1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2169 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act (Bill 101).

Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2169

Oral questions

Police force order for Smith and Wesson handguns.

Mrs. Jordan — 2169

Testing of Delta Speed Warning System. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2169

Intergovernment discussions re west coast tanker route.

Mr. Wallace — 2170

Import of proposed Saskatchewan steel mill for B.C. plans.

Mr. Chabot — 2170

Status of IJC recommendations on Point Roberts and the

Gulf Islands. Mr. Curtis — 2171

Need for controls on ownership of land by aliens. Mr. Gibson — 2171

ICBC settlement with Robert Adams. Mr. Gardom — 2171

Controls on slash burning in consequence of Salmon Arm fire.

Mr. Wallace — 2172

Prospectors Assistance Act (Bill 94). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 2172

Presenting petitions

Request for careful consideration of Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act.

Mr. Gibson — 2172

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates

On vote 113.

Mr. Schroeder — 2173

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2173

Mr. Schroeder — 2173

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2174

Mr. Gardom — 2174

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2174

Mr. Gardom — 2175

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2175

Mr. Gardom — 2176

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2176

Mr. Gardom — 2176

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2177

Mr. Wallace — 2177

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2183

Mr. Wallace — 2187

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2187

Mrs. Jordan — 2187

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2191

Mr. Gibson — 2193

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2196

Mr. Gibson — 2196

Mr. Curtis — 2196

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2197

Mr. McClelland — 2198

Mr. McGeer — 2200

Mr. Wallace — 2200

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2200

Mr. McClelland — 2200

Mr. Speaker — 2200

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2201

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2201

Mr. Wallace — 2201

Mr. Speaker — 2201

Mr. McClelland — 2201

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2203

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

gallery today are 20 ladies from the Victoria Women's Auxiliary to the

Victoria Social Credit League. I'm pleased to have them here and I wish

you bid them welcome.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce to the

House this afternoon Mayor Bill Moore of Courtenay and Mayor Bill

Moncrief of Cumberland. Accompanying them today is John Wilson, the

clerk of the Village of Cumberland. I would ask the House to join me in

welcoming them.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker,

seated in the gallery are part of a contingent of more than 200 senior

citizens from the old age pensioners' group of British Columbia. I

would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery

today a group of students from the Delta Senior Secondary School, along

with their teachers, Mr. Harfield and Mr. Leyhurst. I would hope the

Members welcome them here today.

In addition to that we have some 50 senior citizens from White Rock

here today that are part of the overall contingent. They are in the

gallery now and I'd like the Members to welcome them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of

the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) I would like to recognize Mr. J.C.

Lundquist, the representative of the citizens' committee in Atlin

petitioning the provincial government on Bill 31. He is in the gallery

today.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, seated on the floor of the House

behind me is my consultant on the physically handicapped, Miss Merle

Smith, who is here to help me during the estimates. I'd like to have

the House make her welcome.

Introduction of bills.

SPECIAL PROVINCIAL

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act .

Bill 101 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.

Oral questions.

POLICE FORCE ORDER

FOR SMITH AND WESSON HANDGUNS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Attorney-General. I wonder if he'd advise the House if

there's any substance to the statement that there are 400 Smith and

Wesson revolvers on order with the consent of the Attorney-General's

department. If the answer to this is yes, was the order put out to

tender? And I'll ask the second part as a supplementary.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, there is no order outstanding whatsoever for handguns of any description or of any number.

I might say, if the Hon. Member wishes me to, that we do have a

course of training of sheriffs' officers who will enable policemen to

be free for police duties in the courts and therefore be resuming a

traditional sheriff's role. We do have 12 guns in connection with the

training of classes of these people. The first class began on April 1

of this year.

Guns will be for prisoner escorts or court security in high-risk

cases only. A very limited number will be required even when these

officers are trained. Basically they will be civilian. And they will be

brought within the provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the

Public Service Act of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). As

I say, it will be purely high risk only. But there is no such order.

MRS. JORDAN: I just want to clarify before I ask my

supplementary question. There is not an outstanding order for 400 Smith

and Wesson guns. The supplementary: is there also a special order for

approximately 50 police-type vehicles and has this order any bearing on

the large number of peace officers and supplementary sheriffs that the

Minister mentioned?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I believe there is, in connection

with vehicles for the sheriffs' officers who will become officers of

the court, as I say, replacing policemen who are now doing that work. I

think cars have been ordered with respect to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight to a car. (Laughter.)

