately, we don't get invited to Press conferences

— we occasionally crash them. But we're not members of the Press gallery and

it might be an excellent idea if we were

[ Page

2137 ]

made that, because that's where most of the information

around this place seems to come. The only way we seem to find

out what Ministers have in mind is when we go and sit in the

back of the room and listen to the Press question them.

Now, what I would like to know is why we don't have it in

this House so that we can at least question you in the same way

as we're doing now. This is naturally the plea from one of the

disfranchised members of the non-Press. We don't have the right

to question you the way the Press do in your Press

conferences.

We've got a weird system, Mr. Chairman, in this province

now, where the Minister makes a statement to the Press prior to

introducing anything in the House. He makes a statement to the

Press prior to introducing anything in the House. He makes a

statement — of course he can't give them the bill or anything,

so he tells them exactly what he wants, right or wrong as to

what's in the thing. They print it all up; we have first

reading in the House. And we don't really get a chance to

question a Minister. It's only the Press that have a chance to

question him because they had the advantage earlier of having

the briefing in the morning. So we are probably the worst off

as far as information goes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We either ask the Press or we just read

the newspapers, which isn't a very reliable source in many

cases, with all due respect to the Press. It's not reliable

because they've had to print what a Minister has said…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member return to

the estimates, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point is this: I don't want to hear

about a Press conference he's holding next week. If he's

talking about assistance to the working poor, and if we are

raising points which he appreciates, why doesn't he raise them

now? Why do we have to wait to stage-manage, as is normally

done by Ministers, this elaborate charade of getting around the

Legislature of this province? That's all that we've been doing,

week after week, with every expectation of doing it for weeks

to come. From what the Minister said we're going to do it next

week with his own proposals. Why can't he do it here and

now?

HON. MR. LEVI: I think from the point of view of our

department, we've been extremely frank with this House. I've

tabled more reports in the last month and information

documents. I'm quite prepared next week to have a Press

conference at 11, ask them not to release it until 2:30 and you

people will all get the contents on your desks at 2

o'clock.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: What do you object to about it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, at 11 you brief a certain group of

people, namely the Press; they write exactly what you say,

because they have no opportunity generally of examining, for

example, legislation; legislation is introduced and then they

comment upon the legislation of which after all they've had the

advantage of a preliminary briefing in the morning. We, poor

souls that we are, sit around in this room while we go through

prayers and other exciting things, and then we have the bill or

whatever it is in front of us. Then perhaps, if the House

Leader is kind enough to let us out for a minute or two without

giving us too hard a time, we'll get out and caucus on a bill.

It probably will be at 10 at night. This is just a ridiculous

system.

What I would like you to suggest is: instead of coming

forward with your proposals next week by way of Press

conference at 11 in the morning, that you put them forward now

during your estimates, if you wish. Discuss them at this stage

so we can comment upon them.

I've raised a point — which you admit is a valid point — and

I fail to see why we can't discuss it here and now in, I am

sure, goodwill on all sides of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney

followed by the Official Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Right. Mr. Chairman, when I came

in last night I was looking forward to a really creative

discussion on this department which, remember, is the

Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, a very

vital department where the Minister works very long hours — we

used to say "burning the candle at both ends." In fact, I

understand he nearly burnt his house down on Sunday. I don't

know if that reflects his work habits.

But I want to ask just a few general questions, Mr.

Chairman. I think in this department especially it is extremely

important that we have an improved personnel,

morale-atmosphere. I always make it a point of going regularly

to the rehab offices in my riding and having coffee. My

predecessor used to buy them chocolates at Christmas time. I

don't have that style. But I think it's very important to find

out what is happening and what the fibre is. I think as a

reflection of this Minister it's certainly improving.

I think it's very important for us to remind the Legislature

that we're working with literally thousands of people in the

public service and it's essential that they feel that they're

cut in. And I

[ Page 2138 ]

believe that they are getting cut in that they are part of

the decision-making process. Remember, Mr. Chairman, the

federal government, with the Glassco Royal Commission, spent a

great deal of time and money to study this process and to see

that there is really creative input coming from the people in

the field.

So my questions are first of all to the Minister: can you

tell me something about the whole moral fibre right now of your

staff people out in the regions, because there have been

difficulties? I think we have to acknowledge there have been

difficulties.

Can you comment on what type of staff changes we can look

forward to? Will you comment on the actual increases? One of

the ways of rewarding your people is the increase in pay. I've

tried to figure out, in looking in vote 240, what the actual

increase in pay is, because this is one of the ways in which

you can bring some sense of recognition and satisfaction to

your people out in the field.

I would like to think that your people are less

client-oriented and much more personal-oriented. If anybody has

to be preoccupied with the pushing of papers and of processing

cheques, at least let the case-aides do that and not the social

workers as much as they have been in the past.

I want to ask the question of the Minister: with the advent

of LIP and OFY programmes, which in a sense are doing some of

the social work that your people would like to have done in the

past, what is your relationship to some of these federal

finance programmes? For instance in both Mission and Haney

there is a deep-down resentment that some of the very

innovative programmes being done by somewhat less organized and

formalized OFY and LIP programmes is threatening to your staff

who, after all, were trained as social workers and want to get

on with the rehabilitating of people?

I want to remind the Minister that I think there still is a

cynical attitude by a lot of young people toward work. Now

presumably there must be a much closer relationship to your

department and the Department of Manpower. The Minister has

been very helpful, Mr. Chairman, in seeing that in Mission it

would be possible to house Manpower, native Indian affairs,

community services, Big Brothers, Legal Aid, mental health and

the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement under

one roof where they begin to face each other.

My experience is that Manpower is a mile away from the Department of Rehab

in most little towns in the province. They just do not relate to each other.

Now I don't know if I'm hung up on a work ethic type of orientation. I enjoy

work — not for the sense of a salary, but I find it fulfilling. I would like

to think that our government is moving towards dealing with the somewhat cynical

and maybe even misunderstood attitudes of a lot of people just towards the

sense of fulfillment.

I remind the Minister that in my riding of Dewdney, if not

in the central Fraser Valley, 50 per cent of the people

unemployed are 22 years old and under. This is a confirmation

of your regional director, Mr. Bingham. I think this is serious

and it reflects a certain attitude.

I would like to think that the incentive programmes could be

increased for some of your people. You now pay $50 incentive

per month I think for 30 hours' work per month. Is there going

to be any change there with the new rate structures — which I

greatly appreciate? I just want to finally share some feedback

which I got from one of the think sessions that I was partly

responsible for promoting. These were where participation from

young people came. They looked at work opportunity, the whole

relationship between the unemployment situation and the welfare

situation. Now I just want to itemize eight points:

These people feel that we need to recognize that a large number of young

people do not wish to work in such a way as to collaborate with an establishment

that exploits people and the environment for corporate profits.

The system of bringing jobs and people together mitigates against you.

It is not representative to the needs of youth but rather to those of industry.

Discontented young people find it hard to articulate their discontent,

let alone to be listened to.

