1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 2101 ]

CONTENTS

Night Sitting Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Placer Mining Act (Bill

No. 169) Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 2101

Committee of Supply: Department of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement estimates.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2101

Mrs. Jordan — 2103

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2115

Mrs. Jordan — 2115

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2115

Mr. McGeer — 2118

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2120

Mr. Wallace — 2122

Mr. McClelland — 2123

Motion Meetings of committees while House in session. Hon. Mrs. Dailly —

Mrs. Jordan — 2123

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2124

Mr. McGeer — 2124

Mr. Chabot — 2124

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2124

Mr. McClelland — 2124

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2125

Mr. Richter — 2125

Mr. Morrison — 2125

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2125

Mr. Phillips — 2126

Mr. Williams — 2126

Division on the motion — 2126

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, I have

the honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. Is this some matter prior to

introduction of bills? Yes, proceed. Would the Hon. Minister of

Mines defer to the Hon. Member.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I would like

to inform the House that I spent a very delightful afternoon

welcoming Miss Karen Magnussen back to North Vancouver today

and I was accompanied, by the way, by my friend from North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He was playing along.

MR. BROUSSON: In particular, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say

how pleased we were to hear the announcement this afternoon, in

North Vancouver, of the Government's proposed Karen Magnussen

scholarship fund. I think this is a great step forward and I

congratulate the Government and the Premier on this

announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present

a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PLACER MINING ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor herewith

transmits a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Placer Mining

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, April 3, 1973.

Bill No. 169 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF

REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Chairman, that is not the way we rehearsed it. I just want to say a couple of

things before I sit down to give the Hon. Member for North Okanagan an opportunity

to get at me. I can see that she is sitting there with relish.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LEVI: There are a couple of things that I do want

to announce to the House — in respect, first of all, to the

Mincome programme. When we announced it last December, when it

became law, we said that we were in constant negotiation with

the federal government, and that we were attempting to get the

asset levels up to $2,500 and $5,000 in order that we could get

adequate sharing in the programme.

I was down in Ottawa twice, the last time at the beginning

of February, and had a discussion with the Minister of Health

and Welfare, Mr. Lalonde, and his staff, and we made a proposal

to them that we should like to get an interim upward revision

of the asset levels. He wrote me at the end of February to say

that they had agreed to an interim upward revision of the asset

levels to $1,500 for single people and $2,500 for married

people.

Now that was quite a departure from what had existed in

terms of the asset levels in this province for almost 25 years.

They were always at $500 and $1,000. Achieving this upward

revision of the asset levels gives us an opportunity to gain in

sharing — and that is on top of the $24 million that we expect

to get from the federal government in respect to the increases

that were announced during the throne speech in the House of

Commons.

I have announced previously that it is the government's

position in respect to Mincome that when the law was passed in

December we said that we would ensure that every senior citizen

would get $200 a month. The programme is only four months old,

and we feel that we are prepared to review the programme again

in the fall in terms of any upward revisions that we might

make, whether it is in respect to an increase or a

cost-of-living increase. But we are not prepared

[ Page 2102 ]

to do that now until the fall. We have met the commitment

that we have made.

There was a question asked this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, by

the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He said would

some people drop off the Mincome? And that is quite true;

11,000 people would drop off, because they would be getting

below some $20 — because they will be assured of the $200 with

the increase from the federal government.

The other point that I want to raise … there are two other

points. It is in respect first of all to the social allowance

rates. We have had no social allowance rate increase of any

significance in this province since 1965.

It is our intention to increase the rates and I will, after

I have announced what the rates are, distribute to each Member

the rates relating to social welfare and to the foster parent

rate.

We feel that the focus of this department is in respect to

children and families. As such we feel that we must deliver to

families what we consider to be a minimal amount of money that

they can live on. It is our hope that we can achieve eventually

the kind of minimal income that we have established for our

senior citizens.

I think that the House will appreciate that this is a

process in which we will take some time and hopefully, in

negotiation with the federal government next month, in respect

to family allowances, that we might be in a position some time

next fall to review the whole programme in respect to children — not only those children on welfare, but the children of the

so-called working poor.

What we are intending to do in respect to the foster parent

home rates: we are prepared almost to meet the Foster Parents

Association recommendations in terms of the rates. I will make

those available to the Members afterwards.

In terms of social allowance, this has been much more

difficult, primarily because of the lack of increase by the

previous government. The people have been suffering extreme

hardship primarily because of the upward revisions of rental

increases that have been going on in this province for some

time, We have spent some weeks in trying to arrive at what we

think is initially an equitable increase in the social

assistance rates. What we have tried to do is to put the focus

in terms of children. Again we have also said that we want to

do away with the overage system. So what we have done in terms

of the increase is lump in everything in terms of the amounts

that I am going to announce.

For the benefit of the Members I am prepared to say this,

and then I will distribute the lists for you:

At the present time single people on welfare, and they are the largest group

that we deal with in terms of welfare, are getting $102 a month. They are allowed

$45 for shelter. I think that anybody that has any understanding at all of what

it costs to rent a room, knows that $45 is totally inadequate. What we have

done with the single people is to raise their rates from $102 to $140.

For unit 2, we have gone from $169 to $250. This is

extremely important for us because in that category, besides a

single woman with a child, we have the people who are couples

over 50, who are not necessarily employable, who have had an

extremely difficult time trying to get by on the previous

rates. We have decided to up those rates to $250.

Effective June 1 — all these rates are effective June 1 this

year.

Then we have gone to Unit 3, from $212 to $300 and in that unit you can either

have a man and his wife and one child, or a single parent and two children.

We feel it is important that we get the money to the children, and we have lifted

that rate from $212 to $300.

Unit 4, we have lifted the rate from $255 to $350. Again the

focus is on children. In Unit 5 we have $298 and we are going

up to $400. In Unit 6 we are going from $341 to $445, and Unit

7 we are going from $384 to $485.

Now this table applies to unattached individuals — that is

group one — couples, two-parent families and one-parent

families. Now the total support that we have been talking about

includes the children's recreational allowance, school supplies

allowance, children's clothing allowance and a general clothing

overage.

The present policy regarding these items will be cancelled

when the new rates are effective. What we are attempting to do

is to eliminate the overage system, so that people understand

from the beginning what it is they can receive.

We are prepared to review in August exactly what the

situation is in respect to children prior to going to school in

September, and that is a very serious consideration for a lot

of families.

We're also concerned about the situation in respect to women

who are pregnant. We are upping that rate from $10 to $25 and

all that's required is proof of pregnancy in terms of a

doctor's certificate — that we feel is extremely important in

terms of the prenatal situation in respect to the woman.

Then we are looking at the whole question of diet. For many

years now we have been in the position of developing a good

medical service. Then we've had doctors saying to various

welfare recipients that it is important they have special

diets, and all that has been allowed for them is $10. We've now

increased that to $20. It's our feeling that if we have, on the

whole, 90 per cent of good medical coverage, then we must

follow up and make available to these people the kind of money

that they need to follow through on the kind of treatment that

they need, especially in respect to diets, so we are increasing

that as well.

[ Page

2103 ]

Now it may very well be that some people will feel that this

kind of increase can create some kind of problems. It certainly

does. It creates a lot of problems because of the difference

between the welfare recipient and the person who is a working

poor person — who is on the minimum wage. At the present time,

the minimum wage take-home for a man with wife and two children

is around $320, plus of course, their children's

allowance.

Let me say this, the previous government have always

maintained that it was essential to have balanced budgets and

it's always been my opinion, and I think the opinion of the

people on this side, that those balanced budgets have been at

the expense of the children of this province. The inability of

the government to see that it was important that children are

really in fact our most important resource, and our families

are our most important unit. Therefore, we have made these kind

of changes because our focus is on children and on families

and the maintenance of the family unit.

In terms of the working poor, of course we have to grapple

with that whole situation. But we're prepared to grapple with

it because next month we're going to meet with the federal

government and I'm reasonably sure that the time has come in

the terms of the situation in Canada that the federal

government is going to be prepared to turn over to the

provincial government the administration of children's

allowances. We will have plans for that when this is

announced.

I think that this is the direction we're moving in because

at the Minister's Conference in November last year there was

unanimity in terms of eight provinces. I think that we can be

very optimistic about what is going to happen in the

future.

In terms of expense, because that's always a question the

people want to know, the total cost is $24 million. Ours is

just over $8 million in terms of the situation with the

province. I think it's got to be borne in mind that what we're

doing is putting the focus on children and families — we shall

not forget the single recipient who has often been left out.

Nobody in this province can survive today on $102. It just

isn't possible.

Let me say this, we are prepared that the working poor of

this province can apply to get the subsidy up to the social

welfare levels that I've just announced.

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

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Well if he has no other qualities, that Minister is the

best scene stealer I've seen in this House yet, Mr. Chairman. I must give him

credit in the statements he's made tonight — stressing his concern and proving

an emphasis on children and the family. I don't detract that from him at all.

I won't comment on the rates at the moment, because he hasn't yet distributed

them. But I hope possibly to do so in a few minutes.

I couldn't help but smile to myself as the Minister

announced very proudly that his efforts had been successful in

Ottawa in raising the assistance level to $2,500 for a

married couple and $1,500 for single. And indeed that was an

accomplishment which was well assisted before the Minister got

into office and I'm sure it proves one of the major advantages

of a minority government in Ottawa. Nonetheless, it's welcome

news. But, Mr. Minister, I would suggest to you that you hop

back on the plane and get back to Ottawa as soon as possible

and tell them that those basic levels are not yet high

enough.

We are putting ourselves in a position again and again in

Canada, and it's not necessarily this Minister's fault, where

we still punish the prudent — where there's no question that

these levels should be considerably higher both for people on

welfare — especially on a short-term basis where you have

families in a position of immediate distress through no fault

of their own, yet find themselves almost ineligible for any

assistance because it would be immediately taxed out of their

hands. Yet, if there's a case where there is perhaps a dying

parent and home assistance is needed and the father is on a

limited income — as the Minister knows, this present great

problems.

It's the same for senior citizens, Mr. Minister, I'm sure he

would agree that it is ridiculous what the basic levels in

Canada are today, and that we find ourselves as people in government punishing the prudent, as I said. People who have

saved, have worked hard, gathered a few assets find themselves

today in British Columbia and in Canada in a position where in

the end they have less free spending money than those who are

receiving the guaranteed supplement and Mincome.

