1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7593 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail shares. Mr. Macdonald –– 7593

Financial disclosure. Mr. Macdonald –– 7593

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 7593

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7594

Premier's principal secretary. Mr. Stupich –– 7595

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

On vote 42: minister's office –– 7595

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Vancouver was 100 years young, and I know that

every member in the House would like to join me in expressing every

best wish to that which so many of us consider to be the most exciting

city in British Columbia, in Canada and, indeed, in the world. So happy

birthday to you, Vancouver.

It is a great pleasure for me

this afternoon to introduce to the House Mr. Theodore Arcand, who is

here with his wife. Mr. Arcand is the chief of protocol, Department of

External Affairs, Canada. Delighted to have you both here today.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL SHARES

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a question of the Attorney-General.

He's not here so I'll ask a different question of the Minister of

Finance.

The Minister of Finance undertook to bring to the

House information about his purchase of B.C. Rail shares. Has he

decided when he is going to do that?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question was posed to me on March 13. The member

will realize that I was rather busy with budget preparation and budget

matters. I answered the question in part on that date, and will bring

back the balance of the answers later this week.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

MR. MACDONALD:

To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with the general subject

of the strengthening of the government back bench, in view of the

return filed by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) under the

Financial Disclosure Act, where he did not list the corporations in

which he held shares or that were held for him by a trustee, as clearly

required by the act, is the Attorney-General looking into that with a

view to the infraction that seems to be very apparent?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, this matter was apparently raised on Friday by the Leader

of the Opposition, who had caused a letter to be delivered to me on

this subject. Apparently he was of the view that another member of this

House, the Minister of Tourism, had violated the Financial Disclosure

Act by filing a disclosure which revealed a blind trust.

can tell the member, and the Leader of the Opposition, that my ministry

reviewed that issue some time ago, and we again reviewed it and

obtained a confirmatory opinion — that is, the procedure of revealing

holdings in a blind trust does not violate the spirit and purpose of

the Financial Disclosure Act. In fact....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, if there are defects in this legislation, one might look

to the authors, drafters and introducers of it. I'm terribly sorry that

the opinion isn't as the member would like it. The opinion is,

nevertheless, clear: it is not a violation of the Financial Disclosure

Act to so reveal your assets.

I have answered the Leader of

the Opposition in that form in a letter which I have just caused to

have sent to his office, and I will table with the House the letter

that he delivered to me after his press conference on Friday and the

letter which I am now sending to him in conjunction with this answer

today. With leave, Mr. Speaker, I would file that correspondence.

Leave granted.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The $501 million rail

line to Tumbler Ridge in the northeast coalfields was to have been paid

for by a surcharge of $3 a tonne from Quintette and $2.50 from Teck,

the two operating corporations up there. Can the minister advise me if

those amounts have been discounted?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I take the question as notice and thank the member for the question.

MR. WILLIAMS:

The minister has been asked this question for some time. Is notice

really necessary? Can the minister advise the House whether he knows

the answer to the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, a question taken as notice cannot be the subject of further question or debate.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is saying he does not know if there has been a discount, is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I sat here in opposition from 1972 to 1975 where that

member rarely answered a question. Not only did he just take notice; he

rarely answered a question. As an honourable member of this House I

tell the member: I will bring the answer to this House. Mr. Speaker, I

take it as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister

advise this House if the shortfall with respect to payments on that

line is being capitalized; i.e., is the debt ballooning well beyond the

$500 million that it cost us in the first place?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member is attempting to ask much the

same question as that which I have taken as notice, and I will happily....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Much the same. I did not say identical. I will happily bring the answer back to the member and to this House in due course.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise us, Mr. Speaker, if he received a letter from his own back bench two

[ Page 7594 ]

months

ago suggesting that the debt would balloon to $700 million by the end

of this decade? Can he confirm that he's considered his correspondence

or answered his mail?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I deal with correspondence daily.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, such questions on correspondence stretch the limits of question period.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Tourism. Recently

management at Expo 86 has recorded the forty-second firing of senior

managers in the short life of this project. Forty-two heads have

rolled. Has the minister decided, in light of this evidence, to reveal

how much severance pay the public is liable for as a result of this

revolving-door policy that there presently seems to be at Expo?

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

It is the policy of the corporation that we do not discuss individuals

and the reasons for their leaving the corporation. Suffice it to say

that some have left because their jobs have been phased out or have

expired. Perhaps they were in the construction or planning stage, and

their jobs have come to an end. I am sure that even the member can

understand that we are now approaching the operational phase of the

fair, and that therefore planning and construction have come to an end.

Some of these people were under contract and the contract expired.

Without question many more people will be leaving the corporation over

the next little while.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Expo

spokesman, George Madden, has said that the government has been

provided with information regarding the actual cost of severance for

each of these 42 fired executives. These are people who are head to

tail at the public trough — paid for out of public funds — and I would

suggest that the public is interested in knowing what the cost of

servicing these severance packages is. I would ask the minister whether

he has decided to make this information — which, I remind him, is

available to him and which he has in his possession — available to the public, which is in essence paying the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister may detect a new question.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

Well, the member makes a false assumption that I am aware of all the

details about all the personnel leaving Expo. The government of British

Columbia is kept informed as to the financial status of Expo on a

weekly basis.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A supplementary to the minister again — and

I think this is an important point to make. Officials at the exhibiting

pavilions have been complaining that they are finding it very difficult

to do business with the Crown corporation because as soon as they get

to know somebody and get working with them, that person is out the

door. I would like to ask the minister what steps he has taken to

improve both the morale and the working conditions, to retain more

employees who will actually earn their paycheques.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Speaker, it's still evident that the people on that side of the

House still don't believe that Expo is going to happen and that it's

going to be a success.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I know. Even Mikey likes it now.

Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you, after spending the last three days on the Expo

site with visiting dignitaries, with volunteers, with the speakers'

bureau.... People have gone out and volunteered their time over the

last three years to make innumerable speeches on Expo's behalf, on

behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia. The morale at

the corporation has never been higher, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that

the awareness of this fair and the expectations around the world have

never been greater for any event, ever. I would only urge those people

across there to find some time in their busy schedules, if they can, to

visit the site. I'm sure they'll be pleasantly surprised.

MR. MacWILLIAM:

In order that the minister thoroughly understands the importance of the

question, which he obviously seems to be taking too lightly, I will

rephrase that question one more time: what is the total amount of the

severance package that it is costing the taxpayers for the firing of

these 42 executives? What is the total amount of that package? Will the

minister please respond?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, order, please. Clearly that is a question which could be

placed on the order paper, and cannot be expected at question period.

Further questions?

MR. MacWILLIAM: One last question

for the minister. The minister has publicly acknowledged that the

affairs of Expo 86 are fully accountable under present legislation

regarding Crown corporations. I would ask the minister if the minister

has decided at this time to table a full financial analysis of the Expo

86 Crown corporation, as has been requested numerous times in the past.

Has the minister decided at this time to table that financial

disclosure?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm sure the member

understands that at this moment, when there are 24 days left to go to

open this magnificent project, the people at Expo have better things to

do than to provide you or me with a list of exactly what it's costing

us for people leaving the corporation. That will all be published in

due course as a matter of public interest, Mr. Speaker.

have asked the corporation to provide a detailed list as soon as is

practical, and with 24 days to go to open a project that is costing

$802 million — none of which is coming out of the public treasury, I

might add, Mr. Member.... You know full well that when you say it's

coming out of the public purse, you're incorrect; yet you keep saying

that. Your supporters out there keep saying that it's coming out of

Education, it's coming out of Health, it's coming out of Forestry, when

you know that that is not true. Yet you keep misleading the people of

this province by continuing to say that.

[ Page

7595 ]

PREMIER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

MR. STUPICH:

I have a question to the Minister of Finance. According to

order-in-council 726, Mr. Jerry Lampert has been appointed to the

position of principal secretary to the Premier at a salary, I'm

informed, of $76,992 per year. Will the minister advise whether or not

he approved or considered this expenditure of taxpayers' money to hire

Mr. Lampert?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in

answering the question from the honorable member for Nanaimo, I take

him at his word with respect to the salary he has quoted. Certainly,

unlike what may have been the case during the 1972-1975 period, the

Premier of this province keeps his Minister of Finance fully informed

as to expenditures and commitments out of the Premier's office. There

were times when that member, as the Minister of Finance, didn't even

know what his Premier was committing to in 1975.

I think

the question could more properly be directed to the Premier, who is

travelling on government business for a few days. I will check the

order-in-council with respect to....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You

never had one, did you? You had three, four, five.... You had so

many political hacks that constituents couldn't get into your office.

MR. MITCHELL: Could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL:

I'd like to take the opportunity at this time to introduce a, you might

say, endangered species. I believe this might be the last group of 34

youths who are training out in Naden under the Katimavik program. They

are here in the precincts with their instructors. I would ask everyone

to welcome this endangered group and wish them luck.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

In some introductory remarks to the vote under consideration at this

time, I would first like to mention to the House the pleasure and

privilege it is to be the new Minister of Human Resources, to be able

to have the opportunity, through this office, to assist many people in

our province who are in need of assistance through various programs,

whether it be income assistance programs or other programs which are

developed to assist people more directly rather than simply by

augmenting income or providing certain funds.

The Ministry of Human Resources routinely and regularly assists hundreds of

thousands of citizens in the province with various difficulties in their lives

on a daily, sometimes almost hourly, basis. To a very large extent we are able

to fulfill our obligation to the citizens without much difficulty at all.

are forever going to see the headlines and sensational stories relating

to difficult cases that have perhaps developed further difficulties.

Sensational situations that are reported on occasion seem to attempt to

suggest that that is the norm or the manner in which every situation is

handled. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Almost a million

people a day may be in some level of assistance from the ministry. In

most cases, the vast majority of the difficulties are handled promptly,

professionally....

[Interruption.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. I'll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to maintain order in the galleries, please. One moment, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

On a point of order, I would ask that perhaps the standing orders be

considered and such people who may choose to be interrupting the

procedures of this House be removed from the gallery.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The Ministry of Human Resources staff, to a very large degree, come

into daily contact with situations that the average citizen of the

province would seldom even be aware of. Many members within the

Ministry of Human Resources staff are required to make decisions and to

frequently take action under very difficult situations. They are

dealing with individuals with problems that are frequently difficult

for them to handle on their own. The workers within the ministry are

very often asked to make decisions and to be judgmental, with the

constant difficulty and concern that their actions may be questioned

later as being incorrect.

It is not unlike other procedures

where post-mortems may occur or inquiries may occur after the fact. As

we are aware, hindsight is always 20/20. In many cases the Ministry of

Human Resources, or perhaps a member of the staff, may indeed react

differently in one specific case than they would have had they had the

opportunity of viewing the matter after the fact. So I commend the

members and staff within the Ministry of Human Resources for doing what

I think is a most commendable job, frequently under very trying

circumstances. I support them 100 percent.