There's no assurance now that training or education leads to a job. It

is hard for youth to make sacrifices now for a future with no promise. If

there is nothing meaningful for youth to do, why do anything? OFY and LIP

programmes have provided some opportunities for meaningful participation but

not always for those who most need it. What we often find is that the people

who "write up a project" are usually not the people that are the low-income

people, the young people; they're usually the middle and upper-class people

who write up their own programme and usually benefit from that programme.

So I am somewhat despairing towards this.

There is a disparity in the ability to participate in society. This leads

to a sense of helplessness, to apathy and to anger, and it's especially true

in what I am hearing young people saying.

Adults in the system seem to want to maintain the status quo. Youth are

future-oriented. They are seeking new values, new ways to participate in making

the world of ten years from now their own.

These are my observations. I believe our Government is

moving this way. I sent the Minister a précis back at

Christmastime on the whole winter works programme which I am

looking forward to. I know our Government is, in a sense, on

the brink of some real new job opportunities. But still there

is this cynicism and if anything can destroy us I

[ Page 2139 ]

think it's this cynicism.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Chairman, first I want to compliment the Premier last night for

making the statement that the province is in such good

financial shape and can afford it. I give him credit for saying

that. Not only all the cash that's there — and it's the only

province in all of Canada in a position to have a programme

like this — and I compliment the Government and the Minister

for it — but it's only because that cash is there.

I'm not going into the reasons why it's there. I am saying

this, that not only is the cash there but the thrust of the

economy is there as well, which the Premier mentioned last

night as well.

So I think, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, that

really we should go all the way and have this basic income plan

now really, the negative income tax plan. We've had a bill

before the last special session and this session along that

line.

I'm not critical; I want to make it very clear that I'm not

talking with any tongue in the cheek or anything like that. I'm

giving full credit and no criticism, only to point out that the

great basic problem in this country — and we've brought it up

at these federal-provincial conferences — is the failure of the

national government to realize that we are in an inflationary

world and the basic exemption on income tax was based on a

period when a dollar was worth a different priced dollar.

Sometimes it isn't a question so much of advancing prices as

declining values of the currency. That is the point. There's

been no real recognition in Canada that on basic income

exemptions there should be. Surely these kinds of rates that

are presented now should be completely exempt from income tax.

The income tax level should be raised for that or else we're

not being fair at all to our people.

The other point I would make is this: We must always have

encouragement for people to seek work, even if it's part-time

work. A little exercise is good for everyone, and that doesn't

have to mean you have to worship the work ethic or anything

else.

The other point I would like to make is that these people — I don't like to

call them the working poor; they are working people with low incomes. I wish

they would use that term rather than "working poor." They are not poor, really.

They are good people they just have low incomes. I would think, too, that some

thought should be given to this group when you bring their earnings up to what

the welfare rates are. Surely they should have the benefits which the welfare

people receive, such as free drugs and these other benefits. Otherwise you're

going to put a bonus on a person who is on welfare rather than a person that

has a low income but is working.

So those are the three points that I would like to make. How

pleased we are that the government and everyone else recognizes

what a good financial position the Government of British

Columbia is in, and the great thrust forward in the economy

that the Social Credit government left. They will agree with

that. Surely you'll agree with that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The percentages haven't changed too much

as you know, Mr. Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, you will in time. (Laughter). I'll

tell you this. I wouldn't have mentioned it but now that you

have brought this up I must deal with it. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

discuss the estimates.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, but I must deal with the question of

the Premier, because it would be most unfair and most impolite

not to make some reference to it.

When you have an economic thrust there is always a thrust

that lasts a certain length of time. The longer the period of

the force of that thrust, the longer it goes on. It will start

to lose its force, and about three years from now I look

forward to a recession in British Columbia because of the

policies of this no-growth government, and so forth. But I

don't want to bring that into the question this morning.

I rose not to say that. I rose to say how happy we are in

the Province of British Columbia that we are in this fine

financial position so that we can afford to do this for people

with low incomes when they can't do this any place else in

Canada, and to impress on the government to press more strongly

than ever before to get basic exemptions on personal income tax

upped to a reasonable level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, through you I'd like to

thank the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. It's a pity he wasn't

here last night because we would have saved an hour and twenty

minutes. Your colleague went the other way, but I'm very happy

you are so positive about the announcements we made. Extremely

happy.

[ Page 2140 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, if you had been here I'm sure your

colleague wouldn't have led us down through the swamp as we

were last night for about an hour and twenty minutes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, he gave us the money to do the thrust

and now we're thrusting. We accept that. We needed the money

and we've got it. The money is still coming in, so the

confidence in this government is great, it's really good.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, then, there is the obvious question,

Mr. Leader: why didn't you do it? After all, you were there 20

years.

I remember four years ago you stood up and said, "We should

do it," but you didn't do it. I do thank you for your

positive approach. That's what's important, that your approach is extremely positive. For

that I thank you.

Just to answer a couple of questions from the Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) who's now gone. We have been working very

closely with the Canada Manpower people on the LIP (Local

Initiatives Programme) programme. We've expressed some concern

last year that LIP programmes were being financed and then as

they ran out of money they were coming to us. What we wanted to

do was to have some say in what programmes were going to be

approved so that they fitted into our priorities. And I must

say that the cooperation that we've had with Canada Manpower

has been very good. We've been meeting with them regularly;

they keep us informed. I might also add that we are getting the

same kind of cooperation now from the Horizons for senior

people. They are calling us about these programmes and I'm very

satisfied with that.

Just in terms of the incentives in relation to people on

welfare, we have announced that there is a $50 programme, there

is a $ 100 programme and that's for people who can't work

full-time. It may be that people will only work at 60 per cent

of most people's capacity, but if that's the level they can

operate at, then we are prepared to pay them $50 or $100

depending on how long they have been on the programme. That's

going ahead.

The situation in the department. There was a question about the general morale

of the department. As I said earlier, we had nowhere to go but up. My impression

is that the morale is very high. I've had an opportunity to meet with about

two-thirds of all the field staff at two conferences. I've made a number of

pronouncements about how we are going to deal with children and families, and

I do feel that we are picking up on this.

For the first time this department, if you will notice in

the estimates, has a vote which deals with training. There was

never one before. We will start early next month a programme of

seminars for people in-staff so that they will know

specifically in what direction we are going when dealing with

children and families.

We have been fortunate to get 68 new staff and they are

badly needed. That is nowhere near the number of staff that we

need, but that's what we feel we can start with and integrate

first. We'll be hiring 22 case-aides. The 22 people from

Willingdon that were remaining will be given opportunities for

this job. We are looking at the system itself in the field — what's going on.

I think we have to look in the future to a consideration

that perhaps we have to pay a differential to social workers

and staff who work with people on the line because we want them

to be working at different hours than the normal 9 to 5

operation. If we want to do the kind of work we want to do with

families, then our people have to be available when the family

is available as a family unit, and that usually takes place in

the evening. So we will have to work out some compensation for

our staff on this, and of course it can be part of the ongoing

collective bargaining process that will be taking place.