When the Liberals in this House get up to speak about the

plight of the senior citizens in this province I think they

should remember very clearly, that it is the policy of the

federal Liberal government and it has been the policy of the

federal Liberal government through the years that have left the

mid-income senior citizens in Canada in a state where they

cannot enjoy the type of life that they have worked for. They

cannot enjoy the type of life that they have saved for. They

find themselves in the position where they might have an income

of about $400 a month, and nearly $100 of that a month goes up

in income tax. It's utterly, utterly ridiculous. But I'll go

into that later.

In listening to the Minister and his comments, I'm sure any improvement is

welcome in these times of high cost of living. I must say I would have been

more impressed had he said that these rates would go into effect April 1, 1973,

retroactive. Why wait till June,

[ Page

2104 ]

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman? Why not do it now?

You know, Mr. Minister, with all due respect, the only welfare

programmes that this Government has brought in since being in

office are for overpaid cabinet Ministers and disabled

companies.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: When this Minister came into office with his

colleagues, he blew off a bomb. What he wasn't going to do for

rehabilitation of people was hardly worth mentioning. Then he

sat back, and in that time, he's done nothing really but survey

the damage.

He destroyed the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen without

any questions, without any study, without any input. He

destroyed Willingdon School with no questions, no study and no

input. He destroyed the Opportunities for Work Programme with

no questions, no input and no listening. He destroyed the local

incentives programme, between his departmental people and local

business in the community — again no questions, no

examination, no listening.

He has really, to put it charitably, just about threatened

to annihilate nearly every social service organization in the

province. He calls it "welfare empires are on the way out."

Well, Mr. Minister, when we survey this bomb damage that

you've created, we see that you've hobbled your field staff;

you've cut them off and the Minister does not answer their

letters. He hasn't encouraged their programmes. It's created

six months of complete vacuum in the Province of British

Columbia. There has been no initiative from this Minister to

his staff, or in these other areas, that we are aware of. This

has come about at a time of rising unemployment, a time of

almost unprecedented rising cost of living. His Government has

hobbled the economy of British, Columbia. He has hobbled his

staff. We see a hobbled incentive for people to work, not only

his own staff, but people who are on social assistance. He has

hobbled many sound programmes in this province.

Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, we don't deny you nor your Government

the right to make changes — that's your prerogative. But what we do do, is deny

you the right to cut out effective programmes without having something to immediately

go in their place. In so doing, in exercising a right without a responsibility,

you have created a vacuum which is going to take months and months and months,

if not years to overcome in the Province of British Columbia — not only through

your own efforts, but through some of the actions of your Government, which

are going to come home to roost in two or three years. And when you get a combination

of this, Mr. Minister, my advice to you is be gone in three years.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, to go back to some of these

programmes that you … let's take the Provincial Alliance of

Businessmen.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, maybe if the Hon. Members would read the

Minister's own report, and maybe if the Minister himself would

read his own report, they would accept the words of qualified

people in the field. I'm not asking you to accept my word, I

don't say the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen was any good —

I didn't have anything to do with it. (Laughter). Read this

report, and you will find region after region, regional

director after regional director, talk about the assistance

that was given by the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, and

the cooperation that developed between businesses in

communities, between the department and the people who worked

in the Alliance in helping to create jobs and the people for

whom the jobs were being created and who were being channeled

into a work stream. Certainly they didn't all stay there,

because this is the nature of many of the people who are

receiving social assistance — that's why they are receiving

social assistance. It is because they have a problem and that

problem is often reflected in poor work patterns.

You know, Mr. Minister, it is almost as easy to condition or

to train or to enthuse an average person about a work pattern,

if it's properly handled and they get some assistance, as it is

to enthuse him about sitting in the pub all day. That is where

this Minister's responsibility lies. I want to ask you, Mr.

Minister, in reading your own reports … I'll quote some of

them if I can find them here.

"Region 8:

"There are two other important reasons for the reduction in

social allowances cases. One was the revision and improvements

of methods of eligibility, determining an ongoing service

delivery, with ultimate improvements of social allowance

caseload management.

"A second reason was the excellent integrated intake job

placement programme with the local office of the Provincial

Alliance of Businessmen. This concept of the integration of the

two programmes should be seriously considered for use in other

regions of the province."

Mr. Minister, if you read your regional reports; you will

find this over and over again.

"Region 3:

"Close contact was maintained with Canada Manpower and

Provincial Alliance of Businessmen

[ Page 2105 ]

offices to ensure employment opportunities or vocational

retraining opportunities being available to those receiving

assistance. We greatly appreciate the concern, help and

cooperation of these agencies. As a result of joint activity

and planning a significant number obtained full employment."

Mr. Minister, your own report vouches for the good work and

suitable progress that was made by the Provincial Alliance of

Businessmen in cooperation with your department. Your own

figures, Mr. Minister, show that through this type of

cooperative action and through this type of assistance from the

Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, those receiving social

assistance were reduced in number.

Mr. Minister, as I say, if you wanted to change the

programme, that is your prerogative. But what did you put in

its place? The day you disbanded that Provincial Alliance of

Businessmen, what programme did you put in its place? How many

workers did you hire? Or how many members of your staff did you

move into a new department or a new programme to replace this

vacuum? And the same question, Mr. Chairman, on the job

opportunities programme, where people who had been on social

assistance and who heard about the opportunity to work — and

many wanted to work — went in and said, "I would like to work,

give me a certificate."

You know, Mr. Minister, you of all people should be

appreciative of the way a piece of paper sometimes helps a

person. We are all human beings and we all respond to certain

notes of success. Some people on social assistance just felt

that getting that piece of paper was something. Then the

assistance they got in seeking a job was something more. Many

people who hadn't been working had the opportunity, through the

provincial government paying part of their salary and through

the assistance of the office, and maybe even just that piece of

paper, of getting that little extra push or spark or incentive

that they needed to go to work.

Your own report, Mr. Minister. If you didn't like the

programme, that is your prerogative; if you wanted to change

the programme, that is your prerogative — we don't deny you

that. But what, Mr. Minister, on the day you cancelled that

programme, did you put in its place? How many employees did you

shift in your department to take up this vacuum? What type of

incentive did you give these people in looking for jobs? What

type of assistance did you see that they got in looking for a

job?

The local and regional incentive cooperative programmes: Mr. Minister, I spoke

to you about this in October; I checked again before this session began and

I was mortified and distressed to find that all over this Province of British

Columbia you had competent, enthusiastic employees who are concerned about the

job situation, who had worked out programmes either with forestry people in

the interior or the north, with businesses, with Canada

Manpower. Yet there had been no response and no encouragement from your office

to proceed. I ask you, Mr. Minister, now, what did you do between October and

January 1, and what have you done in relation to this between January 1 and

now?

HON. MR. LEVI: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, you had better make yourself comfortable,

Mr. Minister, because your $90 million Mincome programme for

disabled companies in British Columbia is going to require a

lot of examining and a lot of effort on your part to

justify.

I want to talk a bit, Mr. Minister, about your Mincome

programme. When we sat in this House a year ago on that side of

the House, the then Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Mr. Gaglardi) and the Members of the government

went to great lengths, and Hansard will record it, to

point out to the then Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the now Premier of this province, why the

Social Credit programme for a guaranteed minimum income

required federal government cooperation. It was pointed out

that to give a guaranteed income to senior citizens and disabled, now and at that

time, was limited by the Canada Assistance Act and that

it was limited by the regulations – and they can only be

described as stringent and unrealistic regulations — of the federal Liberal government. We made it

very clear to the people of British Columbia then, to the

Opposition then, to the people of British Columbia in the

election, and to the Members of the Opposition, that it is province was capable of giving a

minimum income to the disabled and the blind and the senior

citizens in need as defined by the Canada Assistance Act

up to $225 a month.

Mr. Minister, Hansard records and the election

records that you, along with your colleagues and certainly the

Premier of this province today, either would not listen or

simply chose not to listen and intentionally or unintentionally

went out before the election at that session and during the

election and left the impression with the senior citizens of

British Columbia and the handicapped British Columbia that all

would receive a minimum income of $200 a month.

Mr. Minister, I see you shaking your head, and I appreciate

that because I know that your office is full of mail and my

office is full of mail and every Member of this House has an

office full of mail from elderly citizens, people over 65 years

of age, who say, "What happened? Premier Barrett, then the

Leader of the Opposition and now the Premier of this province,

told us that everyone over 65 would get $200 a month as soon as

they were elected and that every handicapped person in British

Columbia, physically or mentally handicapped, blind or

deaf,

[ Page 2106 ]

would receive $200 a month minimum income."

This Government should hang its head in shame that they

misled the people of British Columbia and a group of people

above all who have the right to respect a government and the

right and reason to trust a government. These people have been

abused by the statements of the now Premier of this province

and of many of his colleagues in the cabinet.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Show us the letters.

MRS. JORDAN: Read your own mail, Mr. Member — openly, not

collectively.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Who's the letter

from?

MRS. JORDAN: Well the Minister of Labour says,

"Who is the letter from?" That Minister with his favorite

policies and political payoffs to his election supporters has done more to increase

the plight of senior citizens and disabled people in this province by unleashing

one of the most unprecedented inflationary periods in the history of this province

or anywhere else in Canada. If the Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Chairman,

has no more sensibility than to make a stupid…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

MRS. JORDAN: …an inane remark like that when this matter

is under discussion, then I challenge him to go out and make it

outside of this House to the senior citizens that are writing

to him, and to the elderly people who now want to know what

happened, and who now see millions and millions of dollars

going into disabled companies in this province right from their

own mouths — money that is rightfully theirs.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: When did this come out? Well isn't this

interesting? I haven't seen this before; I wonder if the

Members have seen that.

AN HON, MEMBER: It was mailed out right across the

province.

MRS. JORDAN: It says:

"This month's Mincome will guarantee you an income of at least $200. The Government of British Columbia

is proud to announce a new and exciting programme for senior

citizens, Mincome." Did this go to Columbia Cellulose, Mr.

Minister? Did this go to Ocean Falls, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: When the next election comes you'll stand

up and say you're against this programme — is that right?

MRS. JORDAN: Are you getting ruffled again tonight? Your

conscience is bothering you, Mr. Premier, and it's a jolly good

thing it is, because there's good reason for it, Mr. Chairman.

That Premier gave the wrong impression to the elderly citizens

of this province. And now the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement has the audacity to stand up in the House

tonight and make a massive announcement, effective next June.

How cynical.

You know, Mr. Minister, I've been astonished as we listen to

the quackings of the Members of that side of the House and the

obviously insensitive attitude and unsympathetic attitude for

the plight of the senior citizens of this province.