I'll be the

first to admit when errors have been made by the staff within the

ministry, where errors of judgment have been made, but I would expect

the people of British Columbia to be able to understand that errors are

going to happen when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of

individual cases on an ongoing basis. So I offer no apologies, in a

general sense, that some errors indeed are going to be made, because

we're dealing with an imperfect society and we're dealing with very,

very difficult problems.

The estimates of the ministry

reflect the government's continuing concern for the well-being of the

citizens of British Columbia. Caseloads have risen during very

difficult economic times. The ministry has provided temporary financial

assistance to people in need. Over the four-year period of 1981-82 to

1984-85, the average monthly number of recipients under the GAIN

program rose from 130,000 to

[ Page 7596 ]

232,000,

an increase of 78 percent. During those same years, a total of $2.54

billion was expended in payments to GAIN recipients. In the last fiscal

year, about $927 million was spent on income assistance programs, and

that includes the health and dental benefits.

[2:30]

is anticipated that the 1986-87 expenditures will not exceed those of

the previous year, but to ensure that these costs are controlled, while

the maximum possible number of needy British Columbians still receive

assistance, the rates are remaining at the current levels. There have

been many inquiries made with respect to increases. At the present

time, the rates are remaining as they are.

As has been

emphasized in previous debates on the Ministry of Human Resources

estimates, the income assistance caseload is not static. About 70

percent of the clients move out of the system on their own initiative

within eight months. For those clients who need help— help in becoming self-sufficient and moving out of the system —

the ministry directly operates its own job readiness program. The

ministry works with the federal government and other provinces to

ensure that income assistance recipients are referred to training

programs and employment opportunities. Negotiations are underway right

now with the federal government involving the Canadian Job Strategy.

The governments of B.C. and Canada are close to an agreement whereby

each would contribute millions of dollars toward the development of a

range of programs to enhance opportunities for those on income

assistance.

Mr. Chairman, today I announced a proposal by

the ministry with respect to introducing changes to the earning

exemption policy, in an effort to encourage citizens to earn as much as

they possibly can. Efforts would be rewarded with an opportunity to

retain more of earned income. I might point out that earned income may

sound redundant, but it's a definition which all governments adhere to.

Earned income is defined differently than what is referred to as

unearned income as it relates to certain other benefits which are

available to some of these recipients.

The formula for the enhancement is complicated —

and not simply by making it difficult to understand. The formula must

adhere to the Canada-British Columbia agreement and be within certain

parameters to be acceptable to the federal government, and to ensure

that British Columbia does not suffer penalties because of certain

exemptions which are above what the agreement calls for.

would be pleased to go into more detail with respect to the proposed

plan. I have instructed staff within the ministry to begin the process

necessary to have the program in place as soon as possible. It would

require reprogramming the computer system. It would require new

training programs for staff to be able to comprehend and calculate the

opportunities of an enhanced program for recipients. It is a very major

undertaking because it involves literally hundreds of thousands of

people in slightly different circumstances at any given time. We hope

to have the program in place as soon as possible, and we are prepared

to listen to those who may have different ideas, although the plan was

vetted by several organizations prior to today's announcement.

Mr.

Chairman, one of the major concerns of citizens in British Columbia is

child protection. Unfortunately, over the past while we have become

increasingly aware of the number of incidents with respect to child

protection, or the need for it primarily ones dealing with sexual abuse

of children which have been reported, which have been investigated and

which in some instances have gone through very long court procedures.

It is a concern which the government recognized some time back and,

through the interministry committees, took action to try to address.

Information was made available to the general public, to ministries and

other organizations with respect to child abuse. A program was

developed whereby access to the Helpline was available to the children

of British Columbia. One result was an increased awareness of abuse.

There have been many well-publicized cases of child abuse.

The

Ministry of Human Resources is in a most difficult position at all

times with respect to reported cases of abuse. It is somewhat difficult

for the staff to be advised by way of the media that they were

negligent in ignoring a report of abuse, only to see soon thereafter

similar reports in the media that they were overactive in apprehending

children in instances where there were reports of child abuse. The

ministry staff takes most seriously such reports and is obliged by

statute to follow through. It's very difficult for adults in our

society who may find themselves being questioned by Ministry of Human

Resources staff— or police — about reports of abuse. Frequently

individuals being questioned are grossly offended that someone may have

accused them of abusing a child. The investigations are very different

from those routinely carried out by police officials on other matters.

We frequently hear one side of the story as related by the person who

may have been questioned with respect to the abuse. A response is

difficult because of prohibition by legislation with respect to

releasing certain information which might be required to remain

confidential. Mr. Chairman, I will be recommending soon that

consideration be provided to the superintendent of family and child

Service to have the authority when in his opinion it is in the best

interest of a child that certain information be available for release.

superintendent of family and child service has been appointed. Mr.

Andrew Armitage was formerly with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing and has had an extensive career in social work, including a

period of time when he was instructing in this matter at a university.

Mr. Armitage is undertaking his new role with great vigour, and we

expect to have the opportunity of seeing the results of his labours

very soon. An associate superintendent, Ms. Leslie Arnold, has been

appointed as well. The position will be responsible for ensuring the

quality of child welfare services. A network of children's officers

will be introduced over the next period of time— perhaps over the next

year — throughout the province to coordinate with these two senior

officials.

Child

welfare expenditures increased from $63 million in '78-79 to $95

million in '84-85, representing an expenditure of $7,138 per child last

year, as compared to $4,500 in '78-79. The financial support for child

welfare services will be increased in 1986-87. An additional $2.3

million will be directed to child care resources and further money will

be made available to enhance child protection services. Fostercare

rates and day-care subsidies will receive a cost-of-living increase of

approximately 4.7 percent. The budgets for these child-care services

will be $24.1 million and $26.9 million respectively.

Mr.

Chairman, I would just like to make a few comments with respect to the

foster-care program in British Columbia. Some thousands of children are

in the care of foster parents constantly— approximately 5,000 children.

The foster parents have offered a tremendous service to the province.

The

[ Page 7597 ]

cost

of the program is considerably less, compared to alternative programs.

It is only because the foster parents consider themselves to have a

duty to our society, and particularly an opportunity and duty to assist

children, that we have had the tremendous success with that program in

British Columbia. I would pay tribute to the foster parents who have

added a great deal of service to our province and have assisted

youngsters in difficulty to have a much more pleasant period of time in

custody— or in care — than would be so otherwise. Many foster parents

in our province have been assisting children in this manner for well

over 15 to 20 years.

The recent federal Badgley Report

regarding child protection emphasized the importance of a coordinated

approach in reporting and investigating child abuse. In our province

much has already been put in place to this end. I mentioned the

Helpline for Children. We receive hundreds of calls each month from

people, including teachers, police, parents, relatives, neighbours and

medical staff. I might point out, since it should be emphasized, that

it is a statutory obligation on the part of citizens in our province to

report incidents of abuse, whether it be a neighbour, friend, relative,

medical practitioner, teacher or someone else in the position of

suspecting that a child may be being abused. There has been a lot of

argument about whether that responsibility should be carried out, and

in what manner it should be carried out. It would appear, from the

information we've received over the past year, that in certain

instances that statutory obligation was not carried out by people in

positions of responsibility. We will be doing some in-depth studies to

determine why the system may have failed in certain specific instances.

[2:45]

There's

been a significant increase in reported cases of abuse, particularly

since the Helpline was introduced back in 1979. We try to look at the

positive side and suggest that this increased reporting is because of

the awareness of citizens within B.C.

Another initiative

directed at meeting the challenge for a coordinated approach is the

interministry child abuse handbook, which was the first of its kind in

Canada. The book was developed by the Ministries of Human Resources,

Health, Education and the Attorney-General. It details responsibilities

and procedures.

We've also developed the child abuse

training package, developed a few years ago to help social workers

around the province upgrade their knowledge and skills in dealing with

child abuse.

The Ministries of Health and Human Resources

are reviewing the entire matter of child abuse, with a view to

identifying potential changes needed in legislation, to ensure

efficient and effective response capability.

The ministry

also protects the integrity of the family by making available emergency

accommodations for battered spouses and their children. Most of these

facilities are operated by non-profit societies, assisted by the

ministry.

Mr. Chairman, other special needs of British

Columbians are also recognized by the government, through the Ministry

of Human Resources. Where appropriate, mentally retarded adults have

been provided with alternatives to institutional care. Programs such as

Chance, the infant development program and special needs day care

continue to assist children with physical and mental disabilities.

The

ministry came under a tremendous amount of criticism a while back with

respect to the relocation of some retarded citizens in our province to

community-care level services rather than provincial institutions. The

phase-out of Tranquille and the relocation of the people within that

facility involved a political game for a period of time by some people

who should have known better. There were others who were skeptical

about changing what had been in our society for some time, who have

since recognized that the program has worked and has benefited those

people who have been transferred from Tranquille. In fact, some of the

most vigorous opponents to the move are now the greatest supporters of

the results.

There was an absolutely irresponsible

advertising program carried out by the B.C. Government Employees'

Union, which seemed only to wish to alarm people with scary caricatures

of what they believe a mentally retarded person looks like — which I

found offensive — plus literature and language which was wrong...seemed

to be inflammatory. Thankfully, wisdom prevailed, and that

advertising program was withdrawn. I was most pleased to see

responsible people, representing organizations who deal with the needs

of mentally retarded people, condemn that advertising program.

Mr.

Chairman, we do face very serious problems in our society today, as we

have in the past, as we will in the future, not only in British

Columbia but in all provinces of Canada and probably most countries of

the world.

We do have difficulties which have not been

overcome, but we certainly offer programs and services to a vast array

of citizens in the province which may not be available elsewhere.

British Columbia may indeed have different problems than some other

parts of Canada. If we are led to believe the results of various

surveys, investigations and conclusions reached by people who consider

themselves to be expert in those fields.... We see such stories being

reported recently that most people in Canada, if they were to relocate,

would want to relocate in British Columbia. We see stories offered to

us by Goldfarb, the pollster, that some people believe they would

rather be on income assistance in British Columbia than working in

other parts of the country.

Mr. Chairman, whatever the

facts of the matter may be, British Columbia does attract people from

other parts of Canada for many reasons. We do have large numbers of

transient people in the province, We do attract a lot of people who are

attracted by the services available to them in British Columbia, and in

many instances such people may become eligible for compensation or

assistance under some of our programs. We've had good success. We must

always continue to be most alert to the needs of those people who are

less privileged than others.