I've had an opportunity to go to several of the field

offices and I'm always greeted with the same thing — you're the

first Minister that's been to see us. I think it's a great pity

that previous Ministers never went down the line to see the

staff. I know a lot of the staff anyway. I feel it is very

important that I find out a lot more about what is going on

and get an idea of just how quickly some of the policy

decisions we make get down the line.

I will be travelling in May and part of June through the

province visiting some of the offices and participating in the

seminars that will be taking place. That's important, I think,

in terms of backing up the staff; they've never had that kind

of opportunity before. I'm prepared to back the staff up 150

per cent. Considering the kinds of difficulties they've been

operating under for several years, I'm amazed that they've been

able to respond the way they have.

I think that is all of the questions that Member asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay

followed by the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of

the most interesting aspects of this debate is that all sides of the House seem

[ Page

2141 ]

recognize the tremendous importance of this department as an

indication of our basic evaluation of people in society — the

value that we place on the individual and the fact that we all

recognize that a government with wealth and resources, as both

the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition have outlined,

have a tremendous responsibility to meet the needs of the less

fortunate. I gather it isn't official yet, but I'm pleased to

hear the department will be renamed the Department of Human

Resources. I think that name itself comes much closer to

signifying what it's all about.

I'd just like to talk very briefly on the philosophy of this

department. One of the most interesting things is that in many

ways it is similar to the field of medicine that we pour out

money in the medical field dealing with conditions that are

completely preventable.

In the area of human resources we are faced with this

problem of spending large sums of money on conditions and

crises which could be prevented with better planning and a

better awareness of the predisposing factors. It isn't a matter

of just saving dollars, Mr. Chairman. It's a question of human

need and providing people with help and counseling of various

kinds — supportive services in the community, which of course

might prevent such things as marriage break-up and families

being taken into care and so on.

That was one of the most impressive aspects of a discussion

that we had with the representatives of the Social Workers

Association. The whole theme of their discussion was that…

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'll digress by saying that they

commented on how happy they were to sense an attitude of

cooperation and consultation on the part of the Minister. They

felt this augured very well for the kind of planning which they

hoped to influence. As I said last night, my personal

experience with the Minister has been the same. It's very

encouraging when the association of social workers senses the

team approach which is to be adopted by this Government. I

thoroughly commend them for that.

The whole thrust of their message was that prevention must

be emphasized. In some of these areas they're talking

particularly about children being taken into care. This was one

aspect of their brief which really distressed me. I was rather

ashamed of some of my ignorance on the subject.

The fact of the matter is that very often it is the parents themselves who

ask that children be taken into care, again for reasons which are preventable.

First of all, the parents are economically disadvantaged. There are often health

problems in the household and such problems as alcoholism, child abuse and so

on. It seems very clear from the recommendations of the Social Workers Association

that if we can augment the staff and community services available to advise

and counsel in these situations, quite often the children

could stay in the home.

In passing, there's another point which I think is terribly

important. It seems that once a child is in care, financial

assistance to that child is a whole new ballgame. The social

workers are most anxious to get the message across to

Government. They probably have done so very well to the

Minister. But I think the House should know that the kind of

money which is often available while the child is still in the

family home is very much less than the kind of money and help

that is made available as soon as the child becomes a ward of

the court.

It is the feeling of these workers and I would have to

accept this line of reasoning that surely it would be better to

spend more dollars while the child is still in the home to deal

with whatever particular problem exists, whether it's related

to health, housing or some other problem that can be helped by

additional funds. I would like to have the Minister's comment

on that point in particular.

Once the child is a ward of the court, there's money and

facilities much greater than was available in the home. I don't

think anyone would dispute that the child should be kept in the

home if at all possible. The sense of loss of control over the

family situation and the depression which usually follows very

often means that the parents' initial problem is much worse,

whether it is mental depression, drug abuse, alcoholism,

prostitution or what have you.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

Housing figures vary largely. It has been mentioned a great

deal already in this whole session, but I think it should be

mentioned in passing. There's also a tremendous lack of special

resources for children in different groups. I'm talking about

the autistic child, the child with learning disabilities and

the child with behavioural problems which don't reach the

psychotic level.

Again, I'd like to ask the Minister a question and made a

suggestion. To give you a simple comparison, Madam Chairman, if

a child has pneumonia, he goes to a hospital and the parents

pay $1 a day. I have discovered that if a child has a learning

problem, a mental retardation problem or some such problem

requiring special care — such as Browndale camps or Dr.

Gregory's facility in Victoria — if the parents cannot pay the

cost — and it is costly; very few can pay — the child becomes a

ward of the court. This is the only way in which the parents

can obtain for the child the treatment and service that is

required.

Madam Chairman, in these particular cases, which are mainly

medical and mental, would the Minister not consider that this

kind of service should be brought under BCHIS? It seems to me

that if a child is born with brain damage or is mentally

retarded or

[ Page 2142 ]

has a behaviour problem, no matter what the parents' income

is, consideration should be given to bringing this under BCHIS.

The parents should not have the rights of guardianship, the

normal rights of a parent, impaired in any way just because the

child needs a certain type of care. Again, I was rather ashamed

that I didn't realize that this was the situation today.

Not only should the rights of the parents be considered, but

I think we'll all agree that integration and coordination of

facilities is very important. The kind of coordination which

the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources have

shown in their few months in office is very encouraging. I hope

that we can go the whole way in this particular aspect and have

these children covered by BCHIS at $1 a day.

I would support completely the general philosophy mentioned

by the Premier: that while money isn't everything, it's the

first basic element in giving people some security. I also had

a meeting with the Foster Parents' Association. There again,

the one subject which seems to be repeated all the time was

discussed. That is, once a child goes into a foster home, the

foster parents can do so much more financially and support-wise

than can be done in the child's natural home. The foster

parents told me — I couldn't quite understand this part — that

they can give the foster child more than they can give their

own children and that this sometimes creates problems. Their

own children sometimes develop a sense of antagonism as to why

the foster child in the home has better clothes and can have

skating lessons and so on, while the family children are denied

this for lack of resources.

On the whole question of teenagers being taken into care:

the 1972 report stated that 117 parents were unable to provide

education or training. In 20 cases it was lack of housing. I

wonder if the Minister has any specific recommendations to make

in regard to this question of supportive programmes to the

parents before the child is taken into care, or in an endeavour

to prevent them from being taken into care. I think the funding

for preventative services is the new direction that the

Government is trying to follow, but not much mention has been

made of it up to this point.

The former speaker, the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston)

mentioned that the department has separated the staff in terms

of income maintenance from social service. Contrary to what

that Member suggested, the social workers tell me that it isn't

a question of an aide of some sort doing the simple paperwork

and financial provisions. In fact, what has resulted is a

reduction in counseling in that fewer social workers are given

the specific task of counseling.

The whole question of adoption seems to be a big problem nowadays not in any

way related to the Government action. But we have two facets that I think have

to be mentioned — there is the question of abortion so readily available it

is resulting in a great reduction in the number of babies available for adoption.

Digressing for a moment I'd say, Madam Chairman, that I hope

the Minister will instruct his department to tell it like it

is; the social worker should tell it like it is. I had a very

distressing case in my practice just recently where this young

couple have really been given a line for about a year that, oh,

yes, there would be a child, there would be a child.