TESTING OF DELTA

SPEED WARNING SYSTEM

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Highways. In his estimates he

[ Page 2170 ]

indicated that the department would not be testing the Delta Speed Warning System. I would like to ask whether the Saturday Sun

article indicating that it would is a change of policy, or whether there is new information that he'd like to add at this time.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the

department will be testing both the Delta Speed Warning System — Mr.

Corrigan's invention — and also another Canadian invention. Both are

Canadian inventions and we'll be testing both of them with no

commitment from the department to use either or both.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCUSSIONS

RE WEST COAST TANKER ROUTE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Premier with

regard to oil tankers off the coast of British Columbia, could I ask

him whether he or the government have taken part either at the federal

level recently in discussions which lead to a proposal being sent to

Washington or with Governor Evans regarding the feasibility study that

Port Angeles might be a tanker terminal?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): No, Mr. Member. We have written

the federal government and we are prepared to table the letters asking

for a detailed outline of what their plans are in the eventuality of a

spill. There was some attempt to communicate by way of civil servants.

One preliminary meeting took place at the civil servants' level but

that is all.

I can bring forward all the correspondence that we've had on this

subject if I have clearance from Ottawa. I certainly have no objection

to tabling my letters to Ottawa.

MR. WALLACE: Just one supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the

Premier aware of any meetings that are planned with these particular

authorities subsequent to the Washington response?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

IMPORT OF PROPOSED SASKATCHEWAN

STEEL MILL FOR B.C. PLANS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. The Province of

Saskatchewan today has announced a major steel plant which will

generate 11,700 new jobs in that province. As there is only a certain

capacity for consumption of steel in western Canada, I wonder if that

will destroy the opportunity of establishing a steel mill in British

Columbia. Will this also possibly cause a postponement or cancellation

of the trek to Japan?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

To answer the questions in order, the first one is no, it will not

destroy the opportunity that British Columbia has for steel production.

My reason for thinking that is that it's an expansion of an already

existing steel production base in Saskatchewan. It's a major expansion.

The market will be available to the prairie provinces and I

congratulate them for it.

The second phase of your question as I read it is that we're going

to Japan for purposes of economic diplomacy. (Laughter.) We will, while

we're in Japan, if you took the trouble to read the itinerary, be

visiting various centres of steel production, pulp and paper,

mariculture and so on. With that kind of information and the

discussions that we have with officials there we will see about the

potential of steel production in cooperation with the Japanese and

their technical people in British Columbia.

I would ask the Hon. Member and all British Columbians not to be

discouraged that our neighbouring provinces are developing industrially

and economically. We should congratulate them, because it won't curtail

this fantastic province from its industrial growth — it's going to move

on at a great pace.

MR. CHABOT: A short supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: After that you want a supplementary?

MR. CHABOT: Yes. The supplementary question is that in order

to feed this massive mill that will be established in Saskatchewan it

will be necessary to get the raw material — the iron ore — from other

provinces in Canada. Will the Minister tell me whether this will create

competition in regard to this province's aspirations of creating a

steel mill when there is a really serious problem with getting raw

materials, with Saskatchewan, who will be looking to British Columbia,

Manitoba and Alberta for her raw material?

HON. MR. LAUK: The answer is no. It won't create competition.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary

with regard to the steel mill. That line of the Minister's, I think,

could be compared to an end run in rugby.

I wanted to ask the Minister to what degree he has consulted local

steel industry before making his plans to go to Japan with regard to

the steel production plant.

HON. MR. LAUK: A great degree of consultation, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2171 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary: has the Minister invited any

local groups to put together any kind of initiative instead of going to

Japan and asking the Japanese to put something together?

HON. MR. LAUK: Insofar as the local steel industry is

concerned, Mr. Speaker, the local steel industry is limited to the

tertiary field. They have given us a great deal of advice and the

government is grateful for it. We have not been communicating with

them. In terms of putting together a consortium, this is contemplating

something in the future that will have to be discussed in due course.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary to the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce: has there been any discussion between

he or his officials or any officials of the government with the

expansion of the mill in Saskatchewan of entering into a partnership?

HON. MR. LAUK: There have been general discussions with the

Ministers of Trade and Industry of the other three western provinces.

On the agenda of discussion that I have been having with them is steel

production.

MRS. JORDAN: A further supplementary: does this mean that the

Minister is, in fact, contemplating entering into a partnership in this

expansion?

HON. MR. LAUK: I wouldn't say that the government is contemplating it, but I would say that it is a possibility that we haven't excluded.