Special needs is a problem

that requires a tremendous amount of attention. Sometimes it is almost

a single incident problem, where some programs simply do not encompass

the needs of the individual, and a program must almost be tailor-made

to assist them. Mr. Chairman, I regret on occasion when bureaucratic

programs, regulatory matters, or even statutory, seem to prohibit

attention being paid to an individual when it would seem that society

in its wisdom, when drafting such legislation or regulations, really

intended that individual to be in a position of receiving assistance.

So sometimes the ministry has to find other ways to assist an

individual who may not quite fall into the categories demanded by the

regulations or policy. And I do not apologize for that need or that

result.

There has been a tremendous improvement in the

attitude of the public in general with respect to the capacity of some

people who are handicapped physically, mentally or perhaps

[ Page 7598 ]

a poor social history. I believe that our citizens by and large today

have a far more positive attitude to what these individuals can

accomplish if provided with some assistance, encouragement and

intelligent planning.

So in conclusion, if I may conclude

at least for this period of time, we face great challenges in providing

assistance to British Columbians in need. Many of those needs have been

met. Some of the problems have been overcome. There are many challenges

ahead, particularly in facilitating client independence, integration of

clients into the mainstream of our society. We've had good assistance

from the federal government, community organizations, municipal

governments and others, but we have not been able to overcome all the

problems. We don't pretend that we will or that we can. But I can

assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Human Resources has a

dedicated staff to try to resolve as many of these problems as is

humanly possible.

We welcome attitudes and ideas from

citizens in the province with respect to how the job may be done

better. We will not become engaged in partisan political games using

the underprivileged as pawns. I leave it to others to do so, but I will

not take

part in that. I welcome those who are genuinely concerned

about the well-being of our citizens. If they believe they have good

ideas or programs that can be of assistance, they are more than welcome

at any time to make contact with my office to discuss such matters. Mr.

Chairman, I took forward to comments from others in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before I recognize the next member, the Chair will draw the committee's

attention to our revised standing orders with respect to debate in

Committee of Supply, which state that leaders of recognized parties or

designated members thereof have one opening statement not exceeding 30

minutes, and thereafter 15 minutes. The minister, of course, has taken

that opportunity. The Chair is of no opinion on when the debate leader

of another recognized party may wish to take that 30-minute

opportunity, but if the debate leader would advise the Chair, it would

be helpful to all of us. It's entirely up to you, Madam Member.

MS. BROWN: Do I have to indicate that at the beginning, or can I do it at the end?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As a matter of courtesy, it would be appreciated, Madam Member.

MR. ROSE:

I haven't got the rule book before me, but I recall being part of the

debate when we revised these things. I think it's fair to say that a

person can speak for 30 minutes, uninterrupted— that is desired. But

it is the tradition in committee sessions that if some other member

gets up at the twenty-ninth minute and speaks for one minute, the

debate leader has a reprieve and can go on and ask further questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

All the debate in Committee of Supply can reciprocate until the vote is

passed. It's just the time limits that we're discussing now.

MS. BROWN:

We started out, at least certainly in my work experience in British

Columbia, with the Minister of Human Resources of the day, Mr.

Gaglardi, giving us a program called the Provincial Alliance of

Businessmen, which was supposed to succeed in taking people off income

assistance and putting them all to work. That program was such an

absolute failure that his government was defeated and we haven't heard

from Mr. Gaglardi since.

Then when the government was

re-elected, the new Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Vander Zalm,

brought in another program which was going to be the one that this time

would get everybody off income assistance. It was called ZOOOM. ZOOOM

zoomed right through the floor, because it was another failure, and in

fact we found that far from getting people off income assistance, as a

direct result of the government's policies in other areas the number of

people on income assistance was increasing. So Mr. Vander Zalm

disappeared.

Then we had a new minister, the past Minister

of Human Resources, who came up with another program, and this one

definitely was the answer to the world's ills. All income assistance

recipients were going to have full-time jobs, retraining and whatever.

But hers had a number of different names. First we had the PREP

program, and when that didn't work, we had the opportunities program.

That was a disaster and a failure.

Now we have the new

Minister of Human Resources giving us another program which is going to

bring everybody off income assistance and put them to work. His program

is called "partners in poverty." Partners in poverty is the new program

that, his press release tells us, will help people who are employable

to phase off income assistance.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

I can read the press release to you. The minister seems to have

forgotten what his press release said. His press release says that this

program of his, partners in poverty, is going to phase people off

income assistance in the foreseeable future. I want to point out, Mr.

Chairman, that we will be hearing from this minister again under the

Health estimates, when he will give us his "partners in sickness"

program — and all of his programs.

[3:00]

says: "The end result could be that a client could gradually work his

way out of the need for income assistance." Now what does that mean to

you? It means that this new program, partners in poverty, is going to

result in clients being able to get off income assistance. Once

again.... We've gone from PAB to ZOOOM to PREP to Opportunities, and now

we've come to partners in poverty. Don't hold your breath. I don't

think anyone should hold their breath.

In 1979 the Victoria

earnings exemption project made a recommendation to the ministry. It

said a number of things, including the fact that.... Its major thrust

was that clients work when jobs are available, and that's what they

want: they want jobs. The earnings exemption project of 1979

recommended the figures which we are now being presented in 1986. I

wonder what a 1979 dollar is worth today, in 1986. I know that my

colleague, the critic on income assistance, will deal with that. But

what we have here in this brand-new, spanking partners in poverty

program, which has been unveiled by the minister today, is an old 1979

recommendation by the Victoria earnings exemption project, which had as

its major thrust that people want to work. Jobs are what they're asking

for, and the increase in the earnings exemption, if and when it's

introduced, should be within 1986 economic realities, not 1979 economic

realities.

[ Page 7599 ]

fact, Mr. Chairman, what this minister has done in the short period of

time since he has taken over his job is indicate very clearly that he

has become a part of his government's conspiracy to drive as many

people in this province as possible into living below the poverty line

and keep them there. That's what this partners in poverty program is

all about. He has gone back and used statistics from 1978-79 and

compared them with today. The reality of this situation is that within

the last five years— between 1981 and 1986 — the number of adults in

receipt of income assistance in this province, the number of heads of

families, has gone from 66,000 to 125,000. That's an increase of 90

percent. At the same time, across Canada the number has increased only

37 percent.

A direct result of this government's policies

in creating poverty, in increasing unemployment, in throwing people out

of work, in destroying the small business sector, is that this minister

can now come onto the floor of this House and introduce us to his

partners in poverty program. Obviously he's going to sell this partners

in poverty program, because a took at the budget for his ministry shows

that the largest increase is for communications— 310 percent — while

there's a decrease in services to seniors of $1.5 million; a decrease

in rehabilitation and support services of over threequarters of a

million dollars; a decrease in the GAIN programs of over $11 million.

This minister is telling us that the number of people in receipt of

income assistance is going to go down, when all we've had is an

increase between 1981 and 1986 of 90 percent. And suddenly this year

the GAIN program is going to drop by $11 million.

I'll tell

you how this government operates. I don't want to go back and quote old

statements made by the previous minister and the deputy minister and

other people, but it is a tradition of the Ministry of Human Resources

to deliberately understate and underestimate its GAIN budget. It's a

tradition. Then what it does is it uses the warren system to put more

money into the budget as is needed, so that we have overruns by the end

of the fiscal year every single time. Every single time. And now we

have this partners in poverty program of this government— another

smoke-and-mirrors project. The only saving grace that we have to deal

with, Mr. Chairman, is the fact and the reality that nobody believes

anything that this government says anymore. Nobody believes them.

Nobody trusts them. That's....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, listen.

You know, Mr. Chairman, this is the government that introduced programs

to help small business. Who remembers the LIFT program and all those

other programs that were supposed to help small business— the small

manufacturers assistance program, the small business enterprise

program? In reality in 1983 by secret ministerial order those programs

were eliminated, and the fact is that only one-quarter of the money

promised for those programs was ever spent by this government. People

remember that. People know that this government cannot be trusted.

People know that this government does not honour its commitment and

that its promises, as someone once said, are not worth the paper

they're written on. So now this big unveiling of this partners in

poverty program, and we are to believe as is stated in the words of

that press release that in fact income assistance people are going to

be able to get off income assistance? Right. Right into continuing

poverty.

MS. SANFORD: Not a single cabinet minister in the House.

MS. BROWN: Well, of course. This is not an issue that interests them. Services to people —

that's not an issue that interests them. There's a 310 percent increase

in their communications budget to pay for TV ads. On TV we are going to

find the minister of sickness and death, now the minister of poverty,

with the B.C. flag behind him, talking about all these great promises

that he's going to make for the disabled and the mentally retarded and

seniors. Nobody is going to know the truth, which is that $1.5 million

has been cut from services to seniors and $11 million from the GAIN

program in a smoke-and-mirrors deal that shows this unveiling of this

partners in poverty program using up $6 million of that and the other

$5 million disappearing off into the sky somewhere. Services to

rehabilitation and support services are cut by a quarter of a million

dollars, and this minister stands there and tells us that he cares,

that he is concerned, that in fact he wants to establish a network of

children's workers as though he's going to be hiring new people. In

fact those are not new jobs. By the process of attrition they are old

jobs with a new name. That's what it is. In the same way that this

partners in poverty program is an old program with a new name. We had

it under PAB, we had it under PREP, we had it under ZOOOM, we had it

under the opportunities program. It's the same old smoke-and- mirrors

program that has been reintroduced.

The reality of the

situation is that people in this province want jobs. If this minister

is serious about getting people off income assistance, for Pete's sake

do something about creating jobs. Get after those ministers who haven't

got the interest or concern about unemployment in this province, and

say to them that there's been a 90 percent increase in the number of

people in this province dependent on income assistance because they

have been thrown out of work by the deliberate conspiracy of this

government to force as many people as possible into poverty and to keep

them living under the poverty line.

That's what you are.

You're not a Minister of Human Resources; you're a minister of poverty.

That's what you are, and your commitment and your determination is to

ensure that poverty continues in this province. That's what you are

about.

First of all, less than two months ago this was a

full-time Minister of Human Resources, we were told. "There are things,

" he said, "in the department that I want to clean up. Like Humphrey

Bogart, I am going to start cleaning up things in this department."

you know something? Never once in the history of his film or personal

career has Humphrey Bogart ever been accused of picking the pockets of

the poor, yet that is precisely what has been said about this Ministry

of Human Resources and this province of British Columbia. It said here:

"'Four provincial governments pick the pockets of the poor in the worst

economic crisis since the Great Depression, ' said a study of welfare

rates made public today." It says that British Columbia turned in the

worst report card, according to the council, because it froze most of

its welfare rates between 1982 and 1985. Single, disabled recipients

got token increases, but not enough to keep them ahead of inflation.