The federal government doesn't always do things, right, I

must say — in fact, their track record is not very good — but

at least for once they woke up and saw the plight of the

senior citizens of Canada to a small degree and offered them an

increase of $17. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, when one examines

the debate on this subject and the facts, it is quite clear

that the provincial Mincome plan rests on the level of income

available to pensioners. That income is available from the

Old Age Security Act of Canada, and in payment under the

Social Assistance portion of the Canada Assistance Plan. This

is the baseline from which the provincial government has

calculated the portion that it must pay to achieve a $200

guaranteed income for those over 65. Correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. LEVI: You had $1,200 on your programme —

$1,200.

MRS. JORDAN: With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, it is quite

obvious that the Government of British Columbia, through its

programming and through its pre-election statements and its

election statements and its statements in this House this

session, has an ethical and moral commitment to now use the new

baseline federal figures for the calculation of your income to

pensioners.

Mr. Chairman, the Social Credit party in this House has a

far better approach to pensions on the order paper, which I'm

not allowed to discuss.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank God for that,

MRS. JORDAN: But it does use the principle of the income tax payable

as a basis of a calculation for a guaranteed income. The Mincome plan, Mr. Chairman,

in fairness now to the 100,000 pensioners, as calculated by the Minister and

referred to just a

[ Page 2107 ]

moment ago, should be amended forthwith, Mr. Minister. That

means now. Tonight. To raise the minimum available to

pensioners under the plan to at least $217.12, and preferably,

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, to the $225 per

month that your staff can point out to you was available and

ready to go for those who qualified in this province. Take the

money out of the welfare companies and put it into the hands of

the deserving senior citizens.

I think, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, that he

should be the first to agree that any other course would be

unfair. These thousands of British Columbian taxpayers, as a

result of previous provincial action, in fact will receive

nothing now from the federal budget as they proposed. It's

incredible that the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement, who I know to be a very sympathetic man, could

stand in this House during the oral question period and say day

after day after day that he will not allot that extra $17 to

those who need it.

Now, Mr., Minister, you are proud of the programme that you

brought in tonight. Be even prouder. Stand up here and announce

tonight that you are going to give these people what is

rightfully theirs and that your negotiations in Ottawa have

really had an effect. How can you possibly, with your

colleagues, sit there in plush comfortable chairs with over

$30,000 a year income, when some of them have been running

popcorn stands before this, deny the senior citizens in need in

this province that $17? It's absolutely unbelievable.

Mr. Minister, you have a lot to answer for if you don't make

that statement. They don't want that money in June or October,

or next January 1. They want it now. They don't want that

money, $20 million-odd, funneled into the debts of Columbia

Cellulose or some other fancy pantsy idea that the airy fairy

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) has.

Mr. Minister, you have a job in this province to create jobs

for people who are unemployed and on rehabilitation. You have a

responsibility to assist those in need, and the people most in

need in British Columbia today are the elderly citizens and the

disabled.

HON. MR. LEVI: Sit down, Luv, and I'll tell you what it's

all about.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Rehabilitation

and Social Improvement ill? If he isn't, then his conscience

must be bothering him, because this government took off every

effort of the previous government to have some semblance of

control over the rising inflation in British Columbia.

Certainly it pinched a little bit those who had, but it was

done for those who needed.

Mr. Minister, if you're getting $22,000 a year and you have

to have an 8 per cent increase instead of a 6 per cent increase

at the expense of the senior citizens, then I don't buy your

shame at all. I'm proud to think that the senior citizens

should have more. They're the ones, Mr. Minister, unless you

too have no understanding of economics, that have to go to the

store and pay the higher prices that are to a large degree the

result of your Government's inflationary policy since taking

office.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, the staples in this

province and in Canada — but largely in this province — are

rising. Milk, butter, eggs, cheese, fresh vegetables, meat —

there go the lights again. I certainly don't advocate any type

of price controls in these areas that are going to affect the

farmers. But what I do say, Mr. Minister is that your

Government has left the senior citizens in this province in a

real squeeze for the very staples and things that they need for

their everyday existence.

You just stand up and talk about nutritional programs. You

are the Minister that wanted to get rid of the tea and toast

syndrome. Mr. Minister, by the time you're finished the senior

citizens will be glad to have some tea and toast.

It doesn't take a nutritional expert and a whole committee

and a year's study to know what keeps senior citizens and

people healthy. It's milk, eggs, cheese, butter, meat, fresh

vegetables and some vitamin pills in the wintertime to keep

these people happy and healthy.

Mr. Minister, give them the money — don't give them the

nutritional advice. They know what they like to eat, they know

what's good for them, and $17 more a month will go a long way

towards assisting them.

MR. CHABOT: Pass on the benefits from Ottawa — don't put

them in your back pocket.

MRS. JORDAN: You know, the only intelligent answer that that

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) has as he pours millions of dollars of taxpayers

money into disabled companies, not creating one new job for

handicapped people….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

address herself to the estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will. Mr.

Minister, I ask you will you please not sit on that $23 million

nest egg that is coming from the federal government? Don't

hatch a lot of new plans with it. Don't give it to the disabled

companies; don't get the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) off the hook for his debt

financing; give it to the senior citizens who need

[ Page 2108 ]

it in this province and give it to the disabled in this

province.

Use some of that money to cover their expected drug costs

and expand your programme to help the mid-income people who

don't have the benefits of medical cards and don't have these

other benefits. They are the people who need your help, Mr.

Minister.

I would like to ask you some specific questions also, about

Mincome.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, thank God.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, my specific question, Mr. Minister, I

want to know if you are not going to give these people the $17,

what are you going to do with it? Specifically we want to know

dollar by dollar where that money is going. It has been taken

out of the pockets of the senior citizens of British Columbia

by this Minister; where is it going? Who are you giving it to?

And why are you not giving it to those who should be having it

and for whom it is allotted? We would like to know also about

Mincome. What is the actual cost to date, the number of

citizens receiving it and what is the average payment?

We would like to ask the Minister about the advertising

programme which I understood cost almost as much as the Mincome

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

expenses were given to that voice? What remuneration was given

to that voice? Where were the tapes made and who were they

distributed by?

HON. MR. LEVI: Read the order paper.

MRS. JORDAN: I ask you again, Mr. Minister, pass on this money to the

senior citizens. What about rent, Mr. Minister. By your own statement, when

you first came into office, senior citizens were being gouged. This was a great

big statement and what this Minister wasn't going to do was hardly worth mentioning,

and that's exactly what happened. It is hardly worth mentioning.

Mr. Minister, you are not only taking the $17 from these

people per month, you have done nothing to alleviate their

plight in rent. You sit there with $23 odd million, if you

won't give it to them in monthly payments, give it to them in a

rental increase grant — it's not taxable. The federal

government, the Liberals, can't take it away from them.

It was a commitment that was made by a former government — that the bringing

in of the rental grant programme was just a beginning and would be increased

every year. Mr. Minister, you should be seeing that that Mr. Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) gives these people at least $100. Double it. In fact if

you look at the cost of living and the amount of money you are getting from

Ottawa, you could make it $150.

Mr. Minister, that would really help them. Give it to

anybody over 65 who is renting because there are very few

people who are renting over 65 that are multi-millionaires.

Besides, if people have saved and they have a little larger

apartment and a few more privileges because they have been able

to earn more, you shouldn't punish them.

Why didn't the Minister insist that these people receive an

increase in the grant? The Minister of Finance proudly

announced the extension of the Homeowners' Grant to the couples

where one is below 65, as long as one is 65 or over. What have

you people got against the renter? What have you got against

the senior citizens who don't own their own homes? Why have you

not raised the renter's grant to at least $100, or more

properly $150, in light of the inflation in this province?

It is almost as if turfing people out — especially old age

pensioners — has become the favorite game of this Government.

You announced that you were going to stop all this and you made

great policy statements that there would be rent controls in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's not true.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I haven't got the clipping here, Mr.

Minister, but I will send it to you tomorrow.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: You advocated…does the Minister deny that

he advocated rent controls in British Columbia? I'm asking the

Minister, does he deny that he advocated rent controls?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister says he never advocated rent

controls in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I know it's not true because the Minister

did advocate in a meeting in Vancouver that there should be

rent controls in British Columbia and he is blushing and he

knows it.

Nonetheless, Mr. Minister, this Government has advocated

rent controls and did during the election, before the election

and right after. With the result, combined with their economic

policies, there is a growing shortage of rental accommodation

in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2109 ]

MRS. JORDAN: And who is hit first by this? The senior

citizens. The climate in British Columbia is such that people

fear to invest in British Columbia now and they fear even more

to invest in such investments as apartment buildings. They

don't know whether there is going to be rent controls, because

the economic climate is such that their assets may be frozen.

And this has resulted in a scarcity of apartments and increased

rentals.

The Minister knows it because he announced in November that

he has reason to think there was rent gouging and he was going

to talk to the landlords. In fact, I believe that he threatened

to name the landlords who raised the rents of senior citizens.

With that in mind, I contacted his department and gave him some

names. Yes, and you know, Mr. Minister, those people never even

heard from you. I had to go and sit down and talk to them

myself and in two instances We met with the other people in the

apartment and they agreed to absorb the increases and not the

senior citizens.

But, Mr. Minister, people who own apartment buildings in

British Columbia are faced with increased assessments through

your Government action, the threat of financial insecurity and

the possibility of rent controls and they just aren't going to

build.

Yet, your Members stand up and say that housing is a matter

not for the Government, but for the public. Now, what sort of

conflicting statement is this? Your Government can't possibly

develop enough public housing in the next six months to take

care of the needs of the senior citizens in this province, let

alone other renters.

I want to know, Mr. Minister, what you and your department

are going to do about this. Are you going to give the senior

citizens an increase in the renter's allowance to help

alleviate this problem? The piddly little bit that they are

getting in Mincome is being eaten away by their everyday food

requirements and their rent increases. There isn't even

anything left over for the hot-water bottle — as the Hon.

Member pleaded on the air — or a picture show, or the little

things in life that they should enjoy. If you examine their

budgets, Mr. Minister, you will find that that's dead-on and

that Mincome has barely kept pace with the inflationary

policies of your Government.

Well, the Minister wants to get on.

HON. MR. LEVI: You're damn right.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, get on with your job. Stop

threatening the associations, the volunteer associations in

British Columbia. Stop hoarding the senior citizens' money

under your little cushy pillow. Give them a renter's grant.

Give them the money that belongs to them and get involved with

their problems.

You know, Mr. Minister, this questionnaire that you

sent out … and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) isn't here because I would just like to read to him what he had to

say about questionnaires as late as January 20, 1972, to March 30, 1972.