STATUS OF IJC RECOMMENDATIONS

ON POINT ROBERTS AND THE GULF ISLANDS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it was a good

question at 2:10 — it may be out of date by now — but I would like

to ask the Premier, with respect to the International Joint Commission study

and recommendation with respect to Point Roberts and the Gulf Islands, which

was released in 1973, if the proposal is under study by any department of the

provincial government at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's under study by the environment and land use committee of the government.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When may we expect the results of that study — in a matter of weeks, months…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no idea when the date will be, but when they're complete with their recommendations, we'll certainly notify the House.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: will

this cabinet committee report be transmitted first to the International

Joint Commission or to this House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will be transmitted first to the cabinet

itself to determine what our government policy will be, and then at

that point we'll determine where to go.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, shortly I'll be tabling a document

from the Senate Joint Memorial on Point Roberts, which has been

transmitted to me to be tabled in the House. I'll be doing that after

we complete question period.

NEED FOR CONTROLS ON

OWNERSHIP OF LAND BY ALIENS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

In view of the very alarming figures released this morning to the

effect that a full 40 per cent of the money invested in commercial and

multiple-family real estate in metropolitan Vancouver in 1973 came from

foreign sources, would the Minister speed up the lamentably relaxed

two-year approach of the government in producing legislation on foreign

land ownership?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Well, Mr. Speaker, the question that I was asked, just to clarify the

statement that was in the media, was: would there be legislation before

1976? The answer was yes. That does not mean that there wouldn't be

legislation long before that date. I'd like to clarify that.

MR. GIBSON: Would the Minister try for this session, Mr. Speaker?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The way the session is going it might be

quite easy, Mr. Member. The matter is under active consideration by two

departments of government with thorough consultation with the federal

government at the federal government's request.

ICBC SETTLEMENT

WITH ROBERT ADAMS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. We've noted

that Mr. Robert Adams is dismissed…or being paid, I should say, for a

two-year contract with ICBC for doing six

[ Page 2172 ]

months' work. Is the Minister prepared to table those contract documents in the House?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'll take that question as notice if you don't mind, Mr. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just mention, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon.

Minister, I believe, took it as notice about two weeks ago. I'd like

your guidance on a point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You've been reading May lately, and I'm sure you know that you can't force that. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like your guidance on one point, Mr.

Speaker. Is it not customary that if a Minister takes a question as

notice, it's on the basis that the material is not readily available?

Surely when it is available it's incumbent upon the Minister to either

file it, or give the House reasons for not answering.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll study it.

CONTROLS ON SLASH BURNING

IN CONSEQUENCE OF SALMON ARM FIRE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources: consequent to the reports regarding the forest fire at Salmon Arm

last September, has the Minister issued any new instructions regarding slash

burning? Has he taken any action on the parties that were to blame? I believe

it was a 50-50 sharing of the blame between the Forest Service and Federated Co-operative Limited.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there's been active

review by the Forest Service with respect to slash burning regulations.

That will be a factor in the coming season. With respect to the other

question, some steps are being taken internally within the Forest

Service, but beyond that, the matter is in the hands of outside counsel.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: within

the internal arrangements of the Forest Service, could the Minister

tell the House if, in fact, staff disobeyed rules? Was it simply a

misjudgment on the part of his staff, or were they in fact in direct

contravention of existing rules?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't think it would be fair to say in

direct contravention. It was a mix of various parts, all of which

together produced the catastrophe. But I don't think one could say that.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Prospectors Assistance Act .

Bill 94 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we come to petitions there is one matter

that's been transmitted to me by the Secretary of State for the State

of Washington, A. Ludlow Kramer. He states:

"Dear Speaker Dowding,

"As directed herein we hereby respectfully transmit

for your official consideration a copy of Senate Joint Memorial No.

131, on Point Roberts, approved by the Third Extraordinary Session of

the 43rd Legislature of the State of Washington."

I hereby table the said document in accordance with the rules.

Presenting petitions.

MR. GIBSON: I ask leave of the House to present a petition on

behalf of Mr. John C. Lundquist of Stewart, British Columbia. May I

have leave to proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed. First you state what the petition is.

MR. GIBSON:

"The petition humbly showeth that:

"whereas more than 1,000 residents of Stewart and Tide

Lake, British Columbia, all directly employed in mining or having their

livelihood dependent upon the mining industry, have signed a petition

addressed to the Hon. Premier of British Columbia indicating their

concern about the effects Bill 31 will have on their future.

"and

whereas they have stated their fear that for

those of them who are prospectors or in exploration there will be no

jobs, for those of them who are miners or in small businesses, stores,

hotels, et cetera, depending on the mine payrolls there will be no

future in British Columbia.