What

does that minister have to say about those welfare rates today? Did you

hear what that partners in poverty minister had to say? He said that

those rates are going to

[ Page 7600 ]

remain

frozen. This is the government that has been accused of picking the

pockets of the poor. Humphrey Bogart! If Humphrey Bogart were alive

today, he would sue you for defamation of character. At no time has

anyone ever been able to say that Humphrey Bogart would be guilty of

picking the pockets of the poor.

That minister has the gall

to come in here, unveil an old 1979 report, which may as well be 1794,

in this House and tell us that this is his program, his progress in

poverty program. The GAIN rates, which were inadequate when they were

raised the last time and have been frozen for the last six years, we

are told, are going to remain the same. This despite the fact that this

very government is increasing directly and indirectly taxation on every

British Columbian as indicated by the budget tabled in this House

earlier by that Minister of Finance.

He tells us about services to children. Oh, his heart breaks for child abuse...

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: ...but the one program that the social workers in this province

could depend on in terms of support — the one program that they could

depend on....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Don't point your finger at me.

MS. BROWN:

Humphrey Bogart didn't care. You can't be Humphrey Bogart and get all

nervous about a finger being pointed at you. One thing about Humphrey

Bogart, he was cool.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The minister had his place, and he'll have his opportunity to respond.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Humphrey Bogart was a very cool man. I never saw him lose his temper. He said: "Play it again, Sam." Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: He never said that.

MS. BROWN: Oh, wasn't that Humphrey Bogart?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Why don't you get serious for a minute, instead of playing games?

MS. BROWN:

I thought that you were going to get serious. I expected you to be

serious, and when you were appointed Minister of Human Resources, I

congratulated you on that because I thought it was going to be a

full-time job, and instead of that, it's a part-time job. You're now

responsible for sickness and death in this province as well as for

poverty. Yes, you are the minister of poverty and the minister of

sickness.

You stand on the floor of this House and tell us

that the income assistance rates, frozen at the 1982 level, are going

to remain there despite the fact that you have the statistics that show

that 82 percent of the people in this province who use the food bank

are income assistance recipients and do not have enough money to spend

on food. You stand there and tell us that those income assistance rates

are going to remain frozen. Why don't you get serious?

[3:15]

I sat in absolute silence, Mr. Chairman, and listened to that minister,

because I thought that he would have something to say. In fact, all

that he said in his statement indicated his clear commitment to

participate in the conspiracy of this government to drive as many

people as possible into poverty and to sustain and maintain them there,

living below the poverty line. That is absolutely disgraceful, to try

and use smoke- and-mirrors things and think that people are going to

trust you and believe you when you unveil an old 1979 program and tell

us that this, in your own press release statement, is going to get

people off income assistance. Get them off income assistance into what?

Into continuing to live in poverty, and continuing to live below a

poverty line that existed even in 1982. That's the disgraceful kind of

thing that's been happening with this minister.

I want to

point out that in 1981 the total number of people in this province who

were in receipt of income assistance — and I'm talking about not just

adults, not just the 66,000 adults who could work, but everybody,

their dependents and everyone — was 128,000. That figure, in the

minister's own words, is now close to a quarter of a million people who

are dependent on income assistance. That minister has the gall to tell

us that he can deduct $11 million from his budget because, as the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said, things are improving in

British Columbia and there are going to be fewer people in need of

income assistance. He is telling us that his partners in poverty

program is going to assist people in getting off income assistance.

It's not going to happen.

I want the minister, when he

responds, to tell me exactly how many jobs are going to be created at

what works out to about $80 per job per adult in receipt of income

assistance. If you use that 125 adults in this province who want to

work, who can't find work, who are living on income assistance, who are

supposed to be benefiting from this $6 million program of his, it works

out to something in the neighbourhood of about $70 to $75 a job. How

many of those people are going to be able to find jobs as a direct

result of this program? The unemployment insurance figures, which are

even more frightening than that, are there.

has not

dealt with any of the number of programs that were deliberately either

eliminated or cut back under the previous Minister of Human Resources

and that resulted in this province having the reputation of turning in

the worst report card in Canada as far as dealing with poverty is

concerned, in that report. I want to remind you that this is not a poor

province. We have natural resources here, and if we did not have a

government that was so committed and dedicated to the poverty of others

— not to themselves, of course — then we wouldn't be turning in the

kind of report card that that report was talking about.

The

community involvement program, which allowed some people to earn $50 a

month and which was cost-shared with the federal government, was first

eliminated and then reintroduced in a limited way in 1984. Now it is

only available for those GAIN recipients who are disabled, handicapped.

Before it was eliminated in 1983, single parents were eligible as well

as the disabled. Now that's not the case. What's going to happen to

CIP? The $1.5 million wiped out of the budget for services to seniors —

part of that used to be used to cover the cost of seniors' day-care

centres. Those were eliminated in 1984. Are they going to be restored?

The renter's tax credit, which was of benefit to people who were

[ Page 7601 ]

living below the poverty line, went in 1983. The personal income tax credit went in 1983.

Every

day now we are getting in our constituency offices letters from people

living in B.C. housing telling us that their rents have been increased

from 25 percent of their income up to 30 percent. We're talking about

people living on very limited income, because you don't get into B.C.

Housing with that kind of income — unlike co-op housing, which the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) was able to get

into with his $71,000 income and pay $475 rent for. You have to have

limited income, yet now they're receiving letters saying that their

rent has gone up from 25 percent to 30 percent of their income.

What

about the family support worker program, that preventive program that

went into families and was the first to spot when there was a crisis

looming and could move quickly and efficiently to deal with that? Two

hundred and fifty-nine positions; something in the neighbourhood of 226

people terminated in 1983. What about that program? That program did

more to cut down on the incidence of physical and other abuse of

children and families than all the crocodile tears being shed by this

minister of poverty on the floor of the House today. Income assistance

coordinators, mental retardation coordinators, family and children's

service coordinators — program coordinators terminated. What about

those programs? An increase of 310 percent in communications to go on

TV and do a gavotte and talk about your partners in poverty program,

yet these people who work directly with families and children in this

province were terminated and their programs eliminated.

What

about the provincial in-service resource team eliminated in October

1983? They worked with disturbed and disabled children, the same ones

that the crocodile tears were dropping for a few minutes ago, Mr.

Chairman. Is that program going to be reintroduced, or are all of the

increases still going to be in terms of that minister's communications

budget, occupancy budget, travel budget, the budget for computers and

all of those kinds of things? Moving further and further away from

direct services to people and more and more into all of the flimflam

that we see. No money to serve people, but money to go on TV and look

soulfully into people's eyes and say, "Trust me," knowing full well

that it's useless anyway because nobody trusts you; nobody believes any

of those crocodile tears.

You have an opportunity to become

not just a minister of poverty but a genuine Minister of Human

Resources and put into place the programs that would do something about

the abuse of children in and outside of the family. There's absolutely

no indication from anything you've said on the floor of the House

today, nor from your budget, that you're going to do just that.

Post-partum counselling, child-care resources, family and children

assessment teams, the specialized child abuse team — gone. The

nutritionist program: everybody knows the studies that have been done

between lack of nutrition and inability of children to learn and

progress in the education system, which is precisely why that program

was so important. It's gone too. It wasn't a million-dollar program; it

wasn't as expensive as some of the other things that money is being

spent on. It only had five workers. That's all it was. But that program

is gone.

The child-care counsellors in the Vancouver schools were terminated

in 1984. An increase in the Pharmacare deductible from $125 to $175, at

the same time as those people's rents are being raised from 25 percent

of their budgets to 30 percent. And once again no change to the GAIN

rates. No changes whatsoever since 1982, and that minister has the

nerve not only to take on another job but to again shortchange the

people in need in this province by becoming a part-time minister. He

now has two jobs. Not only that, but to stand on the floor of this

House and tell us that his partners in poverty program is going to get

people off income assistance, and for that reason the disabled and the

unemployables — the people who can't work in this program — are going

to be condemned to live on the same GAIN rates, the same inadequate

income that existed in 1982, four years ago. Despite all the increases

in taxes, hidden or otherwise, introduced by this government, despite

all the increases in the cost of living, hidden or otherwise,

introduced by this government, that minister has the gall to stand on

the floor of this House and tell us that those 1982 rates are going to

stand again. Life is not a party for people living on income

assistance. It was hoped that that new Minister of Human Resources, who

in an interview in the Vancouver Sun said he was so thrilled, that he

really wanted this job.... He was going to do great things here, even

though one of his running mates in Richmond indicated in the same

newspaper that they don't want any more wimps in Victoria. That's

right. At the same time as he is saying, "Oh, I love working with the

disabled," the person seeking the nomination to run with him is

saying: "We don't want any more wimps in Victoria."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's you.

MS. BROWN: If I'm the definition of a wimp, then I hope we have lots more of us in Victoria.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The member loves to play political games. I suppose there is no price

too high to get a vote. I do not appreciate, nor do I want to get

involved in, trying to outbid for the votes of the poor. I think there

are certain levels that one can avoid with respect to trying to bribe

the electorate, when it comes to the poor, the impoverished, the

handicapped, the unfortunate. The member said: "Life is not a party for

those who are poor." I guess not. I agree with the member that the best

form of social assistance is employment. The best form of social

assistance for those who are employable is employment.

Recently

we had the opportunity of attending certain functions where

construction has been completed or is nearing completion, where people

have been employed; where they have been able to take care of

themselves and their families, because they've had the opportunity to

work on projects that the opposition said they would have cancelled,

not permitted to go ahead. They would have cancelled those projects

because they're megaprojects, according to them. I remember their

former leader said: "We would cancel all megaprojects in B.C." Those

people who worked on those megaprojects would therefore have been

unemployed. They would have exhausted their unemployment insurance.

They would have been on income assistance. And that member would have

said: "Why don't you find jobs for these people? " They found jobs for

these people. Many of them have worked a great deal of time on these

projects and have been able to sustain themselves and their dependents

and their families.

Of course there are going to be people

unemployed. Of course there are going to be people in need of

assistance. But, Mr. Chairman, for the record, that member was part of a

[ Page 7602 ]

government

in 1972-73, and is part of a party, which is on record as being opposed

to, among others, employment-creating projects. The project I was

speaking of is the Annacis bridge, which provided employment for many

hundreds of workers in the province and which the NDP said they would

have cancelled. Mr. Moser, your Delta candidate, said that it was a

decision by the party not to go ahead with the bridge if they won that

election. Was he not telling the truth?

[3:30]

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

What's it got to do with welfare? There are many people today on income

assistance who are on income assistance because they are unemployed.

There are many people who are employed today on these projects who

might otherwise be unemployed and on income assistance. To suggest that

none of these projects go ahead would mean more people unemployed or on

income assistance.