At the time of trying to introduce a guaranteed minimum

income, the former Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement was required to send out a form by the federal

government. Do you know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, what your colleague had to say about that? Let me

read it to you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I realize your colleague does use rather

blatant language, but still we will clean up the

Hansard . "They talk about trust, they talk about need" … this is quoting the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) and the now Minister of Highways:

"The other Minister, who with some grace made an addition to

this debate, talked about the problem his mother had in filling

out one of those applications for the medical plan. No matter

what your age is in the Province of British Columbia, if you

are operating under the plan administered by that Minister,

this is the form to the House.

"It says, the Government of the Province of British

Columbia, Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement;

originating office, Department of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement, 238 Government Street, Duncan, British Columbia,

Supplementary Social Allowance Annual Report."

" 'I know, I know,' " but he was talking about the problems old people have in filling

out forms. And that man over there, that Minister talked about bureaucracy.

I'm relating his own form to the kind of bureaucracy that he operates and the

problems that it creates for old people.

"The other Minister talked about independence and free

spirit and all the rest of it. These Ministers of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement must use the same

speeches, regardless of party. I want this House to know what

the old people of this province are subjected to by this

government. It says, 'please complete the following report of

your circumstances and return it by mail to your local welfare

office as indicated in the envelope provided. Failure to do so

may result in suspension of the supplementary allowances and

health benefits presently available to you.'

"This is the individual. 'I filled it out when I was

speaking because they have to sign this. Since my last report

to officials of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement I have not acquired any cash assets, sold or

purchased any

[ Page 2110 ]

real property, received any income, changed marital status, been

absent from British Columbia for more than 30 days, been hospitalized more than

30 days except as follows,' et cetera."

Now the Minister told of the problem his own mother had in filling out an application for the medical plan in this

province.

"Furthermore, the individual says, there has been no

change in my living arrangements or any other changes whatever,

et cetera. And then the Member goes on to say,

"Cash surrender value: That's right — prepaid funeral,

balance of mortgage or agreement for sale, receivable, other. I

declare that the statements above are true to the best of my

knowledge and believe that no information acquired or has been

or omitted.'

"How are they to know," he says, "whether or not even

in filling out everything here that they have forgotten to

include something that should have been revealed?"

Then comes the signature of the recipient. "Complete and

return to your local office."

And he goes on to say over and over again how cruel the then

Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement was; how much

the government of the day was invading the privacy of the

individual and his usual tirade.

Then he goes on to say also how his Government knows how to

bring in a guaranteed minimum income of $200 a month for senior

citizens over the years of 65. Every senior citizen in British

Columbia.

Now, Mr. Minister, what is that Member partner to with you?

A document that can be described as nothing more than invasion

of privacy in the Province of British Columbia. When one looks

at this document the first thing that comes to mind is the fact

that the Minister has stood in this House on several occasions

and absolutely waffled from one foot to the other as to whether

or not failure to complete this form will affect their

income.

What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is why, when the Minister

will not answer that question yes or no on the floor of this

House, it has at the top of this form, "Your answer will in no

way affect your eligibility for Mincome assistance?"

Mr. Minister, are you willfully deceiving this Legislature?

Are you playing games with this Legislature? I'll withdraw.

Are you unintentionally willfully deceiving the Members of

this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Or, Mr. Minister, don't you know what your own forms say?

Mr. Minister, if you can't tell this House what is written on the top of this

form, then you deserve a vicious attack. Because either you don't know

what you're doing or in fact failure to meet this commitment by filling out

this form is going to affect their income.

The Minister has an obligation tonight to answer: is this

statement correct — "Your answers will in no way affect your

eligibility for Mincome assistance?" Is that correct, Mr.

Minister, through you Mr. Chairman? Or is it in fact going to

affect them and are they, by filling this out, in danger of

losing some of their income from your department and the

federal government? Let's hear you answer those questions, Mr.

Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Minister, I'll stand for hours if need

be until you clarify the clouds of misunderstanding that your

Government has cast over this province; until you replace and

state to this Legislature that you have replaced some very

workable and worthwhile programmes in this province with

something of your own that's workable and worthwhile, and until

you give this Legislature a commitment that you will pass on to

the senior citizens the money that should be rightfully theirs

from the federal government.

It says, "We would like to enlist your cooperation in

completing the questionnaire, and at the same time to thank you

for your help." Menahem and Dunsky, I presume. "Your answers

will greatly assist in our work. The answers will in no way

affect your eligibility for income assistance. The information

is strictly for accounting and statistical purposes."

"Trust us." That's what it says, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, you'd better not let them down, because if we

hear of one person who fills out this form or doesn't fill out

this form that has their income affected in relation to this

form, so help me we'll be after your hide.

You know, you talk about invasion of privacy. They want to

know if you're single, widowed, divorced, married, living alone — what business is it of yours who they live with?

Married, living with a spouse — does it really matter, Mr.

Minister? Why don't you leave them alone at this age?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, the Premier's getting all antsy again.

Gads, his conscience must be really bothering him tonight. I

hope it is because it's his policies and his statements that

are hurting the senior citizens of this province, Now the favourite expression of the Premier of this

province, when the facts of life used to be pointed out to him

about federal-provincial cost-

[ Page 2111 ]

sharing and negotiations was "Aw, blame it on Ottawa, blame

it on Ottawa, blame it on Ottawa." I must say he's been a good

pupil for his own teachings, because every time something goes

wrong he blames it on Ottawa.

Right here in this Press release — it's a very nice Press

release, Mr. Minister. You made an effort to cushion it — he

says "Last Friday my department," — you know, Mr.

Minister, I was once told that when a Minister called a

department "mine," he's on the way down. It is "our"

department — "began mailing out a blue form to each of the

110,000 senior citizens of British Columbia who are receiving a

monthly Mincome cheque." And would the Minister verify those

figures, please, when he gets on his feet. "The purpose of this

form is twofold — first, it will provide us with basic

information on which we can realistically plan our department's

services to meet the real needs of our senior citizens."

Is that what you want it for, Mr. Minister?

What are those plans? What does this information give you

that you don't already suspect or have in your files? What

benefit is the senior citizen going to get from giving you this

information? Please, we'd like an answer to that.

He says, "Secondly, it will permit the federal government to

share in the costs of our unique and pioneering guaranteed

minimum income programme." Mr. Minister, if ever there was a

stretching of the truth, that's it. Your unique programme went

down the drain. You're using the programme that the Social

Credit government advocated and largely negotiated for you and

you're ripping off on it as well. Because our government would

give these people the money they should rightfully have.

Then he goes on with a little public relations about how

it's still the simplest, most economically administered income

assistance in Canada. You know, Mr. Minister, speaking of

Canada, why is it that the pilot projects are going on in the

provinces other than in British Columbia, for minimum income?

Would you answer that question?

Here's the "blame Ottawa." He says, "We require this basic

information for statistical and accounting purposes in order to

the cost of Mincome. The Department of National Health and

Welfare has now advised us the Canada Assistance Plan does not

permit the federal government to share in our type of plan

which is solely based on a guaranteed minimum income." Mr.

Minister, it only took your government a year and a half to

wake up and hear what you were being told all the time, which

is that you have to work within the framework of the Canada

Assistance Plan.

Why do you hoodwink the senior citizens and blame Ottawa again? If you'd just

followed the nice, friendly note and been truthful it would have been a good

letter. I would have supported it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture has a

lot to say except when it comes to his own bills.

I want to know, Mr. Minister, what you're going to do about

the shortage of rental accommodation for elderly citizens all

over this province and how many units are going to be built

this year for them, and what assistance they're going to get

with their rent.

If you expect private enterprise to do some of the building,

what are you going to say to them that will give them some

confidence in the economy of British Columbia and the

advisability of putting their hard-earned money into building

rental accommodation?

While we're talking about rental accommodation, Mr.

Minister, I would ask you to review the minimum plan

requirements for public housing for senior citizens. If you go

into those little apartments, they're too small. They should be

at least another 100 square feet larger.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, don't shirk your duties. You're supposed

to be looking after senior citizens. Do something for them

instead of sitting around admiring your handiwork.

Mr. Minister, I mentioned that you cancelled Willingdon

School. As usual, there seems to be the ham-handed efforts of

the Government here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the children?

MRS. JORDAN: That's what I'd like to know, Mr. Premier. What

about the — they aren't children — young people who were in

Willingdon School? As I say, the Minister has the right to

cancel any programme he wishes, but only when he's made

provisions to replace or improve upon it.

If you read through the figures here on Willingdon, you find

that a sizable number of students went through this school. I

don't say it was perfect. But, Mr. Minister, I was there on

several occasions and I've talked to the staff there — not

since not being in office. I don't want to get them into

trouble. I've had the pleasure of talking to a number of the

students who have been there.

There were one or two who were very hostile, no question

about it. But there were many other students, Mr. Minister,

who, when they had got through Willingdon and were older, felt

that Willingdon had been the one thing in their lives that had

saved them. It hadn't been easy but it had been an environment

that assisted them and gave them some support and had some

discipline.

[ Page

2112 ]

Mr. Minister, I wonder why and I ask you why one of your first acts upon coming

into office was to announce that Willingdon would have the axe. Where are the

girls who were in the school? Where are the number who have almost routinely

gone through the school?

HON. MR. LEVI: You've seen the report.

MRS. JORDAN: I have it here somewhere. I don't need it; I've

read it. I just need it for the figures.

Mr. Minister, what is happening to these girls now? Let's

not deceive ourselves. Some of these girls have real serious

problems. Some are not going to get over these problems. Many

of them have serious problems but also the capacity, with the

right type of help, to adjust to a more mature life and to make

a life for themselves. Where are they in the Okanagan, Mr.

Minister? Where are they in the central northern part of the

province? Where are those from the Kootenays? Where are those

from the north of the province? Where are those from the Fraser

Valley? Where are those from the northern part of Vancouver

Island and lower Vancouver Island?

If they're in homes of various types, Mr. Minister — either

their own homes or other people's homes or group living homes —

what type of supportive care are they getting? Not only

professionally, but what type of social involvement and

assistance to social involvement are they getting? What are

they doing with their off hours? Are they working? Are they

studying? Are they going to picture shows? Are they learning

handicrafts? Are they learning to cook? Are they learning

hairdressing? What are their physical recreation activities,

Mr. Minister? Are they swimming or learning to swim and taking

swimming lessons? Are any of them playing on baseball or

basketball teams?