"humbly pray that your honourable House will move carefully with consideration of Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act

and make a thorough study to find out how this royalty bill will affect

the jobs in future of the petitioners of Stewart and Tide Lake before

its enactment and is duty bound, your petitioner will ever

[ Page 2173 ]

pray.

"Dated at Victoria, B.C. this third day of April 1974."

Signed by John C. Lundquist and by myself. I would

ask leave at the same time, Mr. Speaker, to table a 1,000-signature

petition to the government, couched in the same terms.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you send the documents to the Clerk at the table, please?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 113: Minister's Office, $107,504.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I was interested in the

Minister's statement last evening regarding the change of residency

requirements for Mincome. He made a statement that no longer will

people be able to come into the Province of British Columbia and on the

day after their arrival be able to apply for Mincome. That is, as long

as they were arriving in British Columbia from countries other than

Canada. However, at the same time he clearly made the announcement that

there were no restrictions anticipated for people coming into the

Province of British Columbia from other provinces in Canada, and at the

same time cited as a reason for this the fact that the programme was

being shared federally and that there had to be some reciprocal

agreement between the provinces on this kind of a scheme, otherwise

they would have to forfeit the federal share.

At the outset of Mincome the Minister stated that Mincome was a

desire of this new administration and that they would implement this

plan even if the federal government did not share either equally or in

any percentage-wise in the scheme.

The question I have for the Minister today is this: surely, if we

have no immigration requirements — by immigration I mean

inter-provincial — the net immigration to British Columbia — by net

immigration I mean the residue that would stay in British Columbia when

you compare the immigration and emigration figures — this net

immigration will work a hardship on the taxpayer of British Columbia

unless in your negotiations with Ottawa you can come up with some kind

of a fair agreement whereby other provinces would not create a pressure

upon our province and make it a Mincome haven. I'm wondering, in the

light of previous statements, if the Minister could tell me what plans

he has. What kind of a presentation or petition do you have to make to

the federal government which would ensure the taxpayers of British

Columbia that this will not take place?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, the

general principle under the Canada Assistance Plan is that there is no

residence requirement of citizens within Canada. Free movement is the

basic thing. We have not made representations to the federal government

against this; this is the principle that we accept. I don't see your

suggesting that it would work a hardship.

I think we said when we introduced the Mincome programme at the

beginning that people coming from other provinces would, in any case,

bring money with them — people, for instance, over 65 who are on the

Old Age Pension, the GIS. But we have not made representations because

this is a basic principle of the Canada Assistance Plan, this free

movement of Canadian people in Canada.

The thing I was referring to last night was the very problem of

people coming in from outside of the country. It is not our intention

to pursue this in terms of in some way having them vary the Canada

Assistance Plan.

I think what you are suggesting, Mr. Member, is that we get some

sharing for people who come from another province. Not only is there

movement back and forth…to keep track of that kind of thing would be

very difficult. In any case, the basic principle is that Canadians have

the opportunity, regardless of age, of moving backwards and forwards,

and we accept this.

MR. SCHROEDER: The reason why the question comes to mind is

because immediately upon the announcement the telephone begins to ring

and the people…. As you know, the old age pensioners are in the city

today and they have some concern that the province be protected in this

regard. Of course, not all people understand the terms of the Canada

Assistance Plan.

But this entire problem was well canvassed by the opposition at the

time that Mincome was first introduced, when the debate took place here

on this floor. I am glad that the Minister has already seen fit to make

the change as far as alien qualifications for Mincome. But surely the

Minister must be aware that some 200 aliens who have not been required

to establish residency in the Province of British Columbia are going to

be continuing to qualify for Mincome, and rightly so because their

qualification has been established and you can't cut them off midstream.

Surely, the Minister must see that this is costing British Columbia some $700,000 a year just to

[ Page 2174 ]

sustain the existing recipients. Had the Minister

listened to the opposition when we first debated the issue of Mincome,

we could have saved the $700,000 which is an annual expense. I would

say if he had listened then he wouldn't have to pay for this hearing

assistance now. I say $700,000 is likely the most expensive hearing-aid

in the history of British Columbia.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would rather that this

government be criticized on the side of erring on the basis of humanity

rather than inheriting the choice of the former administration with

their policy of saving the government the $60 million to $80 million

that Mincome is costing the people of this province.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I was in this House one night

when the Speaker under Social Credit prohibited us from even debating

the question of Mincome. I'm proud of the Mincome Programme. I'm proud

of that Minister's accomplishment. Let it be clearly understood if they

every came back to power their interest would be purely on money and

that programme would be in danger.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd just like to say a couple of words if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister with reference to the Indian community.