Without going into all the details, the fact of the matter

is that they have two children, and because there's such a

shortage of children for adoption there's just no way in terms

of priority that they will get this child that they wish. It's

very distressing to have parents make all the preparations to

have a new child in the home and then be told almost a year

later that really there is no hope. So this question of

abortion is having this very serious effect of reducing the

number of children available.

The other factor, for reasons which aren't so clear, is the

fact that more unmarried mothers are keeping their children. I

think that while that of course is entirely their right and

prerogative, we should look at the question of the supportive

help and counseling that this department is giving to these

women. I certainly encourage and appreciate the Minister's

decision about increasing day care services, because most of

these unmarried mothers have to work. But I am wondering to

what degree some of them are fairly immature and untrained does

the Minister have any specific, programme in mind to give them

training?

Another point that was raised by the workers is the whole

question of the need to rewrite the Child Welfare Act.

It is their suggestion, as I am sure the Minister is aware, to

integrate three Acts as several of the other provinces have

done. In fact I understand British Columbia is the last

province that really keeps these three Acts separate. The ones

I am referring to are the Protection of Children Act, the

Adoption Act and the Children of Unmarried Parents

Act.

I understand there are some conflicting and divergent

sections in these three Acts and a great deal would be gained

by rewriting one Act to cover all the facets and interrelated

aspects of these human problems.

Just one or two points to finish with, Madam Chairman. There

has been mention made of the special care homes and nursing

homes in the 1972 report of the department. I would just hope

that these special care homes are not to be restricted only to

patients on social assistance. I have stated this in the House

before. I hope that it will be a question of the people most

needing that kind of care being treated on that basis of

priority.

[ Page

2143 ]

I would also plead that in future planning the department

does not locate these homes a great distance from where the

elderly citizens have had their former contacts and friends. I

said at the time and I still believe that the location of the

Tillicum home many miles out of town with inadequate bus

service — when these old people need visitors almost more than

they need anything else — the isolation of being in such an

institution, which can be so demoralizing to them…therefore

the whole question of having visitors is all-important. That in

turn, of course, is sacrificed if the home is some distance

from the main community.

The nursing home situation really I have mentioned ad nauseum

in this House. I simply say in passing that the large number of

patients receiving social assistance in the private nursing

homes is noted in the Minister's annual report. It's a very

substantial number. I hope that the programmes anticipated by

the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke), will be expedited.

The whole question of prescription drugs and appliances: I

thoroughly agree that they should be made available to senior

citizens. I would like just to repeat something I mentioned in

the debate on health services, namely the appliances. There are

many elderly persons who have various physical appliances on

which their existence depends and on which their day-by-day

comfort depends. I think that we should take a look at

providing these under government financing.

Finally, I would like to comment just on the Minister's

involvement in the drug problem — the efforts he's tried to

bring about. I think this again reflects the new thrust of this

department. So many of these problems start in the community

and they have to be solved in the community. The idea of

centralized government dishing out large gobs of money to

institutional organizations to solve a problem that starts

essentially in the home, I think, was wrong. It has been proven

wrong.

The tremendous increase in the incidence, particularly of

heroin addicts, I think has finally even got through to Ottawa.

They finally admitted the figures the other day; the figures I

still think are about half of what they really are. But even

based on the admitted figures by the federal government, the

number of heroin addicts has doubled in the course of the last

two to three years.

I'm not quoting figures, because you can turn and twist them and add and subtract.

The specific figures cannot possibly be authenticated. This Minister, very soon

after he took office, moved into this field, which is perhaps right now in British

Columbia — not to overlook some of the other problems I mentioned — probably

the biggest social disaster. This is not just because of the several thousands

of addicts involved, but of the families and the school friends and the employers

and the many other people that become deeply touched by the tremendous damage

to a person who becomes a heroin addict.

In this regard, the Minister has made every effort to awaken

Ottawa. But I think it should be mentioned, Madam Chairman,

from our own MPs in this area I learned that there is a

remarkable naiveté by even those MPs who sit on the

standing committee on health and welfare in Ottawa. I just

don't know how one gets the message through.

We are always bragging that this is an integrated federal

country, that it's Canada from coast to coast, et cetera, et

cetera, et cetera. But when you get down to something as

practical and devastating as the heroin problem here in British

Columbia, it really shatters me to find that the very standing

committee in Ottawa apparently is not impressed by the

dimension of the problem that we have here in British Columbia

in dealing with the heroin problem.

It certainly brings us back to the community aspect of the

problem, that the people who did take the initiative in this

city at least were parents of addicts. The parents have been

the whole route. Most of them are financially broke, having had

to bail out their sons or daughters repeatedly for forged

cheques or debts of one kind or another. They are well aware

that the solution will have to come from direct involvement at

the community level by parents and other people who want to

serve in solving this kind of problem.

It is the hope that these concerned parents will be able to

go to Ottawa and appear before the standing committee on health

and welfare. I would hope that, if at all possible, the

Minister could lend his influence by letter to the federal

Minister of Health just to emphasize the seriousness of our

problem and the fact that we do have many people at the

community level who would be willing to become closely and

deeply involved in many of the channels that we'll have to

follow.

At no time am I suggesting that anybody has the answer on

this terrible problem. I am simply trying to say that first of

all, get the message through to Ottawa that we do have a very

serious problem.

The latest approximate figure was that 61 per cent of all

heroin addicts are in British Columbia. Maybe that's why the

eastern part of Canada isn't too worried. They maybe feel

that's our problem and get on with it. But the fact is that

some of the approaches which the Minister is considering and

which, I would support will need…right off the bat we can't

do some of the things we want to do without federal

legislation. Furthermore, if such legislation is introduced it

will have to be brought into effect and clinics implemented in

all provinces. Otherwise, again British Columbia will be landed

with the problem of dealing with much more even than 60

[ Page 2144 ]

per cent.

So I just bring this matter up in the hope…and the

Minister may wish to comment. I am sure he is going to Ottawa

himself. I am told that in order to go before the standing

committee one has to have several weeks' notice and so on. I

just hope that the kind of initiatives which this Minister has

taken up to date might be further augmented as an encouragement

to the parents who, I may say, Madam Chairman, have a great

deal of respect for the Minister. They are looking forward to

the setting up of the drug commission in this province which

will in turn, I hope, very quickly go out to the community and

set up the programmes we've discussed.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I'd like to tell the Hon.

Member that I am going to undertake to write to the committee

and suggest to them that they make an appointment to have three

people from British Columbia who are members of the community.

I'd like to suggest that we have three parents from three

different communities — certainly the Victoria area, the

Nanaimo area and the Kamloops area are three which I am

familiar with which have this problem — and ask them to invite

them to appear before that committee. I'm not particularly

worried if they won't fly them down; we'll fly them down.

That's not a problem. But I think that that kind of input in

that kind of committee is essential.

When I am down there I shall also make an effort to appear

before the committee as well.