HON. MR. LEVI: I hope not.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, I hope they are. If a

person has personal problems, being involved with people and

being part of something is very important. It's very important

to his recovery. The Minister should wish that they're on

baseball teams or hockey teams or basketball teams. There's

absolutely no purpose in these girls vegetating in their own

homes with professional counseling once or twice a week, or

vegetating in group homes with some professional counseling and

maybe social activities once or twice a week. There has to be

supportive environment 24 hours a day.

Some of them are going to run away from it. They're going to run to the easy

course, whether it's somebody who is overly sympathetic and doesn't help them

face the truth or whether it's an easier way of life. In their mind. In doing

away with Willingdon, the Minister has a grave responsibility to tell this House

where these girls are. If some of them have graduated, that's fine. But if you

look at the figures through the years and you know life around you, you know

that there are many girls in this situation coming up all the time. What is

to happen to them. Where are we, as MLAs, to refer these people?

Mr. Minister, what about the staff at Willingdon? Where are

their new jobs? When you made the announcement that you were

going to do away with Willingdon — and I forget what you,

called it, "Jail" or something — why did you not then set into

motion (1) discussions with the staff as to what they would

like to do and (2) preparations at that time for them to be

phased out of their jobs into new jobs? When you have such an

orderly, tidy mind with so many plans, Mr. Minister, how is it

that the majority of those people got letters that fired them

by mistake?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's not true.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister withdrew these. Well, if it's not

true, Mr. Minister, we want to know what did happen.

HON. MR. LEVI: Twenty-two people got fired.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, it's O.K. to fire 22 but not 44. Mr.

Minister, I don't think it's right to fire anybody unless

they've made a serious mistake. If the Minister tries to

convince this House that 22 of those employees deserved to be

fired, then he'd better have some pretty good proof. You should

not hurt one person if you can help it, Mr. Minister. Why did…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Through you Madam Chairman, what have you done

to make good your statement in the Vancouver Sun yesterday —

that you promised to find jobs for remaining Willingdon

workers? It's a bit late. Are you going to guarantee these

people jobs of equal interest and equal pay?

There are a few people floating around these buildings now,

Mr. Minister, who were shunted out of their jobs. They may be

getting equal pay to what they were before, but they're

certainly not in as challenging positions. One gets the

impression that you shunt them around in hopes that they'll

quit. I would hope that this is not the case with these

workers.

Where are you going to employ these 22 people, Mr. Minister?

What guarantee will you give them and us that they'll have some

form of selection in these job opportunities?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2113 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) just can't keep quiet, can

he?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, what about these welfare empires

that you say are on the way out? So far, you seem to have

singled out the Narcotic Addiction Foundation, the alcoholic

foundation, the Salvation Army in their role with alcoholics

and drug addiction. How many more have you singled out, Mr.

Minister? Are you aware of what these people are thinking and

how concerned they are?

The Minister says, "I want to get down and have an

eyeball-to-eyeball talk with the volunteers in this province

who can be the specialists who can give me the answers to the

social problems of British Columbia."

HON. MR. LEVI: Eyeball to eyeball?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, why don't you look into what

people are doing before you make more of these bombastic

statements and then sit back and watch the ruination? When one

reads your report in relation to alcoholics and drug addicts,

one gets a strong feeling that you consider that the alcoholic

and the drug addict themselves are the authorities in this

problem, and that these are the people who you will look to for

guidance, and that these are the people who will set up the

corrective programmes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed they are part, Mr. Minister, but not the

whole. People who have these problems, Mr. Minister, have

certain personality defects or problems or weaknesses. If

they've been on drugs for a number of years or if they've been

abusing the intake of alcohol for a number of years, there is

generally brain damage or neurological damage, and this

generally helps dissipation.

Mr. Minister, there's no question they can put in an input but it is very disturbing

to the people of British Columbia and to us as legislators to feel that you

feel that they are the authorities on this subject. Because, Mr. Minister, in

dealing with these people you need many people of a very mature nature, a very

compassionate approach, and empathetic approach not a sympathetic approach,

and you need people who can withstand stress themselves and this is not generally

a characteristic of those who have been afflicted with this problem. To suggest

that they're going to provide the professional input is about

as far-fetched as you can get.

Mr. Minister, in that report you talked about community

resource centres, and in theory this has a lot of merit. But

when you read that report you get the impression that this

Minister and this government think that volunteers are going to

come rushing out of the woodwork to assist in this area. Mr.

Minister, they're not. I'm assuring you right now with

considerable concern — I don't like to say it — that there are

going to be many communities who are not going to want resource

centres of this nature in their community. If you don't believe

me, just go back to your own association that you worked for,

the John Howard Society, and find out the problem we had in our

community just trying to find a place that was acceptable to

put a home for some of these people.

HON. MR. LEVI: Did you kick them out?

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Minister. As a matter of fact I was

involved for a long time in helping them get a place but the

community reacted very strongly and I don't suggest that this

is the right way. I think they should be more

understanding.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister has been involved for 12

years.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I know he has.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, now. Isn't that interesting? The Premier

is yakking off again, showing that he doesn't understand. If

the Premier knew we are just, hopefully with the help from the

Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, in the

process of developing a permanent site and home for Howard

House in the North Okanagan…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Premier, and I wouldn't brag about it

if I were you, because I know some of the people that work for

you and they would not give you a recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: The statements that you've just made are jolly good reasons

as to why they would not give you a recommendation. You were considered, Mr.

Premier, through you Mr. Chairman, opinionated, shallow and generally concerned

more with your own ego than with the care of the people who are in your

[ Page

2114 ]

charge. And that, Mr. Premier, is what the people of British

Columbia are feeling — an egotistical Premier who won't

listen.

This Minister has a serious problem on his hands and he'd

better be listening because he's got to do something about

it.

MR. CHABOT: We're sophisticated.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, are you planning to meet with the

communities about these resource centres yourself, or are you

going to send your staff out?

Mr. Minister, so far all you've been meeting with are a

selected group of people. Have you been around this province to

meet with your staff in the regional offices? Have you been

around…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh yes, the directors came down to Victoria.

Mr. Minister, I mean the staff that are doing the everyday

work.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I would ask that the Hon. Minister allow the

Member to ask the questions and answer them in due course.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Does the Minister

intend to meet with his regional staff on their ground and

listen to their views? Does the Minister plan to meet with the

communities themselves before establishing these resource

centres, and does he intend to pay the volunteers or call on

them for volunteer help? What does he intend to do about zoning

problems? And what does he intend to do about the general

public attitude, let alone the medical attitude, on the

programme that he is proposing?

Mr. Minister, I will have more statements and more questions

but I'd like you to answer some of these when convenient.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I have a few comments to

make. I will try to be as restrained as possible and attempt to

avoid the personal vituperativeness that has been the hallmark

of that Member this whole session.

Madam Chairman, first of all I would like to refer the

House to some degree of reality in terms of the actual records and the matter

of fact that we are dealing with, rather than the matter of emotional statement

and wished-for positions.

Fourteen years ago I appeared before the then CCF caucus as

a civil servant about to be dismissed after presenting two

papers to the then government outlining the problems faced in

Willingdon School for Girls, Brannen Lake School for Boys and

the Oakalla Prison Farm. I was hired at that time as a

professional and returned to British Columbia to do a

professional job for a government I was under the impression

was concerned about people.

After I presented those papers I was told that I was not to

express a professional opinion, and the consequences of that

led me into politics.

My entry into politics has been an extension of social work.

It has been expanded since that time, and I don't regret that

expansion. But I have never seen in my time since I returned to

British Columbia such unmitigated gall as I have tonight.

I'd like to refer to the records of this House, Madam

Chairman. At one time we had no records at all, other than on

the votes. But the votes themselves reflect the personal

commitments and the political commitments and the political

philosophy of the Members of this House.

In 1972, Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity — a rare

occasion — to vote on a principle of an amendment rather than

on the actual amendment being out of order. We all recognize,

whether in Opposition or in Government, that the role of

amendments is political and amendments are used to either

illustrate a problem or to embarrass a government or to make a

point.

On most occasions, almost 99 per cent of the time we never

get an opportunity to vote on the meat of the amendment itself.

We are forced to vote….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you don't like the lecture, Mr. Member,

we had an hour and 20 minutes of the most sick kind of lecture

that I've heard in this House.

In 1972 one of those rare occasions occurred when this House

actually voted on the substance of an amendment rather than on

whether or not it was out of order. The substance of the

amendment, placed by the official Opposition and then endorsed

by the Liberal Party, was as follows:

[ Page 2115 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's check the records, Mr. Member, on

page 45 of the 1972 Journals :

"Mr. Barrett moved a subamendment 'That the amendment to the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the

chair be amended by adding, after the word 'province' in the

fourth line, the following measures:

"(1) the provision of a guaranteed minimum income of $200 per month…'" and a number of other

things.

Mr. Speaker, in May , seventeenth edition at p. 795 it was

ruled that while the subject would involve expenditure of

public money it was nevertheless framed in sufficiently

abstract terms that, if agreed to, the subamendment would have

in no way an operative effect on public expenditure.

The government would not have been committed to spending

$200 per month. It was just an idea, a statement of principle,

that a guaranteed minimum income of $200 a month, which all the

Opposition agreed to, which represented 60 per cent of the vote

at that time in the Province of British Columbia, not a

minority. That's what they said at that time. And I want the

House to recall that not a single Social Credit Member voted

for that subamendment at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would think that if the

Member for North Okanagan was not a Member of the House at that

time it would be reasonable for her to excuse herself and allow

her to make the almost cynical comments that were made tonight.

But she was a Member of this very Legislature and it was her

government that voted against it and that was a real part of

the reason why they were defeated last August.

I'm sorry that this debate is not on television. I'm sorry

that the people of British Columbia do not have the opportunity

of seeing that Member defending the Hon. former Minister of

Rehabilitation, one P.A. Gaglardi. That Minister was the

Minister of Rehabilitation and we all recall the interview that

he gave on September 10, 1972…

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order! (Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask the Premier to withdraw the

statement that I defended one P.A. Gaglardi. (Laughter).

I defended, on the basis of the Minister of Rehabilitation's own report, the

work that was done by the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, and I would ask

the Premier to withdraw.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I withdraw any public

allegation that that Member supports P.A. Gaglardi, but that's

on her conscience. I don't know who supports P.A. Gaglardi.

(Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But I withdraw the allegation. If it

offends her to know the public of British Columbia knows that

she in any way supports P.A. Gaglardi, I withdraw the

allegation.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, if the Premier would get off

his ego trip.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have the floor I think, Madam Chairman.

The Member made the statement…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would both Members sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down! Sit down!

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister going…

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I withdraw the allegation

that she supported P.A. Gaglardi. Let that stand on the record.