I was most appreciative of his remarks yesterday evening that he was

of the view of the philosophy — I can't quote quote him exactly — to

the effect that he certainly felt that the Indians in the Province of

British Columbia have to receive exactly the same kind of treatment

that is afforded to the white man. But that apparently is still not the

case in the Province of B.C. We still see the reserve Indians in the

province being denied the services that are available to the remainder

of our community.

I would very much like to find out from the Minister if he has these

figures available — he may not have them all available — as to what

exactly the provincial contribution is to reserve Indians. I'm not

talking about the federal contribution.

I do have some figures that I've just recently received from the

federal side which would indicate that some $19 million was spent on

community affairs last year, some $20 million on education, some $2

million on administration and some $2 million on economic development — for gross federal expenditure of $46 million for the year-end projected

to January 31, 1974.

In my involvement in Indian affairs over the past 12 years or so it

has always been my understanding that the bulk of the funding for

reserve Indians, whatever the need or service may be, seems to have

emanated from Ottawa; and the provincial government has done precious

little, if anything.

I commend this government for bringing in the measure that was long

advocated from this desk: that is, making the home acquisition grant

available. It was a serious injustice that it was not earlier made

available to the Indian community.

But I think, as British Columbians, Mr. Chairman, we've all got to

appreciate one fact very loudly and clearly: that the Indian is a

taxpayer in the province, and he's not only morally but legally

entitled to every law and every service that every other citizen of

British Columbia has been entitled to. What we've got to do is ensure,

without qualification and without exception, that those services are

all made available to reserve Indians in the Province of B.C.

I'd like to hear from the Minister what programmes he has

encountered over the past year, what ones he envisages for the early

future, what spending has been entered into by this government for the

past period and also what expenditures are contemplated in the early

future.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, in terms of the $46 million

which the federal government put into this province — and given the

kind of administration that the Department of Indian Affairs has and

the kind of neo-colonial approach that they have — that really

represents some $1,500 per head of the Indians in this province who are

living on reserves.

I can assure you that if you take the average family which consists

of six or seven people…. To put $8,000 or $9,000 directly into Indian

families would be a lot more beneficial than the existing and previous

practices of that department.

With respect to what we do as the government, we are involved and

deliver service certainly in the child-protection areas, in the

social-assistance areas, in day care, in homemaker — in fact, all of

the range of services that exist in my department. And recently we are

involved in the Housing department's negotiations — the kinds of

negotiations that other departments are going into.

I can't give you an exact dollar figure. I hope to be able to do

that at the next estimates. But let me give you an example; we

recently, some five months ago, negotiated with the Clayoquot band on

the west coast for a day-care centre, for a receiving home and for a

homemaker programme for that band. We have been negotiating with

several bands around the province for homemaker service, for providing

the money for social service workers who are Indian; they are not

necessarily workers in our department. We are providing the money for

this.

We are being approached by some reserves for us, on an interim

basis, to administer the welfare programmes that were previously

administered by the Department of Indian Affairs, so that we can train

the native people themselves in doing this administration, and then

handing it back. I met last

[ Page 2175 ]

week with the chief of the Necoslie band on this particular issue.

Since I have been the Minister, coordinating the function with

Indians, I have met with, in the last two months, 15 or 20 different

bands or band councils regarding this kind of situation.

Of course, one of the most significant inputs of money that we're

involved in is the Pacific North Coast Cannery which was announced last

week and is going on stream. That's no small contribution on the part

of this government.

During the last fiscal year we were involved with the BCANSI on the

winter warmth programme, where there was a contribution of $160,000 by

the provincial government to further this programme. We are involved in

the programme that was announced by the federal Minister in respect to

the BCANSI housing in the north. We are involved on the 75-25 basis

there.

So we have moved a great deal, certainly, from where the previous

government was. What we are attempting to do is to deal specifically

with the band councils and the bands on their needs. One of the things

that is going on in the Vancouver area at the present time is that 20

Indian people are being trained in the day care area. We are bringing

people down from the northern part of Vancouver Island where we will be

putting in another receiving home and day care centre.

Mr. Member, I can't give you a figure, but certainly the number of

projects is quite lengthy. I am prepared within a matter of a week, if

the Member so desires, to table a list of the programmes that we are

doing, and we will attach money to them for your interest, certainly.

MR. GARDOM: Thanks very much, Mr. Minister. That is very kind

of you because unless I'm incorrect, say — the field of education — not

withstanding that the provincial government does contribute time and

effort, the actual dollars do emanate from Ottawa totally, don't they?