I quite agree with the Member that the problem with the

committees, of course; let's face it, generally the welfare

field is not terribly popular politically, but when you get

into the drug thing it's positively unpopular. Nobody wants to

go out on a limb and do anything about it because, certainly in

the situation they have down in Ottawa where they have a

minority government situation, nobody wants to speak out.

However, I fully agree with the Member that we must get some

parent input. They're the people who can tell it the way it is.

I don't disagree with having specialists before these

committees, but we also have to have the committee respond to

people who are going through the problem on a day-to-day basis.

So I certainly will write to the committee and seek the

appointments for them. If we have to fly them down we will do

so, although I understand they have funds for this kind of

thing.

We will have more to say about drugs later on in the session

anyway.

I just want to go back to what the Member was talking about in respect to children

who have to go into care in order to get treatment. We have now started a programme

on what we call a three-party agreement between the parent, the government and

the agency and there is no requirement for the child to

be taken into care. This is done on an understanding basis. That's the style

in which we are doing it and we will continue to do it this way. I think your

point about this is well taken.

The total thrust of the department is preventative. That's

the objective of our day-care centre programme — spending $4 or

$5 a day now stops us from having to spend anywhere from $25 to

$82 a day five or six years from now.

We are looking at methods of getting money to children in

families where there are problems. I don't think there is any

reason why the family cannot be declared a resource — that's

the best resource anyways — and that we put money in where it's

needed. When, for instance, we closed down Willingdon — and I

said to the field staff, "You have to make alternative

arrangements now," we'd been spending $30 a day in

there.

You develop resources in the community that will take that

money that was saved and we'll spend it in that way. We have to

get into that style of developing resources right in the

community. So the staff have that go-ahead and we are getting

some response to this. We will be looking into ways that we can

get the money in.

Certainly if you take a child that goes into foster care at

$ 12 a day and there's more validity perhaps in putting the $12

into the family. We will work out a system by which this kind

of thing can be done.

The question of youth — and this is in terms of services for

youth — I have now a report that I have just received from the

City of Vancouver which I am looking at. I get the impression

that we are in much better shape to develop the kind of

resources we want for young people outside of the large urban

areas. We have an enormous internecine warfare going on in the

big cities between agencies.

This was what I was talking about when I talked about

welfare empires; that we have to have people in the field whose

primary consideration is the people they are working with, not

the primary consideration of how best they can perpetuate

themselves. This is a very serious problem in the whole social

service area and we're attempting to tackle this. This in no

way derides the kind of service they're giving; it's only the

quantity of the service and in some respects the quality.

I have no compunction in saying that part of my role is to

see to the dismantling of some of these welfare empires.

Because these enormous empires are so very costly to administer

we're not getting the dollar down to the client.

Young people: we are looking forward to a work programme.

This has already been talked about in the House. There are

positions available in forestry, pollution cleanup, highways

department; we will be coming up with programmes for students,

so that we will be announcing these things very shortly. I

think

[ Page 2145 ]

you've probably now gathered that our style is not to put

everything into a document like the budget speech or the throne

speech, but to give it to you as we deal with it and we'll be

dealing with it. So there's no question that young people are

being forgotten. We've worked out our priorities and the

priorities were the senior citizens and children. Now we're

moving into the employment area.

I just want to make a point on the adoptions. It's always

been my feeling that we've got to call a moratorium I think on

the whole business of adoption placements. We are discussing

this. I think that we cannot continue to do adoption placements

and home assessments when we know that people have virtually no

chance of getting children under perhaps three years.

We have a programme in the department where we are trying to

place older children. I think this is very valid. We have had

some success in placing older children — I have in mind

children over five, six, seven and eight. But I do think that

certainly we have to be very frank, and I'm very seriously

considering a moratorium on this whole business of

adoption.

We constantly get letters — and I am sure all MLAs do — from

people who are very frustrated by the fact that they're not

getting any children.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, I don't think that's the way to go. In

terms of adoptions I just want to say one other thing. We are

preparing now a policy statement that we'd like to present to

the federal government about a Canadian position on

international adoptions. You may recall that we did have the

Bangladesh children problem and it was a problem, because in

this province a lot of people had high expectations — about 70

families — that there were possibilities of getting children;

then 15 were assured and finally we got two children. So Canada

as a country has to adopt a policy and we're preparing a paper

for them that we would like to bring up at the Ministers'

conference.

One other thing in respect to legislation. I did announce

February 16 that there would be two committees set up to study

the whole question of children's legislation and pulling it all

into one bill. I will be announcing after the session, once

we've appointed the external committee, We are now setting up

an internal committee to handle some of the details.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I have a point or two that won't

take me very long. I brought the matter up previously in the Minister's colleague's

estimates, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr.

Cocke). He referred me to bringing it up at this particular time.

This is in relation to the mentally handicapped and those

associations dealing with these sort of people under the

British Columbia Association of the Mentally Handicapped. Now

my concern mostly is not only with the mentally handicapped but

with the handicapped generally.

We know that where these training centres are there are

various categories or various degrees of trainees. Some have a

relatively good productive value compared to the salary they

receive. In fact in many cases the salary is less than what

their capabilities indicate. Others will never, under any

circumstances, rise to a productive level that would even

warrant the training centre paying a minimum wage.

Certainly they need the training. I agree with this. I think

it's a good thing. Any time that we can elevate them into

taking their places in society and making them feel

self-sufficient, I think this is a very commendable programme.

The problem that the training centres run into is that they

have had to level salaries off in many cases so that actually

the productive level or group is actually subsidizing the lower

level.

Now my suggestion would be that possibly the Government give

some consideration to subsidizing the salaries of those on the

lower level only. This way the training centre then would be

able to pay the minimum wage or something of this level.

Now I did take this up with your department, Mr. Minister,

although I haven't had a reply yet. I know your department is

very busy.

I would like to think that maybe the Government might take

50 per cent of that lower category of their salaries. Certainly

in due course they may be able to take their place as positions

become available.

Now, that is an area in which I am particularly concerned,

because I've been connected indirectly with a training centre

in my own constituency, which you very likely know about. And

I've noted in many cases some of the programmes have restricted

the area in which they could cover maybe a greater number of

people with a wider variety of handicaps. They have run into

the fact that they have not been able to achieve the necessary

amount of funds locally, or even through the contributions.

In some cases they have found, when they had established a

relative credit which they expected to take care of their

obligations at that particular time, the fact that a statutory

holiday or something has interfered and created the reduction

in that credit. Let's use a hypothetical case — the Christmas

holidays. The staff who must work on holidays have not been

able to have their salaries because it has been reduced because

of statutory holidays.

So these are areas to which I think some considera-

[ Page 2146 ]

tion might be given in a more realistic funding or

assistance programme.

As the time is getting on, I'm not going to take any more

time. I'd be very happy to sit down with the Minister, or his

deputy, if he wishes, and discuss this further, and not hold up

the proceedings of the House. Thank you.