As a matter of fact she voted in support of P.A. Gaglardi every

time it was recorded in any one of these journals. But if she

wants to refute the Journals , let that be on her conscience,

not on mine.

Madam Chairman, the allegation has been made by the Member

for North Okanagan that we have crippled the economy of this

province and we have crippled the programmes of this province.

Last month's revenues were up 14.5 per cent over what they were

one year ago in the Province of British Columbia. If that's

crippling, I'd like another year of it.

Madam Chairman, as far as crippling the programmes, the

Member did attack the Minister, and Hansard will show it — that the Minister withdrew Mr. Gaglardi's programme

of the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. One of the best

things that Member did since he became Minister was to

eliminate that pork barrel programme that had absolutely

nothing to do with the problems of the unemployed.

I have spent 12 years in this House and every one

[ Page 2116 ]

of those 12 years I spent was a debate on the estimates of

the Minister of Welfare — or the Minister of Rehabilitation, as

they were known over that period of time. During those debates

the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and other Members along

with myself consistently stood up in this House and asked for

an increase in the social assistance funds.

In 1961 the United Church presented a petition and

a brief to the government of the day and asked that there be a

substantial increase in social assistance allowances. Later on,

in 1966, there was election of three women who were

immediately put into the cabinet by the Social Credit

administration. Those three women were not given portfolios;

they were Ministers without Portfolio and the alleged

responsibility of those three Ministers, according to the then

Premier, was that they were there to be concerned with the

problems of families and children and that's why they did not

receive a specific portfolio.

I cannot recall on one single occasion hearing one of those

Ministers standing up in this House asking for any single thing

that that Member has spoken about tonight. As a matter of fact,

when their estimates were debated there was a notable silence.

Their votes usually went through in 10 to 15 minutes because it

was a matter of contempt on the Opposition's part that those

Ministers didn't do a thing worth even questioning. And that's

a matter of record.

Tonight, with a matter of sense of pride and with all the

yelling and with all the cynicism and all the hysteria exposed

by the Government on that side, the Minister on behalf of all

the people of this province has, announced significant

increases in social assistance. I say, very, very simply, I

want to thank all of the people of British Columbia who've made

this wealthy province rich enough to pay these decent social

allowances for the first time in the history of this

province.

We heard the Minister talk about Willingdon School for

Girls. I'll come to that in a moment.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I am an MLA in this House…

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The original purpose of my coming to this House was

to debate these very estimates. If I had to get all the way to be Premier to

finally see something decent happen in these estimates, I have no apology

for that whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan spoke about

"poor work patterns" and spoke about the dependency on social

assistance. The philosophy as espoused by that government not

refuted by any single cabinet Minister or any single backbench

Member was that people on welfare were "deadbeats."

Now, the Member suggests that we should provide something

more than money. I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman;

that government robbed people on welfare of their dignity and

self respect, and that's worth a lot more than money any time.

That at last has been given back.

You know, that Member for North Okanagan said that a piece

of paper helps a person. That's the argument to justify the

programme for the particular matter of dealing with the

job-training programme. Well, I want to tell you, if that

Member for North Okanagan can tell me anywhere in the world

where you can take a Social Credit "piece of paper" into a

supermarket or a store and turn it into groceries, then we'll

hand out more of the certificates. In the meantime, we'll give

people more money because that means more than pieces of paper

that Social Credit gave them.

The Member talked about Willingdon School for Girls and gave

us a picture as if swimming and sewing classes were the great

solution to the problems of those emotionally disturbed

children. I remember the debates on that particular estimate

when the former Minister of Social Welfare, now an

administrative assistant to Social Credit after he was attacked

for the Willingdon School went over to Willingdon School and

had the girls write letters to the Legislature and attack the

Members of the Legislature for raising their problems. When

unabashedly he was found to have actually been involved in that

kind of letter-writing campaign — that he was discovered for

having been involved in that — he shrugged it off. Those

children were used politically by the then Minister, Mr. Dan

Campbell.

Then of course we had the former Member for

Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. Price, who said that the girls in

Willingdon weren't worth a "plugged nickel," or "wooden

nickel," as I recall it. That was said in this House as

well.

Then to hear that Member stand in this House and say that

swimming lessons and care… I want to tell you that the

Kingston Penitentiary is housed with 60 per cent of their

inmates directly from the Province of British Columbia, 40 per

cent of those young ladies were people who had been through

Willingdon School where their first experience with promiscuity

and lesbianism took place right here in our provincial

institutions. That's a matter of record.

Don't tell me about swimming. Don't tell me

[ Page 2117 ]

about sewing. Sixty per cent of those inmates in the

Kingston Penitentiary, the women's penitentiary, are from

British Columbia; 40 per cent of that 60 per cent are graduates

of the Willingdon School for Girls. If we want to go back to

that kind of swimming and sewing class — not on my head will it

happen. Not on my head.

Case history after case history of those girls in Willingdon

School reveal that the former administration, after 20 years in

office, went through juvenile courts in this province on the

kind of volunteer help that she said wouldn't be possibly

achieved. And that's true. It wasn't achieved. These girls were

coming to court; there was no mandatory workup; there was no

age limit; they were not seen automatically by physicians or

psychologists; and they were sent to that institution on the

basis of a charge of incorrigibility.

Those children came from emotionally disturbed situations;

they had no semblance of treatment at home. When they arrived

at the institution they automatically went on the escape

route.

The Vancouver City Police have catalogued case after case

where girls from Willingdon School, at the ages of 16 and 15,

escaped from that school, went downtown and immediately went

into prostitution — an opportunity that did not exist in the

small towns that they came from throughout this whole Province

of British Columbia. But as soon as they arrived in Willingdon

they were made available for that prostitution market.

Nobody wants to defend that system. Nobody wants to justify

what was going on. But it is a matter of fact that it was going

on and it was going on under that previous administration time

after time after time.

The Member suggests that I suffer from an illness. If it's

an illness then it's a passion and a sincerely held one,

rightly or wrongly. It led me into politics to oust a

government that was totally unfeeling and hypocritical when it

came to services of people of this province. If we've ever had

an illustration of it, we got the illustration tonight from

that Member herself, who sat on these Government benches and

who did nothing for years. Absolutely nothing!

All that Member has had to offer in the debates is personal

insults, invective and attempts to slander the Members without

one constructive sentence here tonight or at any time during

this legislative session. Has she suggested at any time, when

she was a Minister in this House, that the social assistance

rates were too low? The answer is no.

Has she suggested that there be a province-wide probation programme for young

adolescent girls? The answer is no. Did she ever vote in this House against

sending 12-year-old children and younger to institutions housing children over

the age of 12? The answer is no. These are matters of record. I find that I'm

moved to something more than just simple passion in replying to that Member.

I'm sick to my stomach at her performance tonight and I only wish that all of

the people could have seen that kind of hypocrisy from that Member.

What nerve! What gall! What sense of lack of understanding

of a responsibility that led to 20 years of neglect for child

care in this province! And then we have to be subjected to that

kind of twisted, tortuous thinking.

In terms of the Mincome we never said anything more than we

would guarantee a minimum of $200 a month to every senior

citizen in this province. That's exactly what we've guaranteed.

They would never have seen it under Social Credit. To have that

Opposition announce had they been in government it would have

been more is a mark of hypocrisy that is almost beyond

belief!

I notice that their leader is not here tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Again. And I notice that his absence is

probably a reflection of his own conscience. To sit through

that kind of diatribe from that Member, having the conscience

of 20 years of inactivity in this particular area, is something

even he couldn't stand.

There's a great deal we intend to do in the area of human

services. No government, regardless of how kind, how

considerate or how understanding can elevate every individual

human being to the maximum potential that may be in him. But

there is a spark in every human being that can be developed to

a potential. That spark must be nurtured on the basis of a

government providing a framework within which that person can

operate with a minimum of government interference or choice in

terms of directions for an individual.

One of the things in North American society that gives the

kind of freedom that's necessary for a maximum degree of choice

is economic security. I'm not saying that's good, I'm not

saying it's bad; I'm saying it's a reality. Money in one's

pocket determines a freedom of choice.

Fifteen years ago there was a major study done of the poor

in the United States by Professor Cloward. He discovered, much

to everybody's surprise, that one of the major things wrong

with the poor is that they don't have enough money. It's quite

true.

Our purpose as a government and through this programme is to

give people some degree of freedom by raising their minimum

incomes to a level that they can start making choices for

themselves rather than the government making choices for them.

We intend to guarantee incomes for our seniors. Along with

cooperation from the federal government, we hope to guarantee

incomes for many, many other people.

[ Page 2118 ]

And I must say that the federal government is beginning to

show an interest in providing that kind of flexibility on

income.

I'm not moved to making these statements out of cooing, out

of electoral victory — something that I'm very satisfied with.

I'm not moved to make these statements on the basis that this

party may know what's best for people. That's not true either.

But I am moved to make these statements on the basis of an

honest experience in this House after having suffered through

an administration that sat for hour after hour in cold

indifference to the pleas of Members from the Conservative

Party, from the Liberal Party and the then CCF-NDP party — sat

there in their smugness, sat there in their indifference, and

didn't move at all on behalf of these people.

Tonight, when we've had a shift, a move and an attitude that

reflects not what the NDP wants, not what the Liberals want,

not what the Socreds want, but what the ordinary, decent person

of this province has longed for in terms of social justice all

these years — it's finally beginning to happen. And to have

that kind of speech with that Member giving it, while she sat

in the cabinet and said nothing, is a little bit too much to

stomach. I'd be embarrassed, if I were she, to go any further

in these votes.

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

Vancouver–Point Grey.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that the Minister has not yet responded.

After he has responded I'll give you the floor.

MRS. JORDAN: That's not the point.

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan be seated, please. I'll give the floor to her as soon

as the Minister has responded so that she'll have a chance to

answer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: After the Minister has responded to all three

of the MLAs who have spoken.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: May I first congratulate the Government and the

Minister in bringing forward improvements in the social

assistance, which are 20 years overdue in this province. To the

public who may be surprised at the substantial amount, may I

first say that I heartily support such amounts and our Liberal

Party agrees with them. They are large, but they must be large

because of 20 years of denial.

I want to compliment, Mr. Chairman, the Premier on his

finest hour in the Legislature. I've been here almost as long

as the Premier; I agree with every word he said. I thought the

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who sat on the

Treasury benches and was a participant in this denial, showed

more than unmitigated gall this evening; she showed consummate

hypocrisy.

I don't agree with the economic philosophies of the present

Government. Everybody recognizes that. I'm a free enterpriser.