The Minister indicates yes. I gather the same applies with social

assistance; all the dollars are federal dollars.

I congratulate the government on doing this because there's no

question of a doubt that your performance, with all respect to the

former administration, is markedly improved. But it seems that still at

the present time, insofar as reserve Indians are concerned, you are

dictating your attitudes really towards specific and isolated projects.

I'm not saying that that's bad, but that appears to be the direction

your government is taking with reserve Indians in the Province of

British Columbia. I gather with the non-status Indians it's sort of

taking a non-position — and correct me if I'm wrong in that statement.

But it doesn't seem that the provincial government is too prepared to

come to grips with the non-status Indian situation save and except the

fact that they as British Columbian citizens…. Perhaps you should look

at them in that light, and they would receive the same degree of

programmes and enrichment that is available to anyone else.

But before sitting down I'd just like to mention one other small

item. It's an item small in nature but very great in need. This was one

that was brought up by one of our former colleagues, Mr. Barrie Clark,

when he was a member of the party. It's since been advocated by myself

in bill form on, I believe, two occasions. It is to see, Mr. Minister,

that in all of our public buildings access is made readily available

for handicapped persons.

I've introduced a bill along this point on two occasions, and Mr.

Clark prior to myself on several occasions before that. I think it's an

extremely worthwhile measure that when we have a building designated as

a public building — a building to which the public has access — we have

got to ensure that that building is suitable for use by handicapped

persons.

Buildings and structures today in the province of British Columbia

are not so suitable or fitted for such use. I think, really and truly,

it's a deplorable situation. It wouldn't amount to a tremendous

expenditure of money; and even if it did, it would certainly find its

way back into the millstream. But we have got to provide compassionate,

proper and intelligent assistance for these people who should receive

the same kind of access to every public structure that every

able-bodied citizen has.

HON. MR. LEVI: The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) attended the conference of the handicapped last fall and

stated then that all future public buildings would conform to the

requirements that are covered in many of the briefs relating to

architectural barriers. The committee, which was formed after that

conference, have submitted to me recommendations regarding our

protectual barriers and regarding the ferries. All of these have been

forwarded to the various Ministers, who have acknowledged the fact that

these considerations will be part of the design of all future public

buildings and of the ferries. Certainly on the new ferries we are

looking to some quite remarkable changes which do not exist in the

older ferries.

All of the recommendations from that group have been forwarded to

the various Ministers. I think it's a very active and ongoing

committee. Merle Smith, who is sitting behind me, is the secretary of

that committee, and is also the consultant on the physically

handicapped. Their problems are very much before us all the time.

I just want to make a comment about the Member's remarks about the

non-status. The non-status people have access to all of the services

that

[ Page 2176 ]

are available to anybody else, but particularly we

have gone to some of the special problems that they've delineated. For

instance, last fall we moved very quickly on the Good Hope Lake

situation when we moved in trailers. Since that time we've moved in

some trailers into the Fort Nelson area to meet some of the problems

there.

MR. GARDOM: How has that worked out?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's worked out very well. I hope to have a

final report that I can table, because I've been questioned about it

from Mr. and Mrs. Supinall who were hired by BCANSI. We've just

financed it, so they're working right on the site at Good Hope Lake.

Some of the children have come back from the residential school and are

living in the Good Hope Lake area. Now discussions are going on about

more permanent housing in that particular area. There are discussions

going on about the activation of two sawmills in the area and, of

course, employment in the Department of Highways depot that exists

there as well.

Recently I approved a grant to the Paddy Lake band, one of the bands

in the north which is quite remote. They seem to have to go through

Alberta to get back into British Columbia when they want to have

contact with us. We have just approved a grant of $28,000 to the

Frontier College people who are going to send in two workers. This was

done at the request of BCANSI, and this grant has now been approved.

We are looking at a training grant which will involve BCANSI, the

status Indians and our own staff in preparing people to work in the

communities. So I think, Mr. Member, we are dealing, in terms of volume

of service, as much for the non-status as we are with the status.

One other thing about the status is that we've decided it is better

for us to deal with the bands and the councils rather than come to

grips with that rather monolithic bureaucracy of the Department of

Indian Affairs. I have said that we will provide the services needed,

and our department — myself and the officials — will deal with the

federal people about the charge-back of money. That's important to

note. We do not haggle about the money first. We only make decisions

about the service. I will undertake to do the haggling about the money.

MR. GARDOM: Well, just for direction for the Indian

community, I'm delighted that this government has not seen fit to

establish a department of Indian affairs or anything along that line,

which would be a very retrogressive step. But there still has to be

someone whom the Indian community can approach to spearhead a

programme, or would essentially be the ombudsman to see these various

requests to specific departments are attended to. Are you that man? Are

you the person sort of at the top of the line that they can come to

when they find they're not getting any response, say, from Highways?