HON. MR. LEVI: Let me give just one short answer to the

Member. As you may know, we've had a style of calling

conferences on specific areas — drugs, dental treatment centres,

and senior citizens. We are intending to call together the

people who work in the field in terms of the handicapped, and

we want to look at a number of the problems that they have,

particularly the kind of thing that the Member was talking

about in the beginning — the very low pay that some of these

people are getting. We want to review all that, so we will be

meeting with people and having some discussions with them, and

then presumably we'll develop an approach to it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I

just want to make a few comments with regard to the problem of

drug abuse in British Columbia, particularly as it relates to

some of the statements that have been made by the Minister and

other Members, and also as it relates to the position paper

toward a government programme policy on drug abuse issued by

the Minister.

I draw the attention of the House as well to this report —

"Drug Abuse and the Floundering Society," prepared by

Mr. H.F. Hoskin and A.R. Huntington. Mr. Hoskin was the former

director of the Narcotics Addiction Foundation.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

This whole matter will be canvassed around the bill, but it's up to you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Madam Chairman, it's already been…

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, there was earlier a debate on it and it

referred to the bill. There will be a bill and there will be

opportunity to discuss it at that time.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Madam Chairman, that may be next fall

sometime, and I'd just as soon canvass it under the Minister's

estimates if I can. I just wanted to make a few comments. I

think it's an important subject and it is under this Minister's

estimates. If I could make my comments I'll be as brief as

possible.

Madam Chairman, I understand that this government is not

overly impressed with the work of the Narcotics Addiction

Foundation but that foundation, Madam Chairman, was an

important contributor in helping to solve some of the problems

of drug abuse in British Columbia for a number of years. Mr.

Hoskins is a noted authority in the field and I feel that this

is an important document.

HON. MR. COCKE: One of the big problems that we've had in

government has been that there has been real duplication…

MR. McCLELLAND: Is this a point of order, Madam

Chairman?

HON. MR. COCKE: This is a point of order, Madam

Chairman.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Then what is your point of order, Hon.

Member?

HON. MR. COCKE: The point of order is this: the question

that the Member is now dealing with comes under the Minister of

Health at the present time. However, within a week we will be

debating a piece of legislation which will put this question

under the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement,

and I thought it might be a lot more…

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman…

HON. MR. COCKE: He's out of order, Madam Chairman. In fact,

if you want me to be nasty, the fact of the matter is…

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, don't be nasty, Mr. Minister. We

wouldn't want you to do that in this House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must rule that the point of

order is correct, inasmuch as we have covered the particular

foundations in the Minister of Health's vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, we didn't cover the

foundations in the Minister of Health's vote, we covered them

in the Provincial Secretary's vote, to begin with, and we are

not talking about the foundation or the grants, Madam Chairman,

we are talking about the problem of drug abuse in British

Columbia. This paper toward a government policy on drug abuse

has been issued by the Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement in the Province of

British Columbia, so that obviously brings the problem of drug

abuse under the Minister of Social Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

I can't accept that ruling, Madam Chairman,

[ Page

2147 ]

because it does come under this Minister's estimates.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I withdraw my ruling and I believe you are in

order, inasmuch as the report you are referring to was prepared

by that Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I

appreciate that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then drugs, alcohol and tobacco come under

Education…(Laughter).

Mr. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, I really think that it is

important. I do have some comments to make about the problems

of drug abuse in the province as an observer and as a layman. I

want to get them before this House because I want to have my

comments heard. That's all that I would like to do and I'll do

it if I can do it with no more interruptions.

The only reason I mention this report, Madam Chairman, is

that it has to do with the problems of drug abuse. It could, as

a companion to the paper issued by the Minister, be an

important report. I'd like to advise all of the people in the

community that if they have the opportunity to read this report

it gives a rather comprehensive background of the beginning of

the drug abuse problem as it relates not only to British

Columbia but to the rest of the country and the rest of the

world, and of the changing terms of drug abuse in our society,

which since 1965 or 1966 has taken some drastic alterations,

particularly with respect to the age of users, which has been

dropping seriously since 1966.

The whole profile of the drug abuser has been changing since

that period from the norm of those people who were normally in

the lower socioeconomic level — people with poor family

relationships, people with poor attendance in school and little

education. Now it seems to be the other way around. We're

finding the drug abuser is better educated. He is probably of a

middle- or higher-income level. It's completely different from

what it was prior to 1966. This report, Madam Chairman,

designates that situation and I commend it to everyone in the

Legislature and also to anyone in the province who is

interested in finding some solutions to the problems of drug

abuse.

I would quote one item from the conclusions of this report: "If there ever

was a time in our history for governments, federal and provincial, to recognize

the threat to our social order and the need to coordinate and implement corrective

measures, that time is now." I think that we must all subscribe to that, Madam

Chairman. We must also, I think, compliment the Minister on his intention to

set up a drug dependency commission. However, I would suggest that, as is pointed

out in the report by Mr. Hoskins, this commission must be coordinated through

federal bodies and must certainly cooperate with federal

bodies because the federal government, after all, really has the ultimate responsibility

for the laws of the country as they pertain to hard drug use particularly —

in fact, all drug abuse. Any agencies set up in isolation of the federal government

simply, in my opinion, will not work, so I think that it is important that any

of these councils or commissions or whatever it is that we set up be coordinated

through a federal body.

Quoting again from the report, Madam Chairman, it says:

"Such a council would be responsible for effective coordination

of all agencies and departments working in the behavioural

fields for the design and implementation of research for

recommendations to update law, for guidance to law enforcement

agencies, and for curriculum recommendations to the education

system." That too, is an important consideration and all those

things must be considered in connection with all of the

approaches to the problems of drug abuse in British Columbia

and in Canada.

The national government, Madam Chairman, has offered

virtually no leadership with regard to these problems. In fact,

you could almost say that there has been indifference from the

national government with regard to the problems of drug abuse.

As perhaps was pointed out by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), they now seem at last to at least be recognizing the

problem, but there is no indication yet that anyone wants to do

anything about it from the national level. It's not from a lack

of information because there has been a constant flow of

information particularly, I might say, from this province, from

various people and facilities in this province, to the federal

government, but they've been virtually ignored.

Not only has there been indifference, but I would suggest

that there's been some degree of irresponsibility from the

federal government with regard to this whole problem of drug

abuse.

From the point of view of an observer and layman — no expert

in the field by any stretch of the imagination — it's a little

discouraging, Madam Chairman, that the comment heard most often

with regard to the problems of drug abuse is that we don't know

enough about it yet. "We don't know" — despite the years and

years and years that we've been suffering with this problem, a

cancerous problem that we've allowed to grow and grow and grow

in our communities until it's now a national tragedy — and as

has been pointed out, that tragedy is most evident in British

Columbia. We still hear the comment from the so-called experts

in the field, "We don't know enough about it yet."

Madam Chairman, that bothers me slightly — if it's true that

we don't know enough about the problem yet. We find the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

[ Page 2148 ]

and, in fact, the Minister advocating drug experiments in

the field. These experiments could be potentially dangerous and

if they fail, they could lead British Columbia into a deeper

drug morass than we're in now. That frightens me from the point

of view that we would allow uncontrolled experiments with the

most important problem facing Canada today.

I'd like to briefly relate some of the costs to society

because of heroin addiction in this province. First of all,

I've mentioned already the increasing exposure of not the soft

drugs but the hard drugs — heroin — to children of an even

younger and younger age all the time. We're now finding heroin

addicts of 13 or 14 years old.