But I will say that if there is anything that has discredited

free enterprise in this province and a government that carried

the banner of free enterprise, it has been the denial of human

dignity and human justice.

I say to those in British Columbia, if you are disturbed by

some of the directions that the present Government is taking,

that there is a penalty being paid because there was this

denial of human justice for so many years.

A year ago I said in this House, in putting forward a motion

on behalf of the poor of the province, "What is the matter with

us in British Columbia? How much of a surplus do we have to

have before we can give something to the elderly people of

British Columbia?" Millions and millions and millions were not

enough for that government. And when the figures were finally

toted up it turned out that the federal government, in those

mean old days, was putting up $157 and the provincial

government was putting up a maximum of $19.30. That was what

her government thought was appropriate for the poorest people

of British Columbia.

Now, just a few months later, we have that Member rising in

the House to ask for more for the elderly people of British

Columbia, to criticize the provincial government for what

they've done, and not to mention once that all the years she

sat in the cabinet, the hundreds of opportunities she had to

stand up in this House and to say something on behalf of the

poor and the elderly — all she did was defend the meanness and

penury of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) whom she

served. She was serving him, she was serving that government

and she never had any intention of serving the people that she

claims tonight the NDP Government is denying.

I'm even moved to recall, Mr. Chairman, that when the last

election campaign came along, boxes and boxes of literature

were delivered to Social Credit Members claiming how much they

were doing on

[ Page 2119 ]

behalf of the elderly citizens of British Columbia — at

government expense. Some of us were moved to say at that time

that we wished that money had not been spent on trying to

re-elect the Social Credit Members but had been given to the

poor of British Columbia instead.

No, Mr. Chairman, not in the time I've spent in this House

have we ever seen anything approaching what that Member gave us

this evening.

I hope that the Social Credit will now reconsider what their

responsibilities have been over the years and will have just a

little bit of conscience and penance for their own record. Mr.

Chairman, I specifically exclude the new Members of the Social

Credit Party and even the ones who were here on occasions in

the past but didn't have to sit here during the previous three

years, for not recognizing what went on in this House during

that time.

I was here and I heard the speeches. I say without any

hesitation that it was not just unmitigated gall but consummate

hypocrisy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that the use of terms

such as "hypocrisy" and so on are terms not really worthy of

this House. I am sure that no Member would impute to any Hon.

Member of this House anything of that nature.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, my point is right here — in the

Votes and Proceedings . When the time came to vote on

Bill 49 in the last session of the Legislature — how many

Members recall that? Here's what it says and this is what the

Social Credit Party voted for unanimously, including the Member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). Her vote is recorded in the

Journals on that particular bill. It says:

"In accordance with the regulations, the Minister, in his

discretion, may determine the eligibility of persons for social

assistance, fix the rate or amount of social assistance for

those persons, and discontinue, reduce or increase the rate or

amount of social assistance."

That's the kind of odious legislation that is on the records

of the Social Credit Party when that Member served in the

cabinet. Not a word against that bill. Not one Member — and so

many of them are not back here now — voted against that kind of

odious legislation.

If anything, Mr. Chairman, I think my remarks this evening

have been flattering.

I want to say this about some of the things that are still to be done. I think

the Premier recognizes that. Mr. Chairman, if the Premier doesn't mind for a

moment, of the amendment that he referred to, he very carefully read only subsection

(1). He didn't read subsection (2). I'd like to remind him of what that says:

"The supply of medical drugs under the British Columbia Medical

Plan free of charge for senior citizens."

He didn't recall that tonight but I'd like to recall it to

him. It was certainly part of the Liberal charter of rights for

the elderly and has been part of our provincial Liberal Party

platform for some time. Certainly that should be the next step

on the plate of the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

We don't ask that it all be done at once. We certainly

concur that to date the Minister has made spectacular strides.

The budget was, of course, lower than the revenues will be. All

of us in this House know that adequate funds exist, providing

too much of it doesn't go on Flyers and pulp mills, for us to

give these benefits to the senior citizens.

Mr. Chairman, they come first. Private enterprise can and

should look after itself. Therefore, I hope that the Minister

will not be held up in his programme because tax revenues are

taken for investments in Crown corporations when they should be

spent on the needy of this province.

Mr. Chairman, we note with interest that the Province of

Manitoba will be the first one to experiment with a guaranteed

income. I'm disappointed that it could not have been British

Columbia.

Having said some unkind words about Social Credit this

evening, for a moment may I agree with some of the ideas that

the former Premier had. Although I condemned his budget every

year and I condemned his allocations for the needy of the

province, I think he was correct in saying that we should have

a guaranteed income plan. I'm glad that the Member and I can

agree on that point at least.

I hope that the Minister and the Premier and the federal

government can somehow get together in discussions and find

some way to introduce it in British Columbia too.

I'd like to agree with the Leader of the Opposition, the

former Premier, one other respect. That is his philosophy

regarding equalization payments. Like the former Premier, I

think the concept of equalization payments is wrong and unfair.

I agree with him that that money should be used for

distribution directly to the people and not to other provincial

governments. If we were to take the equalization payments and

see that lump sum of money combined with whatever other

resources the federal government might wish to place behind the

needy of the province to develop a guaranteed income plan that

would suit all of Canada, then I think this would be a happier

and more prosperous country.

Whether or not that comes in the future, Mr. Chairman, there

will be many poor and humble people in British Columbia who

will be happy tonight. They are getting the best news that they

have had in 20 years. Mr. Chairman, I think that every Member

in this House — every Member — should be happy with them.

[ Page 2120 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

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

think it's important to understand some of the high emotion that we've had here

tonight. The Premier and I have shared about 14 years of companionship in this

particular area. Once we had made our announcements tonight, I felt that it

was inevitable that he was going to get up. I'm glad that he did.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, you're damn right. He took you apart

like you've never been taken apart before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. A point of order.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw the

word that was used that was offensive.

HON. MR. LEVI: What was the word that was offensive?

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Damn."

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, I withdraw that. Yes, of course. She's

still apart but I withdraw it.

Now look, I sat here and I had to listen to that Member over

there talk about the Social Credit Mincome policy. What was the

Social Credit Mincome that she kept talking about? There were

1,200 people receiving $191 in this province when you were the

government. Twelve hundred people. Right now you have 108,000

people who are receiving a guaranteed income of $200, with an

average payment from this Government of $43. That's what the

reality is, Madam Member.

You talk about Willingdon. We know about your trips to

Willingdon. You pop in and you pop out and you have a degree of

specialty already. We had a previous Minister here who spent

three days there and was suddenly an expert on corrections. I

was in the House in 1969 when this….

MRS. JORDAN: What are you an expert on?

HON. MR. LEVI: I spent 17 years in the field. That's why I'm

here today.

When we closed Willingdon, we said that there was no room

for a place which committed children because they had behaviour

problems. We committed them because of sexual immorality,

because they were incorrigible. What kind of problems are

these?

Can you identify them?

You talk about "students." What do you think we were running

there — Crofton House? It was not a Crofton House. That's why

we closed it down. It was not a Crofton House.

You're asking "Where are the children now?" We have made

arrangements for them. They're in a number of different

situations. We expect to improve on the situations. We have had

a response from the people in my department from the field to

do something about these children in their own communities.

That's the focus of this department — in their own communities.

No more dumping grounds.

You talk about Vernon. You're the Member from Vernon and you

talk about it. The John Howard Society has been there 12 years.

For 12 years they've been doing a job for that community and

you keep telling me that they're not accepted by the community.

We don't accept that any of the work that we do in this

department is very acceptable to anybody. That doesn't mean to

say that we don't carry on doing the work.

Let me tell you something about the residue of the problems

that we have inherited from that side in respect to children.

This department and children's aid societies are responsible

for 10,167 kids in this province in care. That's the legacy

that we inherited from you because you would pay no money for

resources. In 1969 you introduced a juvenile detention Act and

the whole business of the provincial court Acts. You said to

the children's aid societies, "A superintendent will now look

after these children. You assist him." You gave no more money.

You just said do it. You provided no resources, no help. It was

easy for you to just push it aside.

Now, what did you do? We've got over 3,000 children who have

been in care more than five years. We've got children coming

into care, over 900 of whom should have had something done in

terms of their family situation, and it was never done.

That Member who is not here tonight should be because he

bled those children white. They didn't get the kind of

assistance they needed.

You think we're a bunch of bleeding hearts? Why do you think

I spent 17 years in this field for? What do you think I'm in

this House for? Because I know what has to be done; we over

here know what has to be done. You never accepted that. Never.

You make chipping remarks about what's going on in pulp mills;

we're talking about people, that's what we're talking

about.

What did you ever do for senior citizens? You get a

government that's prepared to move, that's ~prepared to push

the federal government to assist. And that's what we've been

doing. We see our role; we are showing leadership in this

province and in this country. We've got to cooperate to some

extent in terms of our Mincome programme. That's what we've

[ Page 2121 ]

done; we've shown leadership.

You could have shown the same leadership, but you didn't.

You didn't do anything of the kind because you had a one-man

government. He was the guy who called the shots. You couldn't

do a thing about it anyway.

It was delightful to watch the three Ministers without

Portfolio in this House five years ago, sitting there writing

piles of notes as though they were going to get up for two

hours and make a vicious attack on the government. I can

remember one time I moved a motion. It took 12 seconds to get

rid of you.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you proud of that?

HON. MR. LEVI: You're right on I'm proud of it. What are we

talking about when we talk about community resource centres.

Let's get this straight. Neither this government nor the

federal government is ever going to be able to provide the kind

of money that you need to deliver all the services that you

need in the community. Obviously we have to rely on volunteers

and obviously we have to rely on the community.

When we talked about a solution to the drug problem, to the

senior problem, we took it right back to the community and

said, "We've got to get the assistance of the community." And

that's where we're going.

And you say to me, 'Have I met the community?' I spent an

awful lot of time in the seven months I've been over here,

meeting with the community in the community. I've meeting with

the community in the community. I've met two-thirds of my field

staff at two regional conferences and talked to them. They know

what we're talking about; we're getting the word down to the

line there. As soon as this session is over I'm going to be

travelling throughout the province.

Our mail and the kind of representations that we're getting

from people tells us they want to cooperate with us on the

community development of their own resources. That's where

we've got to go. We're not going to build big structures and

somehow think that that's the solution to a problem, because it

isn't.

We know what we have to do. We've spent a number of years in

Opposition trying to figure it all out. Now we're trying to

implement programmes.