They were opposed to the ALRT, which

employed many hundreds of people in my constituency of Richmond to

produce the beams for the trackway — many hundreds of people for a

considerable period of time. They were opposed to Expo, which will

employ thousands of people and has employed thousands of people. They

were opposed to B.C. Place, which employed a large number of people,

and still does. They were opposed to the Coquihalla Highway and

northeast coal, which have employed thousands of people. Mr. Chairman,

they simply can't stand up and say: "You're opposed to employment. You

want to create poverty." What nonsense! What absolute garbage! Madam

Member, you'll never see me drop a crocodile tear. You may not believe

that you do not have a monopoly on caring about people, but I can

assure you, you do not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the minister address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I don't mind the minister addressing me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

That member for Burnaby-Edmonds has certain pet projects, which the

member believes are the only important items in this world; others do

not, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Certain pet projects. Listen to her! "Children are not important!"

Madam Member, this government has done more to assist families and

children than you care to remember. You have a very selective memory.

You have a very selective manner of criticizing a ministry which is

providing tremendous service to the citizens of British Columbia. The

member comes up with something cute for the media. Is the media

listening? Partners in poverty! Let's tell people who need assistance

that they're partners in poverty. And then the member says: "Oh, you've

recycled some...."

When you attempt to introduce a

program, the problem is that it's never good enough according to the

opposition. It's never good enough. Where was that great program the

NDP introduced when they were government? Why didn't it solve all the

problems of poverty? Because the situation is not static. You can't

introduce something today and expect it to last forever. You have to

respond to the realities of the day.

It's fine for the

opposition to come in with their cute little phrases and their asides

and their nonsense — their funny little things. They come up with

selective reports from some outfit in Toronto that doesn't have to come

up with a dollar to provide services to anyone. They can come up with

all the reports they want; in fact, they bloody well better: they might

be out of a job if they don't keep coming up with the reports. How many

jobs have they created? How many people have they helped?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Aren't you ashamed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No. I'm ashamed of your remarks. That's what I'm ashamed of.

Mr.

Chairman, that member believes she can get away with anything, because

she is a self-appointed expert on everything — on all the woes of the

people in the province. She has all the answers. It's very, very

different, Mr. Chairman, when people within the Ministry of Human

Resources have to deal with those on an hour-by-hour, day-to-day basis

— real situations, not theoretical. Real situations. It's different

when a government must come up with hundreds of millions and billions

of dollars to provide those services during a declining economy. It's

different when you have to do the job. It's not hard to write a

textbook. It's not hard to come up with theories. Get in the field. Do

the job. That's what the people in the ministry have to do every day.

MS. BROWN: That's where I started.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's where you should have stayed perhaps.

MS. BROWN: Yes, that's possible too. That's possible too.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Negative of 1986 is not going to help one person in

this province with that attitude. It's easy to be critical.

It's

absolute nonsense that the government is attempting to keep people

under the poverty line — attempting to make people poor. For what

purpose? What would the purpose be?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, my God!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, every member of the committee will have ample opportunity to present their own opinions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it is a conspiracy of some kind.

MS. BROWN: ...into a banana republic.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A banana republic. A conspiracy. I wonder why it is that this great conspiracy has failed so

[ Page 7603 ]

miserably

when you look at the numbers — the dollars which have been provided for

services to people. Have a look at the previous years to see what has

been happening. The member likes to join with some of her colleagues

talking about communications. I believe, unless I'm in error in what

she was saying, that that translates into public relations or

something. The increase in the communications budget is in such strange

things as telephones and data processing equipment. They cost money.

Telephones have increased. The costs have increased. Our share is $1.5

million more. Data processing, an additional $2.5 million. That's

communications. Money must be spent on that.

The member

says no money is being spent on direct programs to people. No money is

being spent on.... Take the opportunity of looking on page 120 of

the estimates. You say there is no money being spent on people. This

says: direct community services, $102 million; services for families

and children, $101 million; rehabilitation support services, $148

million; day-care and achievement centres, $33 million; community

residential care services, $46 million; community contracted services,

$6,900,000; special programs for retarded, $61 million; GAIN

programs: income assistance, $876 million; opportunities to

independence, $6 million; health care and dental services, $36 million;

Pharmacare, $148 million; services to seniors, $28 million; seniors

supplement, $15 million; Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, $8 million;

bus pass program, $4 million; seniors counselling, $250,000; for a

total of $1.48 billion.

Yes, money is being spent in the

executive and program support. We do need staff and we do need

supervisory staff. We do need management staff. But don't tell me no

money is being spent on people. Who, then, is in receipt of this amount

of money?

Mr. Chairman, the ministry works very hard and

diligently to try to serve the needs of the citizens of British

Columbia. There is no Ministry of Human Resources anywhere that is

going to be beyond criticism, and certainly there is no government

program anywhere that is going to escape the criticism of those who

oppose, because that's their duty. But don't give me that bit about

crocodile tears. I take that as a personal offence, which doesn't mean

much to that member; I couldn't care less. But don't you tell me that

I'm spilling crocodile tears when I tell you that I have a genuine

concern for those in need. That's offensive. I would not question your

sincerity when you speak about concern about those in need —

particularly children in need.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal

released today is to permit those who have the capacity of earning to

retain some of that earning, to encourage them to see if they can

develop their earning capacity to such a degree that they no longer

would be in need of income assistance.

Part of the

conspiracy to keep people poor. I appreciate that the member and the

critics and others feel it's necessary to be as negative as possible

offence when it's suggested that the government is deliberately

attempting to cause people poverty. I regret that some of the programs

that some people in the province who like to see retained, developed,

invented, changed or whatever, may not occur. Not everything can be

done; not everything will be done. But the ministry is doing a good job

in dealing with very difficult positions in great numbers.

make no reference to the comments made about cooperative housing and

other things that relate in no way to the ministry. There is much to be

said about all of that, and I'm sure it will occur at some time.

Mr.

Chairman, it's unfortunate that there's so much negativism when it

comes to government programs to try to create jobs. I just received a

printout of the small manufacturers assistance program from my

constituency of Richmond — who's been assisted by the program. The

member mentioned that we do these things. I haven't time to read it

all, but I may later. New jobs created under the program by industry:

in this instance, eight, eight, five, four, three, two, two, two, two,

ten, six, two, nine, two, four, two, six, two, five, four, three, six,

four, two, two, four, six, four, five, three, nine, ten, ninety-two,

three, three, two, five, four, four, nine, two, seven, three, five,

four and four. And it continues: two and two, one, three, one, two,

one, two. Precisely what the programs are intended to do, to create

jobs.

According to that member we should cancel the

programs because we might have people employed, and then she couldn't

say: "Look at all the poor people." For some reason, some members of

the opposition believe that misery can be exploited and mined like an

oil reserve, for political gain.

MR. STUPICH: Mr.

Chairman, the minister waxes indignant, waves his arms, shouts, has to

be warned by the Chairman about his language, hoping, I suppose, all

the time, that the more he huffs and puffs, the more smoke he emits,

the less aware people will be that there really isn't any light there.

The more embarrassed he is about his own conduct, the more embarrassed

he is about his own conduct as Minister of Human Resources. For him to

stand up and say that he has kept the budget for GAIN at the same

figure as it was last year, even a little less.... I thought you

did in your opening remarks. You said you'd been able to keep the

figure the same because you were interested in keeping costs of the

total budget down. I thought there was something like that in your

opening remarks. Maybe I took it down wrong, but that did come to me.

[3:45]

Yet

this, I believe, is the minister responsible for income assistance

programs. Reading from his ministry's own report: "The purpose of

income assistance programs and services is to provide a basic income

for British Columbians and to assist people in need to become

independent and selfsupporting." That's there as well. That's the

second purpose; the first is to provide a basic income. As the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has pointed out, if it could have been

described as a basic income in 1981, and in the knowledge that the cost

of living has gone up 25 percent since those figures were last

increased, then certainly it's much less than a basic income today. The

minister is failing totally in providing what was considered to be by

his administration a basic income five years ago. He's done nothing at

all to improve that since.

When he tells us that the

program that he is bringing in now is one that will help people develop

their earning capacity, then I have to remind him of the many people

who have come to my constituency office and complained that if they do

anything at all to try to improve their own earning capacity, then they

are cut off social assistance. Unless they can show that on a

day-to-day basis they are available for work, or if they go to school

and try to improve themselves to increase their earning capacity, they

no longer qualify for income assistance. Mr. Chairman, how does that

fit with what he said

[ Page 7604 ]

is one of his goals, one of his purposes as minister: helping people develop their earning capacity?

Mr.

Chairman, he spoke about the number of people who are receiving — I

don't know whether it was GAIN or.... It was help from his

ministry, in any case. The number has gone up from 130,000 to 232,000

in the last four years, an increase of 75 percent. That doesn't mean

that there are another 102,000 people in British Columbia who just

don't want to work, who could find work if they wanted it, or who, if

he persuades them to go out and earn a little bit, would be able to get

off social assistance totally. It doesn't mean that there are 102,000

more jobs out there waiting to be filled.

I would remind

that minister, through you, Mr. Chairman — and I have quoted him from a

previous occasion when the president of the Bank of B.C. was speaking

in Victoria two weeks ago to the certified general accountants — that

one of the things he said was that for the last five years and for the

first time in the history of British Columbia there has been a net

migration of people from B.C. going to other places to look for work,

going to Manitoba, going to Ontario. I would remind him of the stories

about Ontario, where the contractors are saying they are going to start

advertising in British Columbia for people to come and work. They

expect to have to go to Europe to find enough to fit the needs of the

developing economy in the province of Ontario.

He's been a

minister in this government ever since December of 1975 — a government

where the things that have really prospered have not been people on

welfare. The number has gone up and the amount of money being spent in

total has gone up, because there are many more people getting welfare

because of the lack of interest of this administration — and that

minister in particular right now has the responsibility for this

ministry — and the lack of wanting to do something constructive in the

province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, he has the

nerve to tell us that they built a bridge to create employment. If that

was the only reason for that particular bridge, then they should have

done something else. He might even say — he didn't mention it, I'll

give him that.... He didn't say that we spent $1.2 billion of public

money to dig holes in the wrong place up in the Peace River. At least

he didn't say that. It provided employment, but that isn't good enough.

We're

in favor of employment programs. We know that it isn't enough year

after year to come in with one program after another to help business

and industry create employment. It isn't working. You've done it for

year after year after year and it hasn't created new jobs. The number

of unemployed has gone up; the number on social assistance has gone up.

There's no more money to give to these people who need it. There's no

more money to give to the people who could spend it in their

communities if they had it. At least consider bringing their amount up

to the 1981 level. The dollar that they had in 1981 will buy only 80

cents worth of food today. They were spending every cent of it then. It

means they're going without the things that they need today. Mr.

Chairman, B.C. could be better.