I'm in sympathy too, Madam Chairman, with the people who, in

all good conscience, call for ever stiffer penalties for drug

pushers. Certainly those people in the business of pushing

drugs need to have stiffer penalties. They need to be dealt

with severely, if we're ever to attack the problem at all.

I'd like to relate, Madam Chairman, to one other problem

that comes because of this lowered age of casual users of soft

drugs and addicted users of hard drugs. That's the problem of

children as pushers. If we totally advocate a hard line of the

severest penalties for pushers, do we recognize the problem we

might find? Is our neighbour's son a pusher at the school?

There are young people in the community pushing drugs of one

kind or another — marijuana or in fact, as I understand it now,

hard drugs in some instances. Those are pushers. Those are our

neighbours' youngsters that we're talking about. What do

we do with them? We've got to recognize that that's a serious

problem.

It's one of the costs to society of this increasing heroin

addiction. It really bothers me. How do we get out of that

problem? We know that we have to get the criminal on the street

who is the organizer of a heroin trafficking system; give him

the severest possible penalty; get him off the street and stop

it at that end. But, what do we do about those children who are

pushing drugs? How do we handle that problem and what do we do

to eliminate it?

We know that the most basic cost to society is just the

simple cost of theft and shoplifting by addicts attempting to

support their habits. The Vancouver police estimate that it

costs the community $10 million a year just in shoplifting

alone. Not too long ago one Vancouver drug squad detective said

that if you could stop the addict from shoplifting, the $25

pair of pants that you buy now would probably cost you only

$16. That's an economic cost to the community.

I don't know if you can get by on $45 a day now, but I understand that a year

or so ago it cost about $45 a day to maintain a habit in downtown Vancouver.

It's significant that an addict would have to earn over $16,000 a year just

to support that habit. In my opinion, there's no possible way that he could

hold down a steady job earning that kind of money in order to support the habit.

That doesn't take into account the problems of looking after his family, if

he has one, and looking after any other needs he has to survive — $16,000 a

year just to support his habit. So obviously there's a pretty serious cost in

terms of actual hard dollars to the community, besides those other costs.

The most important cost of all, however, is the ultimate

corruption of the user. There is no doubt in my mind, Madam

Chairman, that the user is corrupted one way or another and

probably totally corrupted in the long run.

In my opinion, Madam Chairman, we can't look at this problem

of heroin addiction in total isolation. It's a problem that

relates to all kinds of drug abuse. I think we have to consider

all of those drug abuses right from the "mother's little

helper" — as the Rolling Stones put it in one of their songs — barbiturates and amphetamines — right down to the problem of

glue sniffing, which once again is attracting ever younger

children. I'm told that a visit to a local hospital on almost

any day of the week will give evidence of that kind of abuse at

eight years old. That has to be looked at in the whole spectrum

of drug abuse.

I appreciate the Minister's comment in his report that we

have to go back to the community. Obviously, everything starts

at the home. We have to start with solutions at the home. We

also have to start in the community, where the problems really

are.

Madam Chairman, we accept today the casual use of the

"respectable" drugs by all of us in society — we can even start

with aspirins I suppose. With the kinds of strains that we have

in our society, it's just an acceptable part of the life now —

drug use is okay. It seems to me that the only kind of drug use

that should be all right is that which is prescribed by a

doctor. I suppose that everyone has some sort of a sickness, if

he needs to take drugs outside of those prescribed by a doctor.

That's pretty extreme, but nevertheless it's all part of the

acceptance that we've given as a society to the use of

drugs.

The use of drugs, consciously or not, has been given an aura

of respectability in our society. I really think that that's

another part of the whole problem. The use of amphetamines is

becoming more and more widespread in our society.

I'd like to quote from the World Health Organization, Madam

Chairman. This is a dependence that many people in our society

are now finding themselves hooked on. The World Health

Organization says that it recognizes amphetamine-type

dependence as "a desire or need to continue regularly or

intermittently the use of amphetamines, and a tolerance and

tendency to increase the dose."

The Organization further states that "there is

[ Page

2149 ]

psychic dependence, but no physical dependence and so no

abstinence syndrome. But in some cases, continued use leads to

severe toxic psychosis." And finally, "amphetamines and

barbiturates are often taken alternatively and successively,

each to counteract the effects of the other."

So that's the kind of thing we have in our society. You take

a pill to get you up. Then you're so high that you've got to

take another pill to get you down. It's the kind of thing that

we have given a respectability to in our society. That also, as

a layman and a casual observer, really bothers me.

If you check the Vancouver drugstores which have a large

flow of amphetamines — and there are some in certain areas of

the city that have a larger business in that kind of drug than

others — you'll find that they also have that same large flow

of barbiturates. So the problem of taking those two drugs in

connection with each other is borne out simply by checking the

drugstore sales.

I think the doctors have a responsibility here that they're

not living up to, Madam Chairman. Evidence from the Narcotics

Addiction Foundation suggests that amphetamine and barbiturate

problems among adults are almost exclusively due to drugs

prescribed by doctors. The Foundation suggests, Madam Chairman,

that too often the doctors don't appreciate the dangers of

these drugs. You wouldn't call it indiscriminate prescribing,

but it borders on that from time to time.

Another interesting point, Madam Chairman, is that women

make up by far the largest number with regard to abuses of

those kinds of drugs. Something like two-thirds of the abusers

of amphetamines and barbiturates are women.

I would like to comment just for a moment on the problem of

glue sniffing, which once again must be related to the total

problem of the abuses of these kinds of chemicals. Madam

Chairman, anyone who has been even remotely aware or had even a

remote connection with any young person who has been involved

in glue sniffing knows the tragedy of this situation. And,

Madam Chairman, it is a tragedy.

I find the term "glue sniffing" a bit confusing. It really

doesn't mean glue sniffing. If the House isn't aware, Madam

Chairman, that term is now used to cover a wide range of

chemicals, not particularly glue. In fact, I think the problem

with glue has been pretty well eliminated by the manufacturers — but there are many kinds.

Once again, if I could quote the Narcotics Addiction Foundation: nail polish

remover of course, up until recently, was the most common chemical that was

used, and I understand has now been virtually eliminated in Vancouver — although

they can still get it.

I might tell the House, Madam Chairman, there was a

drugstore up in the Merritt area, I believe, which was selling — I think it was Merritt, or in that general area somewhere —

which was continuing to sell nail polish remover. Isolated

somewhat from the greater Vancouver area, this drugstore didn't

know about the problem, and the problem wasn't in their

community.

Madam Chairman, the word got out to the young people in

Vancouver and in the lower mainland area generally and that

drugstore had a run on nail polish remover. They were heading

out of Vancouver in their cars or hitch-hiking or any way they

could possibly go, and heading up to this drugstore. The word

spread so fast that there was nail polish remover available,

that the kids were going up there in droves — and I mean in

droves — and buying the supplies from that drugstore before the

people in the store finally caught on to what was happening and

removed, as I understand it, the stock from their store.