There's absolutely no provincial road building in reserves, as you

know — none. And there should be. There is in Manitoba and there is in

Saskatchewan. So if they can't get anywhere with the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), should they come to you, Mr. Minister? Are you

the person, shall we say, where the buck stops? Will it be your

responsibility to trigger response through other departments?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, I said last night that my function

was to be a coordinator. We said in the statement we issued in December

that Indian groups must approach the Ministers they want to deal with

directly. All I've asked them to do is to let me have a copy and I will

undertake to see that there is some action in terms of a response and a

meeting.

I've been involved in a number of meetings in the past few weeks

with different Ministers and Indian groups relating to projects and

concerns that everybody has. The last meeting I had, as a matter of

fact, dealt with a road that was on a reserve, with the Minister of

Highways.

MR. GARDOM: Did you have any luck?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the road is there; what we were

discussing was the price of the gravel, I think, at that time. The road

is there; there is no problem about that.

But my role is really to coordinate, to make sure that requests are,

first of all, answered and arrangements are made for them to meet with

Ministers. And this process is working out. I do have, as I said last

night, a small advisory committee from BCANSI and the B.C. union, and

we meet about once a month to look at broad policy problems — not

individual issues, broad policy problems. The one we dealt with

effectively, I think, was the question of the Indian adoption

situation, and the plans have been announced that we're going to follow

through on the lifting of that moratorium.

So people do not have to come through me to reach Ministers. I want

people to write directly to those Ministers, but make sure that I know

about it so I can follow it up.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's a good mechanism, and since you're

talking about broad policy and that you will be the coordinator, I

indeed hope, Mr. Minister, that you will see clear to establish a firm,

final and conclusive government policy in the Province of British

Columbia that reserve Indians are entitled to exactly the same services

as the rest of the

[ Page 2177 ]

people in B.C., which includes inter alia road

building and bridges on reserves. This has been totally denied by not

only the former government, but by the present government.

Just one final word, Mr. Chairman, apropos of the Minister's remarks

concerning access to public buildings for handicapped people. I'm

delighted to hear what he informed the House concerning new structures.

However, as we well know, there are far more existing public structures

than there will be new ones over the next, say, 10 to 20 years. So are

there any programmes now for the establishment of adequate access for

handicapped people into existing public buildings? Once again, are you

going to be the coordinator of this programme?

I think the Minister is just looking for an answer.

HON. MR. LEVI: As I've said earlier, we've submitted a number

of recommendations. I have discussed it with the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). We have had some discussions, particularly

about this building where there is great difficulty in terms of access.

These discussions are going on about how access can be made easier. I

cannot announce at this time what exactly is going to happen, but we

are having discussions. I will be coordinating this in terms of the

handicapped because the committee is in contact with me directly.

MR. GARDOM: You have two coordination portfolios now then.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Last night we started talking

about Mincome. This is a budget for $284 million, which really touches

everyone, whether or not they're in receipt of a service by the

government. I think it's only reasonable that there should be a little

discussion of philosophy behind the Human Resources Department — and

the Premier agrees — simply because there is a prevalent fear in our

society of a so-called welfare state.

I'm not saying at this point to what degree that fear is justified,

but there certainly is a great deal of discussion in society today

about the welfare state. There's some fear about the broadening of

welfare programmes which transfer tax responsibility and tax burdens to

people in the employed sector of society.

One of the interesting things, Mr. Chairman, is that — I could find

figures up to 1970 — in 1970 there was only 15 per cent of the assessed

taxpaying public who were earning more than $15,000 a year. This really

means that the tax burden falls to the extent of 85 per cent on people

earning less than $15,000 a year. In other words, the low- and

middle-income groups in society are becoming very concerned about the

trend — I don't think it has reached a point where there is a

substantial burden — towards a greater degree of tax-raising function

being put upon the shoulders of the lower- and middle-income groups.

In this House we polarize ourselves into socialists and

non-socialists. I think, very briefly, it's worthwhile mentioning that

there isn't a tremendous difference when we get down to trying to meet

the needs of people in our society. A socialist tends to talk a great

deal about equality, and the right-winger gives all his attention to

competition and the survival of the fittest — and that there should be

unlimited material reward for the entrepreneur. I notice the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) picking up his ears because he's probably

trying to decide where I fit into these two

definitions. I like to

think I'm in the middle.

An HON. MEMBER: You're a Liberal then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We know you're confused.