The minister promises to do

things for people. He promises that if they'll get out and find their

own jobs.... Since their programs to try to get industry and

business to provide jobs aren't working, it's up to the people least

able to provide employment, those who can't move around. Their mobility

is certainly curtailed, particularly if they have families at all; they

can't move; they can't go anywhere. They don't have any capital to

start any kind of enterprise at all. These are the people who are being

blamed for the increase in the number of unemployed and for the

increase in the amount on social assistance.

It is the

government that is at fault, because the governments in other

jurisdictions have provided the kind of economic climate where

employment is increasing, where bankruptcies are going down, and where

the number of people drawing income assistance is going down because

there isn't that need there. B.C. Is the outstanding example of the

wrong way to go about doing things.

Mr. Chairman, we could

be doing better. The minister talked a little about his concern for the

needy, those who are unable to look after themselves, unable to care

for themselves. Certainly there are the medically unfit, but there are

also those extra 102,000 people, in the minister's own figures, plus

the migration of people that the president of the Bank of B.C. referred

to — I use him because he is the most recent — all of those people have

left B.C. to go to other jurisdictions to look for work. They've been

chased away by this government's lack of concern for them. They're

going to other places looking for work. There are still 102,000 more

here, and what is the government doing about it?

The

government is saying to the people who need the help most: "You go out

and help yourself. We'll encourage you. We'll say if you make some more

money, you can keep a little more of it. But we're not prepared to

provide any job opportunities unless we can do it through private

business and through industry, unless we can somehow or other give them

more tax breaks and provide more gimmicks, more investment

opportunities, more ways of reducing their income tax. If we can

somehow through that means encourage people who have the material

wealth to provide job opportunities, we'll do it." But in the meantime

the thrust of his conduct as minister responsible for looking after the

needy — not the greedy, Mr. Chairman, the needy — will be to say to

those who need help the most and who are most unable to help

themselves: "You go out and look after yourselves. I'm washing my hands

of you. There's no more money for you, because I have to help balance

the budget." That's the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. If

that minister had stood up and said, "Look, I recognize that people

receiving GAIN need more...." He didn't say that.

Not

once during the course of his remarks did I note him expressing any

concern for the very limited amount of money these people have. He

seems to feel they can get along. After all, if they got along five

years ago, why can't they get along today? They've had five years in

which to learn to get along with 25 percent less money. They're getting

good at it, I suppose. But that seems to be the extent of his care.

isn't good enough for B.C. In 1986 to be so poor compared to the rest

of Canada. It isn't good enough for B.C. to be following policies and

to be led by a government which sees as the only way of reducing the

number of unemployed in B.C. as being to encourage them to move to

other provinces. We were told today that the Premier is visiting with

the Premiers of other provinces. One has to wonder whether he's back

there dealing with the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of....

What other province? Another little Premier. He's back there trying to

encourage them to take some of our unemployed and some of the people

receiving social assistance off our hands. We can't do anything with

them, so perhaps the Premier can persuade other provinces to take these

people away, since they're a bit of an embarrassment to the government.

[ Page 7605 ]

I can only put the minister's attitude, when he responded to the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).... I've never seen him quite so

wild in the House.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He was controlled, but I've never seen him quite so wild.

can only think that he's embarrassed at the way in which he's caring

for those who are, according to his own ministry report.... He's

responsible for helping those people; but there was not one word saying

that he tried to get more money from Treasury Board to help these

people — no real concern for them.

His attitude was one of

criticizing a member who dared to raise in this Legislature the fact

that there are people out there with problems. They're there because

this government put them there. They are suffering because this

government makes sure that they suffer. They are trying to get by on 25

percent less spending power than they had five years ago because this

government says: "You're to blame if you're not able to look after

yourselves. It's your problem; you sort it out. We have fixed the

amount of money in the total budget that we're prepared to make

available for your needs as we see them, and it's up to you to get

along with that. Whether you can or not is your problem."

It isn't good enough. It's time for a change in B.C.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I appreciate that in debate the member for Nanaimo frequently speaks

from that — no offence intended — financial-analysis point of view

which his training has provided him with. Frequently his numbers and

thrust of debate are in a slightly different manner than other members,

and he's therefore somewhat easier to understand.

It's very

important for members to know that basic income assistance is meant to

be temporary assistance, and that about 50 percent of those who are on

basic income assistance are off by the fourth month. The intent is

temporary — it is to assist people for a period of time until they are

able to take care of themselves again. The proposal announced today is

for employable recipients. If it is to a person's advantage to be

reclassified as employable under the program, that would be considered.

But it's for employables. Also, it is in response to the request of a

number of so-called anti-poverty organizations who have made similar

suggestions, to see if this would assist some people.

February 1986 there were 1,234,000 people working in British

Columbia. In February 1985 there were 1,184,000 working in British

Columbia. From February 1985 to February 1986 there were 50,000 more

people working. Surely that is what we all would like to see. If we all

worked at trying to increase employment opportunities, to give people

the opportunity of being employed, it would resolve many, but not all,

of the problems we see in social assistance, because employment is by

far the best form of social assistance or income assistance.

The

political differences between the parties represented in this House are

such that we probably can simply not come to agreement on what programs

would be best for people. But I can assure you that the government of

the province, through the ministry, has over many years introduced

programs, modified programs and improved programs to try to assist

people in need. They're certainly not perfect — I doubt if they ever

will be — but every sincere effort has been made to try to assist

people.

The

member for Nanaimo mentioned people who wanted

to improve their skills and were told that they would have to get off

income assistance. We have specific programs which encourage

income-recipient clients to retrain, to become better educated and

improve their own position so that they can become employed. We have in

place $5,203,000 for the Individual Opportunity Plan, with incentive

allowances for employment, educational, vocational, rehabilitative

services, job action, Ministry of Labour/Ministry of Human Resources

joint training assistance program, work activity project, work clothing

and transportation, employment initiatives for the handicapped, youth

incentive, resource placements. Education training by the ministry,

3,044 clients as of January '86; education training by a non-ministry,

2,964; incentive program, 472; work activity program, 40; employment

opportunity program, 103; counselling, 705— until we reach the total

of 8,346. Indeed, we encourage people. Our eligible clients are

encouraged to improve their skills. It's part of the program.

Mr.

Chairman, we support people directly to retrain and improve their

education under different programs. Government is obviously not

attempting to make it impossible or more difficult for people to become

independent, because it is of benefit to everyone in the province to

have the greatest number of people independent of government for

sustenance, for assistance. The whole thrust of all the programs is to

try to do that. It's very important, I believe, that governments

stimulate the private economy to create jobs that are going to be

around for longer than a very short period of time; to get people to

add on to their business, redevelop their business and develop new

businesses so that permanent employment is a factor of life. We're

never going to agree on the numbers. We're never going to agree on what

is the best opportunity to maximize employment and opportunities, but

we're working as best we can, with the best advice we have, with the

hope of minimizing the poverty within our province.

[4:00]

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, first I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the

hon. member on his appointment to the Ministry of Human Resources. I

would say that at least he is willing to express himself on all of the

subjects that are presented by the opposition, and that in itself is an

improvement. Hopefully we can shed some concrete light on our

differences.

I think we've learned one thing: that the

minister certainly takes offence at being described as uncaring. I can

understand, after listening to his explanation, that perhaps he just

cares in a different way than others. The concept of caring is not

really the issue; it's the results. It's the actions that follow that

really put substance to whether the minister indeed does care. I'm

curious, for instance, whether the minister has given much thought to

the standards by which the Ministry of Human Resources operates. If he

would, I would like him to express his view or regard for the idea of

the poverty line as such as a measuring device, supposedly the very

best instrument we have for determining a person's ability to function

at a minimum level of decency and self-respect, maintaining a degree of

motivation and a sense of personal esteem that allows them to function

in society in that spirit under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[ Page 7606 ]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

would like the minister to specifically address this question of the

poverty line. I know he has had very few compliments to give to the

Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia study that I

talked about recently. He suggested that that's just one point of view.

But if we don't respect the very best scientific approaches and

analysis that we have available through our academic community, our

professional community, through those people who are supposedly arms'

length, objective practitioners who have no axe to grind as such — as

he was pointing out earlier, who are not playing politics but are

sincerely attempting to practise their profession and skill and make it

available to the public on a non-political, non-partisan basis, which

is what I believe the SPARC project and the SPARC program and SPARCs

across Canada, as far as that goes, are attempting to do....

The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds commented earlier about the headlines that

were in the paper over the last weekend that the government was robbing

the poor or something to that effect, or had their hands in the pockets

of the poor, and being one of the worst provinces in Canada, next to

one of the provinces in the Maritimes. But that study, again, was

supposed to be an objective attempt to describe the realities of living

in society. Hard times or not, there are still basic facts. People

still have to live. Now the question of how we measure.... What

commitments we make is what I am concerned about. How do we measure

government responsibility and commitment under the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms, in terms of every citizen's constitutional right to live

at a minimum level of dignity, to have access to the justice system,

and to have the right to seek, obtain and maintain adequate employment?

These kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, are the things that I want the

minister to sincerely address.

Now the minister has some

options at his disposal, and I am sure he knows as well as anyone,

having been a minister of other portfolios, particularly Health, that

the federal government participates on a cost-shared basis...usually 50

percent of costs of social programs. We talked about the CIP

program, which was only $50 a month, and how the government decided to

scrap that program and other programs for youth, etc. All of these

programs are cost-shared at 50 percent dollars.

The

minister reflected on a statement made by one of the members of the

opposition recently that "we cannot afford to raise the GAIN rates. It

would cost us $800 million." Now it wouldn't cost $800 million or

anywhere near there, but the point is, what the minister failed to say

is that in total, half of that would be paid for by the federal

government. But if he were to be even more specific, in terms of

raising the welfare rates or the GAIN rates right across the board,

which, by the way, were not that outlandish under the SPARC report....

They were somewhere between 7 percent and 40 percent, because of

the different categories and the purchasing powers, the number of

people and families, etc. It's not a blanket situation. The only thing

that should have been established as fundamentally entrenched in the

statutes is the cost-of-living increase, which is one of the most

shameful derelictions of responsibility on the part of this government

that they have undertaken yet.

That's the one thing I

really find very difficult for the minister. Even though he protests

when someone says he's uncaring or that that government is uncaring, I

really find it very difficult.... Actually I find it impossible for

him to say that he cares when he won't give people something that the

federal government has constitutionally made available to them: that

is, a cost-of-living increase.

All we've got to do is

proclaim a

section of the GAIN Act which, strangely, has never even

been proclaimed, suggesting to me that the government has no intention

of even coming anywhere near helping people subsist. We're talking

about 50 percent less than what people need to have as the very minimum

amount of assistance, economic muscle and means. This is the question.