That's the kind of thing that's happening in our society

today. Think of the things that our youngsters are ingesting —

solvents, lighter fluid, paint thinner, cleaning fluid,

gasoline, model airplane glue and ground nutmeg, which I'm told

produces delirium if you eat enough of it. Can you imagine

that?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm glad you're through, Mr. Leader of

the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson.)

Madam Chairman, there have been in recent weeks a couple of

deaths in the Vancouver area because of the abuse of this kind

of chemical. It's no secret and no question now that the abuse

of these chemicals causes death. Kidneys, brain, bone marrow,

liver, all of these things are vulnerable to damage from these

chemicals. It can also, and one of the most serious problems I

think, cause severe damage to the inside of the nose, to a

youngster's throat, eventually to his lungs and so many other

problems that just the abuse of these chemicals — which are

readily available to every youngster in British Columbia —

cause right now.

Cases have been reported, Madam Chairman — I don't suggest

that very many of them have been reported — of glue sniffers,

once again using the large term, turning to other forms of drug

abuse including heroin addiction. So again, Madam Chairman,

[ Page 2150 ]

can't deal with the problems of drug abuse in isolation.

We've got to look at every kind of drug use, chemical use,

interrelate them and then perhaps come up with some

solutions.

The marijuana problem, Madam Chairman, has to be considered

in the total scheme as well. I'm sure that the drug dependency

commission will be looking at this problem as well.

I'd like to say right now, Madam Chairman, that personally

I'm not prepared to accept the proposition that marijuana be

legalized. Once again I think there are too many questions. The

question of dependency hasn't been answered — at least not

sufficiently to allay my fears. The argument that alcohol is

just as dangerous and so we should give marijuana to people — I

can't accept that as a valid argument.

There's no reason, in my opinion, to open the gates to

another possibly harmful drug, just because we already have

countless tragic problems from one other drug. There's not

enough evidence, Madam Chairman, about marijuana's effects on

users in my opinion. Is it harmful or not? I don't think we

know yet. We won't have those answers without a great deal more

research and study.

There's no answer, in my opinion, to the problem of

progression from marijuana to hard drugs. We've heard a lot of

talk about it, but we've never had any comprehensive study

which says that that progression does not exist. It certainly

seems to lead, at least if not progression to heroin, to the

use of many other mood-changing drugs, especially among the

young.

Madam Chairman, despite the problems and there certainly has

been a lot of fervent public discussion about this, I don't

think there's any crying need in our society at this time for

the legalization of marijuana. After all, there's only a very

small minority of our population which presently smokes

marijuana. And until that minority, Madam Chairman, can show

the rest of society that the benefits of this particular drug

far outweigh the disadvantages, then I don't think we should

even be considering that possibility.

Madam Chairman, the availability today of soft drugs in our

society is such that you can get them just as easy as going to

your supermarket and picking up a box of cereal. Because of

that availability, Madam Chairman, virtually every Canadian

youngster will at one time or another in his life, have to make

a decision about whether or not he'll try a mood changing

drug.

In fact, because of the availability of heroin now — I'm told

that you can go to any school in British Columbia and make

arrangements for soft drugs for sure, and probably in many of

the schools, hard drugs as well.

Our youngsters then, are going to be asked to make that decision on their own

at the school level, because they certainly are going to be exposed to drugs.

The kind of training we need to give them in advance is the kind of training

that will allow them to make that answer responsibly and sensibly, rather than

because of simple influence, perhaps from his peer group — or from other social

pressures.

Those hard drugs, Madam Chairman, are becoming almost as

available as soft drugs. At least, if the information that we

get from our education people is correct, that's true. So I

wonder, Madam Chairman, that in that atmosphere we're even

talking about experiments to provide free heroin clinics for

users. That's what bothers me — this experimental aspect of the

whole thing, when we don't even know about the effects — we say

we don't know about the total effects of drugs.

We don't know the answers. Why are we going to experiment

with a programme that really has no merit? The Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace), Madam Chairman, says free heroin for addicts

is worth a try. Well I can't agree with that. I don't think it

is worth a try. Madam Chairman, he says he agrees with the

LeDain Report, that the British system of legal heroin

distribution has been misunderstood.

Well, perhaps it has been misunderstood but I wonder if it

isn't the Member for Oak Bay and perhaps the Minister, if he's

serious about those proposals, who have misunderstood the

British system, because there's a whole lot of evidence, Madam

Chairman, that the British system isn't as wonderful as some

proponents would have us believe. I refer to an

article in the

Vancouver Sun , Madam Chairman, in which it says:

"The LeDain Commission, during its studies of the escalating

heroin problem in Canada, has come to the conclusion that the

British are looking just as fondly at the so-called North

American approach to heroin treatment. The much-touted British

system is both misunderstood and, in many instances, not

directly applicable to Canada."

And that's the misunderstanding, Madam Chairman; not the

misunderstanding that the system works, but that the system

doesn't necessarily work.

Another item written by Karen Gmoser in the Vancouver

Province,

"The number of heroin users will soar if Ottawa legalizes

heroin for the addict, the chairman of the B.C. Drug

Habituation Committee warned Monday."

That's Dr. Conrad Schwartz. He says it's a risk, a great

risk.

"The commission is ignoring the criminal aspects of heroin

in North America. You don't think that the criminals who have

been pushing the stuff for large amounts of money are going to

sit back and watch their customers get free heroin from

clinics. They're going to go out and find a new clientele."

Here's another so-called expert who says:

[ Page

2151 ]

"Free drug project is nonsense. It's absolute nonsense to

even consider a pilot project to provide free heroin to addicts." This is a

psychiatrist that has worked 20 years with drug dependent people. His name is

Dr. Andrew Malcolm. This is also in a story datelined Toronto from the Vancouver

Province.

"Dr. Malcolm says if one province tries to introduce a scheme such as this on its own, it will be

flooded with addicts from all over the continent. And there's

certain to be a great increase of break-ins in stored supplies

of the drugs in clinics. Dr. Malcolm says there is no evidence

that the lower number of heroin addicts in Great Britain has

anything to do with that government's policy of supplying the

drug free to registered addicts. No one, he says, knows how

many unregistered addicts there are, and there has been no

decrease in trafficking on the drug black market in Britain."

and this Toronto psychiatrist is also critical of the LeDain

Commission and its advisers. He calls them "The Canadian

mandarins of drug dependency."

Madam Chairman, the Minister has said that he's going to

develop bold new programmes, quoted in the Vancouver

Sun. I'd like to ask the question, Madam Chairman: has

the Minister checked with Ottawa? At the moment, as I

understand it, there is no legislation in Canadian law which

would allow the therapeutic use of any kind of drugs.

The first question is, has there been any input from Ottawa

on this problem? Have we consulted with the Health and Welfare

people in Ottawa, Madam Chairman? Because, if we haven't, it

seems a little irresponsible to be making those kinds of

statements.

Speaking of interim solutions, we know full well that we

don't have that power within our jurisdiction at this time.

Unless we know full well that we can get a federal programme

going…that is why I mentioned in the first place that any

drug dependency commissio