The Mincome form — this is the great issue with you. One of the reasons we

want the Mincome form is because we want to get the federal government involved

in this. We are the province right now that's shown the leadership in North

America and in Canada in terms of the $200 a month. But very shortly, Madam

Member, there are going to be two other provinces that are going to follow us

because they are interested in what we're doing. Don't think for one

minute that what the federal government did in January was not a direct

result of what this Government did in October. Don't ever forget that. That's

the kind of leadership…

We met here in November with the Ministers, and we got

unanimity on what we have to do with children's allowances and

we got unanimity on what we have to do with programmes. That's

leadership, and that's the kind of thing that we're going to

continue to do.

In respect to these 10,000 children, the focus of this

department is on children and the family unit. That's the whole

core of this province. Without them, we don't have anything.

And if we're going to spend money, that's where it will be

reflected — in terms of children. That's where it will be

reflected — in terms of healthy people. We have developed

healthy situations in terms of medical services, and you as a

government let people ride when they needed the right kind of

food to continue the kind of healthful life. You didn't do a

thing; you just sat there and that's all you wanted to do.

Now let's see if I can answer one or two of the questions.

You meandered so far it is very difficult for me to know where

to start. It was like going through a swamp.

PAB (Provincial Alliance of Businessmen). You talked about

all those people that worked for PAB, all 26 of them. We had to

find jobs for 24, and we ultimately found jobs for 15. Nine we

didn't agree to find jobs for. They were not acceptable to the

civil service, not to us. I said to the civil service, "Offer

people jobs; it's on your discretion." They offered 15 people, nine didn't get jobs because they were there…

Had the previous minister, my predecessor, been that

interested in them, he could have put them through a lot

quicker in terms of the civil service. But he didn't; he

decided in June of 1969 to do it. We had an opportunity to kill

it, and we killed it stone dead. Stone dead.

Now let's talk about the whole question of employment. You

say, "What's happening to these people?" All right, let me read

a report dated March 8: "Gainfully employed welfare

recipients."

"Total in the province for February 1973 moved off

welfare — 1,1410 people. April 3: gainfully employed, March 1973 —

1,678 people."

Now what are you talking about, Madam Member? What do you

think this is? What do you think is going on out there? Do you

think all of a sudden the world…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's there; there are the facts. Do you want

me to file them? I'll file them.

[ Page 2122 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Why didn't you put them in before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, Madam Member, please. It's nearly time to

go home; don't knock it.

All right, let me give you just one other topic because I

don't want to stray too close to the legislation that's coming

in.

You talked about rents. O.K., we were concerned about rents

when we brought in the Mincome because we had an awful lot of

reports from people that their rents were going up. We examined

several hundred complaints. But the tragic part about it was

that we found that the bulk of the complaints were coming from

people that were living in private hospitals. And that's a

problem.

We talked to some of the private hospital people and said,

"Be reasonable in terms of your increases." And they weren't

prepared to be reasonable. In fact they said, "If you don't pay

us the kind of subsidies we need, we'll put the people out on

the street." That is where we were. We sat with it because we

had no room to maneuver. We never at any time talked about rent

control. We know what the solutions are in terms of that

problem. I'll leave it at that.

Let me just say one other thing. Sometime in the future

after the session we will be having discussions with the

municipalities. The municipalities feel that we should be

relieving them of the welfare burden.

I have said that before we make this decision to give some

relief, we have to discuss with the municipalities what part

they are prepared to play in financing some of the local core

services. By "core services" we mean the kind of things that

have been developed in municipalities like information centres

and activity centres. We feel that they have a role to play in

it. Once we've had these discussions obviously we will sit down

and talk to them about a reduction in that kind of cost.

We know that the municipalities are picking up almost $20

million in welfare costs. If you look back over the figures,

the previous government was very good about shifting the burden

from the provincial government to the municipalities and

getting more from the federal government and never giving any

credit anywhere.

We have made a commitment that we will relieve the

municipalities on the welfare system. But we want to talk to

them about the direction we are going in terms of core service

in the community. Once we've got some agreement about that,

then we will make a decision about what we are going to do.

It's quite simple.

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

the Conservatives a chance to speak first.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a

free-enterprise party I would like to say that we also

recognize that any government regardless of its philosophy has

a social responsibility to provide a reasonable, fair, just

standard of living for those people who cannot help themselves.

We are very pleased with the announcement made tonight and we

support the action of the Minister and of the Government.

I personally have had a great deal to do, Mr. Chairman, with

the Minister concerned. I find in him an awareness and a

conviction about his work and his dedication to people that is

most refreshing. My particular contact has been in the realm of

drug abuse which I would like to talk about later, but the hour

is late.

But what is so often misrepresented publicly is the fact

that there is some disgrace about being in receipt of social

assistance. This is so far from the truth as I've quoted in

this House many times before, inasmuch as they who are living

in poverty have neither the choice to live otherwise nor do

most of them have any hope of improving their situation unless

there is a productive and positive programme by governments to

provide — as the Premier has said — in the first instance,

money, and in the second instance, programmes to develop what

potential these unfortunate individuals have.

The senate report on poverty made very clear that some 90

per cent of people on welfare and living in poverty do so

through no choice of their own and through conditions which

they're all but powerless to control or alleviate.

In a society as rich as our modern society, regardless of

which government is in power, whether it's socialist or

Conservative or Liberal, surely one of the first

responsibilities is a moral one.

The Government should make available to that disadvantaged

segment of society a reasonable, fair and just fraction of the

provincial or national revenue.

How this is spread between federal, provincial and municipal

again is another debate. But I would congratulate this Minister

and agree entirely that the federal action in recent pension

increase is a direct result of the initiative and enterprise

shown by this Government in bringing in the $200 a month

minimum income.

There are many other aspects of this department, Mr.

Chairman, which I would like to discuss later. But I want it

very clearly understood — and in fact the Premier on previous

occasions has said this, even although he and I are at odds on

the philosophy of free enterprise versus state control —

there's one area in which Conservatives and socialists are very

close together. They've proved this tonight. I hope one day

[ Page 2123 ]

I have an opportunity to do something similar. We believe in

people.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say a

few words in the debate about the policies or proposed policies

by the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon.

Mr. Levi) with regard to drugs and drug abuse. I wonder, Mr.

Chairman, if there's any possibility that you'd accept an

adjournment, or would you like me to continue past … or pull

the vote, I don't care.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. If the House is to sit tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock,

there is a notice on my desk indicating a meeting of the

committee on Forestry and Fisheries tomorrow at 10 a.m. I do

not see how the committee can officially be sitting at the same

time as we are meeting in the House. I would ask the advice of

the Chair as to whether that can be constituted as a duly legal

meeting of the committee while this House is still in

session.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, speaking to that

point of order, it is my understanding that the Speaker has no

knowledge of the House committees' activities or notices.

However, if a Member wishes to bring, by leave, the attention

of a request or the attention of a cancellation, I understand

that is the order. But until that time of a request for leave,

it is my understanding that the Speaker has no knowledge of the

activities of the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: What happens in committee or where the committees meet

is really not the business of the House itself. The only thing is, that I note

on the orders of the day it is true. The difficulty is that the business of

the House takes precedence over business of committees;

and secondly, there is no right for a committee to sit while the House is in

session at present under our rules as they exist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I call

Resolution No. 41.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

move the motion appearing in my name on the order paper. (see

appendix).

MR. SPEAKER: Does the House have the resolution in front of

them?

Is there any debate on the motion? The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN, (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, the motion

asks permission for leave for Select Standing Committees and

special committees to sit while the House is in session.

I have mentioned before that the fundamental of the

democratic process — the fundamentals of this parliament — are

the debating of the monetary allocations. We are in the

committee of supply. We are debating every dollar that is being

spent by the various Ministers. This matter should concern

every Member of the House as to how that money is spent — and

suggestions and criticisms.

We feel in the Opposition that when the House is in the

committee of supply that all Members' first responsibility —

with the exception of emergencies — should be to be in

attendance in this House. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we

cannot accept the motion. We will oppose it. We feel that the

Leader of this House knows very well what he's doing when he

asks this House to sit consistently from 10 o'clock in the

morning until 11 at night.

The Premier of this province is entertaining punitive action

because the House is not moving in the manner that he thinks it

should do. If that is his choice, then he has every right to do

it. He has the right to do as he's doing, which is making this

House sit in session longer, on a consistent basis, than it

ever has in its history. And we are quite willing to go along

with this. We are quite willing to spend whatever time is

necessary on debating the business of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the business of the House is in the House. The

responsibility of the elected Members, when this House is in

session, be they private Members or cabinet Ministers, is to be

on the floor of this House, not holding meetings in the

corridor or in their offices or anywhere else, Mr. Speaker.

That is a fundamental responsibility in the British

parliamentary system and in the democratic process. We intend

to meet this obligation, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier wishes us to have special committee

[ Page 2124 ]

meetings, we are quite willing to do this and to take our

part in them. But we insist that those meetings be held at a

time when this House is not in session. We will meet at 7

o'clock in the morning, if necessary; we will meet at 11 or 12

o'clock at night, if necessary. But let me make it very clear,

we will not meet with meetings in committee when this House is

in session. We would not support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I agree with the

Member who has just taken her place that supply is a very

important part of the proceedings of any parliamentary system.

I note with regret the absence all evening in the discussion of

supply of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

I suggest too, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is completely

in line with the whole British parliamentary system because in

the House of Commons in Ottawa committees do meet while the

House is in session or in committee; and in the "mother" of

parliaments in London, committees meet while the House itself

is in session and in committee of supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we will

support this motion. I agree with the Minister of Highways that

it is in the parliamentary tradition, even though it would be

hoped we could avoid the conflicts.

But again, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to listen to a lecture

from the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), or anybody

who sat with the former government, on what British

parliamentary tradition is. How many times, Mr. Speaker, did

they vote against a Hansard ? How many times did we sit

all night in this House having "legislation by exhaustion?" If

any group needs to learn what the parliamentary traditions are

in this House, it's the Social Credit Party and the Member for

North Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I simply say "amen"

to the sentiments of the previous speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking to this motion I just want to say that it's a very serious attempt

on the part of the Government to ram the committee meetings while the very important

debates are taking place in this House.

Mr. Speaker, you said just a few moments ago that the

affairs of this House have precedence over the committee

function. We're debating some very important estimates

involving the expenditure of millions of dollars, millions of

taxpayers' dollars. I think that the role of the Members of the

Opposition is that of opposing certain facets of government

expenditure, I don't know how we can possibly effectively

oppose while we're sitting in a committee, when our first

responsibility rests in this House.

There appears to be a very serious effort on the part of the

government to attempt to silence the Members. We feel that our

responsibility is to scrutinize the expenditures of public

fund