This is the fundamental question that the government is not answering,

is not addressing: the philosophical idea of a poverty line,

recognizing that there is a line below which no Canadian should fall.

But this government is not only not recognizing that line, it is not

even participating in a program that is available through the Canada

Assistance Plan to assist people. Funds are available — 50 percent

dollars. How could the government possibly refuse to pass on something

as economically attractive as that?

For

four years we

haven't had an increase to assist people in a province that has a

depressed economy. Five years ago there were half this many people on

unemployment, despite the fact that the government says it's had a

50,000 — job increase in the past fiscal period. More and more people

are

out of work, more and more people are on social assistance, more and

more people have given up and there's a greater exodus of people from

the province, as everybody has pointed out already. These are facts.

The

government doesn't wish to be condemned for not caring. Okay, the

government cares. You care; you just have a hell of a way of showing

it. You care. You care, but it's the kind of care that is very

depressing and is very debilitating and is very discouraging for a lot

of Canadians, a lot of British Columbians, who have contributed to the

tax system and to the development of, this economy for most of their

lifetimes, and who find themselves for the first time unable to

function, unable to live in dignity and pride, and who are told that

they've got to get rid of all of their resources. They've got to reduce

themselves to paupers. They've got to visibly show that they are

destitute before they can get the slightest bit of recognition and

respect for something that they've contributed to most of their lives.

This

is the thing that I am asking the minister to address. Where are your

moral sensibilities? Where is your conscience? Do you care? Do you

recognize the need to know that there is a line below which no Canadian

should drop willingly and no government should accept willingly? That's

the question.

It's not a question of whether or not we can

afford it, because that is a debate that I'm sure would go on forever.

The government is not operating on the basis of affordability. The

government could never afford to put on Expo or build the ALRT or put

up the Coquihalla highway, or do any of those things — northeast coal.

That's nothing to do with affordability; it's political decisions being

made by a government that has a certain ideology, a certain way of

doing business. Let's face it, if the government cares about these

people, why doesn't it invest in these people? What about a megaproject

for people, giving people some money and letting people spend the

money? You know they're not going to bank it. We're not talking big

bucks; we're talking dollars that pass

[ Page 7607 ]

through into the community and into the economy

immediately — paying rent, buying clothing, paying bus fares, paying

their dues.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES:

Listen, now we're getting interjections from the members on the other

side of the House. I'm saying to you: what kind of welfare do you

believe in, what kind of socialism do you believe in? From the top?

Don't tell me that you do not subsidize.... You have a program for

the stock investors right now, telling people to invest in the stock

market. The government is prepared to share $100 million with those

people. Why not share with the guy on the street? Why not let them

spend some of this money? It's all right to have incentives, but make

it fair for everybody.

Besides, what about rights? You're

destroying people's hearts and souls. We're talking about people who do

not have even 50 percent of the minimum standards, we're not talking

about people who are anywhere near close. And the minister has the gall

to come in and say that he's going to allow them to earn a little more

money. A little more money from where? And how much? Twenty-five

percent. Big deal! The people in this province deserve better; they

deserve a conscientious government that has some sense of understanding

for their needs. Why don't we commit ourselves to making jobs available

to those people? It's okay to talk about rehab programs, but rehab

programs leading to where? Not everybody on social assistance even

needs training. We're talking about people who were themselves

independent, some of them even independently wealthy.

I've

got problems with the minister's view of where the government should

begin to take an aggressive role in trying to raise people's sense of

belonging, of respectability. You know, dignity is something that we

quite often take for granted, those of us who are well-heeled and who

have access to the resources that we need from day to day. Those of us

who can afford to get a good education, to travel around the world, to

enjoy cultural experiences, and to generally have some mobility,

vertically and horizontally — whatever direction you want to go — have

that, and that's great. That's what I would like to have for myself and

for every British Columbian. But it's about time that we began to say

that if every British Columbian cannot have this absolute wealth that

we would like, there should be a minimum which we say we are committed

to, as one fellow British Columbian, one fellow Canadian, to the next,

and that we draw the line on — and it's called the poverty line.

would like to know how the government of British Columbia, through its

Ministry of Human Resources, arrives at those figures. What do they

relate to? Mr. Chairman, if Stats Canada and other organizations are

saying that the poverty line is at a certain figure, and the government

says half that figure, the government should be able to rationalize why.

The

minister says: "Well, this is temporary. All these figures are

temporary. They're not meant to meet a person's need. They're not meant

to carry them all the way. They have to make do in other ways, so we'll

allow them to earn a little more money." But, Mr. Chairman, if they

can't earn that money, what happens? I wish the minister would address

that simple question. What happens in order to bring them up to the

poverty line? This is a very big fundamental question. Does the

minister recognize that there is a minimum? Does he not recognize the

reality of the marketplace, the reality of the cost of living, the

reality of a person who is trapped on social assistance trying to get

mobile again, trying to maintain some self-esteem and the ability to

look for a job? Something as simple as a telephone, for instance, is a

very big thing when you are unemployed, and you have to reach out and

be actively looking and seeking employment and trying to maintain your

self-respect and your confidence.

[4:15]

How

does that happen? I think these are the things that people of the

province of British Columbia need to know. That's what the social

assistance program is supposed to be all about. It's not supposed to be

as we've had it in this province for the last decade or so, where the

deputy minister is in effect a political appointee who is working for

the minister, rather than taking on his commitment as a defender of

families, of children and of the integrity of community life and being

at arms' length from those political decisions. It's about time we

began to say that people do matter in this province. The Ministry of

Human Resources, Mr. Chairman, of all ministries, should be taking the

lead.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member who has posed

some questions which are of great interest, philosophically as well as

practically: how are the amounts drawn over the years for income

assistance? To what do they relate? Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess we

would have to try to go back to the very beginning to see what the

terms were at those times and what has intervened since that period of

time. The member mentioned the poverty line. I don't believe, according

to the poverty line that is made available through federal sources,

that any province provides a level of assistance for the lowest

category — and I don't mean by individual — that would reflect what

they refer to as the poverty line. It would be of some interest, and

I'm afraid this could go on for a wee bit.

The most

frequently quoted income assistance figure is for the single employable

person under the age of 25. For the first month it is $325. That is

frequently used as the example. Let me run through this very quickly.

At the present time the benefit levels for a single employable person

aged 25 or under for the first month, $325; the same person in the

second to eighth month, $350; after eight months, $375.

For

an unemployable single person under age 25 after eight months, $430; 26

or over, first month is $350; second to eighth month, $375, after eight

months, an employable person gets $375; age 26 or over after eight

months, an unemployable person gets $430.

A single

unemployable person aged 60 to 64 is $430; 65 and over is $548;

handicapped $548. A couple, both aged 25 or under, first month $570;

second to eighth month, $595. And these payments are tax-free by the

way, Mr. Member. The employable couple, aged 25 and under, after eight

months, $620; unemployable $675; a couple, at least one aged 26 or

over, first month, $595; second to eighth month, $620; employable after

eight months, $620. An unemployable couple with at least one aged 26 or

over after eight months, $675; a parent and child, employable, $640; a

parent and child, unemployable, first eight months, $640; parent and

child unemployable after eight months, $675; two people, one aged 60 to

64, $675; both 60 to 64, $675; two people, one 65 or over, $865-1 both

over 65, $1,001; one 65 or over and one 60 to 64, $865 one 65 and one

handicapped, $1,001; one handicapped, aged 65 or over, $865; one

handicapped and one aged 60 to 64, $865; both handicapped,

[ Page 7608 ]

$1,001; two people, one on old-age security, $865; one on OAS and one over 65, $1,001; one OAS and one handicapped, $1,001.

Mr.

Chairman, the rates progress depending on the number of people within

the family unit — three, four, five, six. The top rate for three people

is $1,120 a month; the top rate for a unit of four is $1,230 a month;

the top rate for a unit of five is $1,330; the top rate for a unit of

six is $1,410; seven, $1,490; eight, $1,560.

Granted,

few would fall in that category. The vast majority are in the single

employable. The rates do offer a broad range. This is tax free. This

does not include dental, medical and some other benefits which are

available to people, or earning exemption or child tax credit or family

allowance or medical benefits, Pharmacare and training allowances. It's

an extensive program. The individual who is employable under 25 is

normally off income assistance in two to four months. It's meant as a

supplement — as sustenance for that individual for a brief period of

time. Those who are chronically on income assistance normally benefit

for the higher rates at some point in time. At all times attempts are

made to retrain, to encourage, to get these people less dependent on

government.

Mr. Chairman, it isn't simply a matter of

saying: "Is $325 a month enough to live on?" That $325 applies to one

category of people for one month, and then it is modified slightly, and

it increases. We don't want to discourage people from seeking

alternatives.

The member mentioned the SPARC report, and he

was most kind in his

interpretation of it as being scientific research.

I don't consider it to be that at all. I consider the report to be an

advocacy report, not a research report. It's not a matter of condemning

the report; it's a matter of viewing that report from your own point of

view and responding to it. In the ministry we object to it because we

have suggested to them before that they take various things into

consideration that they choose not to. I'm not trying to oversimplify

it, because obviously a lot of work went into the report, but basically

they took the average rent in the city and said that's what they should

receive for shelter. That's not necessarily the best way to establish a

shelter level for people on income assistance, because it doesn't

relate necessarily to that group of people. The report does not

incorporate client earnings or client actual shelter costs, or other

allowances, goods and services, Pharmacare, medicare, dental care and

so on. They have their own baseline in determining certain things and

they will not change from that baseline, even though the ministry has

spoken to them many, many times. They have their own baseline, and it

is from that that they develop their thing.

But more

specifically, Mr. Chairman, it's kind of SPARC to make recommendations.

They have no responsibility to either acquire the funds or provide them

to the individuals. It is an opinion based on whatever attitude they

may have. SPARC doesn't run the Ministry of Human Resources. I believe

it's still funded by the federal government and some community

organizations, but that doesn't make them the standard. They don't have

to come up with the money or develop the programs. Anybody can be

magnanimous when it comes to spending someone else's money.

The

member makes mention of cost-shared programs with the federal

government. Let's not forget that it's the same taxpayers paying the

money. The federal government doesn't come up with money that they

haven't collected from us to start with.

I know there are

problems with individuals, and problems with people who.... And I

agree with the member, even though I'm not sure it's directly related,

as he suggested. But I certainly agree with him that decency and

self-respect and self-esteem are vitally important. Many people who are

on income assistance at various levels throughout the country have long

ago lost their self-respect, self-esteem and decency. It's a tough job

to rehabilitate many of these people; a very difficult job, not

necessarily simply accomplished by providing them with more money, but

a lot of work that has to go on too, if indeed they can be

rehabilitated to that point of once again regaining those attributes

which are commendable. We're dealing with people in different

circumstances who for many reasons may long ago have ventured away from

that type of feeling for themselves.

But while we can

disagree, Mr. Member, on what the level should be, I would like to

provide you, if I could — not right now, but perhaps later if you don't

have it — with the list I just read from. It is the complete schedule.

You must have it before you, because you'd never remember it; it's like

trying to memorize a telephone book. I'd be pleased to provide you with

a copy. Perhaps you, at your leisure, might suggest what the rates

should be. I'd be pleased to see that. But we can't really go into it

in detail right now, because it's almost as long as your arm, and you

have very long arms. So if I could provide this to you at some other

time, maybe you could respond and say what you think the levels should

be.

Mr. Chairman, the numbers are across the board,

scattered. They do follow a pattern, but I think it's important that

people realize there are far more rates paid to people on income

assistance than the most frequently quoted $325 for single and

employable. I don't know many people who would work for $325 a month;

that's not the intent. But in many instances it's enough to keep them

going while they do find employment and get back on their feet.

MR. BARNES:

I appreciate the minister's candid response. However, I wasn't sure if

I got the minister's offer to provide me with the current 1986

schedule

of rates for GAIN. Is that what that is? The current rates. Just for

the record, for the benefit of the committee, I would hope that the

minister would include those for each year so that we could compare

them in terms of the costs, like since 1981 right through up to the

present time, to get an idea of their loss of purchasing power, because

I think that this is one of the things that we have.... By the way,

I don't think the minister addressed that one aspect, proclamation of

the

section of the GAIN act which would obligate the department to

increase the rates on the basis of the cost of living by formula. But

that is one of the things that I thought — and the SPARC report thought

as well — would be the very minimum, and one which the government would

recognize immediately as the very least it could do in trying to

address this problem, notwithstanding any differences that we have in

terms of the magnitude or the urgency of the problem. It's quite clear

that if those rates in place in 1981 were relevant in terms of the

costs borne by the recipients of that day.... I would like the

minister to address what distinguishes that amount of money from what

was available in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and now, 1986. Is there no

expression of concern for the inability of people who are still

receiving that amount of money to live in a very difficult time in this

province?

[ Page 7609 ]

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, I would also like to ask the minister if he would expand a

little bit on employability. The reason I raise this — and I realize

that there are criteria that the ministry does use in terms of

employability.... For instance, if a single mother has two children

under 12 years of age — if my memory serves me correctly — that

particular person would not be employable because of duties in raising

a family, etc. So there would be some rationale for that. If we take a

look at employability, we have to realize that it depends on the

standards and criteria being used. Many of those same women, who would

normally be viewed as unemployed.... Some of the ones I spoke to felt

that, although they had an obligation to raise their family, there were

times when they would like to have an opportunity to expand themselves

— maybe to return to school, to maintain some level of social

intercourse, to remain stimulated, to get some freedom from the child.

This brings in those programs, such as day care, that have been cut

back or underfunded by the ministry — opportunities to extend

themselves beyond the immediate milieu of raising a family; and

depending on the person's overall resources, that can be a pretty

onerous duty and responsibility.

I'm not sure that the

definition used to describe employability or unemployability is

sufficient in all circumstances, and there certainly is need for some

flexibility. I think that just about everyone, given the right set of

circumstances.... Even some people whom we might describe as

medically and permanently handicapped may in fact be able to make a

constructive contribution to the workforce and give of themselves in a

positive way — they would actually be generating wealth. This is not

out of the realm of possibility. So there are dangers in restricting

ourselves in our view of what employability or unemployability is by

some

definitions that are not flexible. This may be hurting an

individual's opportunity to develop. There are some risks in that

simplistic approach.

One other point. In fact, there are

several specifics I want the minister to address. One has to do with

nutrition. I raise that just to share with you.... You will

appreciate my consideration for the committee, Mr. Chairman, in not

belabouring the committee with too many of the experiences that I went

through during that simulated period on the single person's rate of

$350 per month. I will point out one aspect that I think is relevant to

this debate, and that is the availability of advice from people who are

nutrition experts, in terms of good health habits for people on social

assistance.

One of the most common expressions you hear on the streets, so to speak, is

that people on social assistance know very well how to scrounge and get by.

They live on carbohydrates a lot. Carbohydrates can be great if you're an

athlete getting ready for a ball game and you need some quick infusion of energy.

It converts to sugar and you're on your way — as opposed to eating a lot

of protein. In a daily diet there has to be a balance — so much dairy produce,

protein, carbohydrate, whatever the case may be. I'm not pretending to understand

to the extent that I could advise on how it should be. But I did take time to

investigate for myself in order to ensure that I was conducting my experiment

along lines that were important to people who were on that fixed income for

an extended period of time. I'm advised by the nutritionists I spoke to

that all factors are taken into account — a person's age, a person's

weight, a person's height, just to mention three things. I suppose that

there are other constitutional factors, but not everyone can be viewed as requiring

the same amount of sustenance.

my case, for instance, the very highest level they had available in

terms of the

schedule they were using, which is a Statistics Canada

schedule that comes out; a statistical document that can be used as a

guide in terms of what appears to be the most comfortable, or the

minimum acceptable levels that a person should require.... I had

something like 50 percent of the caloric intake that I needed during

that period of time. That's what I survived on, and that's why I lost

so much weight. I was actually not eating properly. That had a lot to

do with it. I had to stop jogging, for instance, because of the amount

of energy that required. I could not do that on the amount of money I

had available after I had paid rent and purchased a fare card so I

could get around.

If we tell a person on social assistance

that we're giving them less than they require — in other words, 50

percent of what they require — we have to at least have some rational

explanation within the department or some other options. The taxpayers

can't pick it all up. This is a temporary situation. We can all

understand that. The minister gets no argument from me. It is and

should be temporary. In most cases what people really want is a job.

Nonetheless, there are some people who are simply not going to be able

to get jobs and are going to be stuck with those rates.

have to look at it from a humanitarian point of view. In good

conscience we should be concerned about the ability of those people to

live on the amount of disposable income that we're giving them. If we

can't do that, let's not play games with them and tell them we're going

to allow them to earn extra income when there is no option. That's fine

if the options are there and they can do that, but if they can't do it,

what are we saying that they must do? That's the question I think we

have to address, and that's what I believe should be happening in the

ministry. That's what I believe the bureaucrats are being paid for, and

I think it's their duty to tell the minister: "Look, these rates are

inadequate based on these facts," not based on political consideration.

think the minister should be concerned that he gets those facts from

his bureaucrats, because they are intelligent people who have the

instruments of measurement. They have the experience, and they have

their hands on the pulse of the community, and they know what the facts

are. They know these rates are inadequate. If the minister was so sure

that they were adequate or anywhere near adequate that he's going to

sit back and let it go, then why did they drop that investigation for

so-called fraud? What happened is that they realized that a lot of

people are not committing fraud by will. If they're committing it, it's

out of desperation. We have a serious problem of need. People's needs

are being neglected. They have no other option. We're having people do

things that we would normally consider to be morally reprehensible or

unethical. We're having to turn a blind eye. I believe the ministry has

been complicit in this. The ministry has been turning a blind eye

because the ministry is not prepared to provide those rates, and I

think that's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I want

to ask one other thing that's closer to the thinking that I have on

this question of the amount of money. The minister uses the example of

the single employable person receiving $350 for the first month if they

are 26 years of age or over. If they're under 26 they get $325. I would

like the

[ Page 7610 ]

minister

to explain to me, other than for bureaucratic administrative reasons,

why you make a distinction between a person 25 years of age and 26.

Just explain this one point.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman,

is the allowance available for shelter. Shelter for the same category

is $200. Now a person gets an additional $125 for living allowance. But

why make a distinction in terms of the lump sum that's available? Why

not make that $350 or $325 or $375, whatever that may be, the amount of

money available to the person as an allowance? Why say $200 for shelter

and $125 for living? My reason for raising this is that it encourages

landlords.... Mind you, after this whole Expo thing and the

evictions and the whole new wave of reform that's taking place around

the core Vancouver area of Expo.... we don't know what the future

holds. I know we've had some major shifts that we're going to be

getting reverberations from for many, many months to come.

This

is just a beginning of something, a phenomenon, and I'm not sure even

the government realizes what it has done by upsetting the number of

communities in that area. Residential areas will never ever be the

same. Had they remained the same.... It's like describing a problem

that was existing but is fast fading as a result of the displacement of

so many people from the downtown eastside area and other communities.

Even in the West End people are being removed arbitrarily by landlords

who had, a month or so before, relied on these people for their revenue.

The

problem with the fixed $200 is that the landlords know this and it

doesn't really matter about the quality of the facility if that

facility is the one that's available and the one that a particular

person needs. If it's the one that's handy, then the landlord is going

to demand the full amount. He's not going to say: "Well, this

particular suite that you're looking at is...." It's not really a

suite; it's a room for $200. It's a very poorly equipped room in most

cases, but that room is going to go for the maximum, and there is no

reason for the tenant — the client — to make an issue of it, because he

has no choice. If a potential tenant could tell the landlord, "Hey

look, the plumbing isn't up to scratch. The place needs painting. I

would like a decent bed to sleep on. The light fixtures are not

functioning properly.... Instead of taking that and being glad to

get it, and being at the mercy of the landlord, he says: "Look, I'll go

somewhere else, because across the street I can get a place for $150

that's better than this." Right away the landlord knows that the person

has some flexibility, that if he saves $50 by going across the street,

the Ministry of Human Resources will let that benefit accrue; there

will be an incentive.

I hope the minister is listening,

because what I'm saying is that the government claims it is not a

partner in poverty. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has

accused the government of being partners in poverty. ELP, the End

Legislated Poverty coalition of British Columbia, 16 organizations that

were involved in making a challenge to the legislators, which resulted

in my going through that experiment, are saying there is such a thing

as legislated poverty in the province of British Columbia, and they are

asking that that legislation that promotes poverty be removed.

I'm

going to wrap up just by saying the specific regulation that has to do

with legislated poverty is the one dealing with the inability of a

person who receives a shelter allowance of $200 to bargain with that

amount of money. That shouldn't be, especially for a free enterprise

government.

[4:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Again, we're dealing with such a wide range of variables and

circumstances. If you were simply to say that a person over 19 and

under the age of 26 is to receive X dollars per month and spend it as

he will, then I presume that if the person was able to live at home

with his family he would still receive the same amount as a person who

has to pay room and board outside the house, or else we'd be into

another category. You say to a person: "You can have $350 a month.

Spend it as you will. If you can get accommodation for $100 a month,

keep the balance." If the person then somehow lives at home with his

parents and pays no rent, then he'd have $350 to use elsewhere, while

the person down the street who had to pay even $150 for it