MR. WALLACE: And the Premier interjects. But I really believe

that modern society requires a political credo which recognizes that,

unfortunately, all people are not equal. Some people are born with

handicaps. They're born with or without certain endowments, certain

intellect, certain capacity to mature and develop their physical and

mental talent. On the other hand, the person who really has a great

deal to offer and who is endowed with talent, I think, is entitled to a

very fair reward for his labours and any contribution that he makes to

society.

So I think this is the challenge when we're trying to provide tax

revenue to finance social services: that the person who makes the

effort and utilizes his talent in the interest of society is entitled

to a fair and just reward.

But at the same time, what he contributes and the tax revenue

derived from his efforts should certainly create the necessary funds to

assist those who are born into poor health, poverty or to limitations

on their being over which they have no control. We all talk about

social justice. I think social justice is to give the disadvantaged

person a fair share of our provincial wealth.

At the same time, I know there is a lot of concern in society that

the person with talent and energy and good health who works very hard

and earns money is reaching the point where he wonders if the tax

burden makes it all worthwhile for him to put this amount of effort

into society. The able and energetic individual should certainly be

rewarded for his labours and should receive very adequate financial

rewards so that he can provide the taxation revenue which will finance

the social services.

This is a pretty basic philosophy. One of the reasons the Premier

accuses me of being confused is that, on both sides of the House, I

think we recognize the social need which exists but we have some

differing opinions as to how the tax money should be

[ Page 2178 ]

raised to pay for them. And that's a legitimate difference of opinion.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, again, you can't kill the goose that lays

the golden egg. We have to not only debate under this Minister's

estimates the obvious need that exists, but, at the risk of trespassing

on anticipated legislation, it would be wrong if we ignored the fact

that the money has to come from somewhere. There has to be some debate

and discussion as to the degree to which taxation should be raised from

certain sectors of the community — the wage earner or from our

resources. That is again where we differ. On this side of the House we

wonder if there is a danger of depressing resource development simply

by over-taxation. We can't just look at the social programme and the

needs without looking at the whole responsibility of raising revenue.

Society is a little concerned with increased welfare-state programmes.

It is interesting to mention the programme in Manitoba, which I am

sure the Minister is well aware of, which is trying to prove another

point one way or the other and gets a lot of public debate: if you give

somebody a guaranteed income, does this have the effect of encouraging

individuals to sit on their behinds and not contribute or even look for

productive work simply because of the guaranteed income to be derived

from state funds?

This programme in Manitoba, as I just mention briefly, is just

getting under way this summer. It is going to involve 2,500 families

who have been very carefully interviewed to determine their income

needs and their general social situation. This programme is designed to

give them a guaranteed income for a period of three years. The first

families are to be enrolled on a pilot basis in January and it will get

underway in June. The interesting thing is that the federal government

is paying 75 per cent of the total cost of this programme, which will

cost $17.3 million.

It is a little unfortunate but Marc Lalonde, the federal Minister of

Health, seems to have prejudged the issue already. He is on record as

saying that this will show the answer lies not in a guaranteed income

to solve our social problems but to create jobs. Nobody denies that

expanding population needs more jobs, but when we are talking about

people in social need, as the Minister well knows, the Senate report on

poverty showed that a very large percentage of the people, for the

reasons I touched on earlier — ill health, handicaps, lack of ability

and intellect, and many other social and inherited factors — cannot

avoid being dependent upon whatever social programmes the government

provides.

The main point in the programme in Manitoba is to find out how these

families respond to knowing that there is a guaranteed income

available. The report points out that this kind of programme will also

provide some important research information in regard to rents,

consumer reaction and general community economics. The whole of the

2,500 families is divided into four groups: a single father or mother

and children in one group — single-headed families — and others where

both mother and father are wage-earners. The group comprises the

so-called "working poor," which is probably not a very good term to

use, since their wages are generally below the national average. It is

somewhat similar to what this government has done in this province by

allowing welfare recipients to earn a certain amount of income above

the basic welfare allowance.

The positive point of the programme is that many people will be

working for wages supplemented by this programme so that there is a

certain level below which they will not fall. Similarly, there is the

incentive to earn a fair amount without having it deducted from the

basic allowance in the programme.

This programme is to last for three years. I suppose it will be

quite a while before we know the outcome, but I think this is very

relevant to the general point I was trying to make earlier on. Society

is wondering how best to meet the needs of the mass of the

disadvantaged people in our society. Is giving them a guaranteed amount

of money necessarily the answer? Should we attempt to employ them where

possible and supplement their wages if they are too low or too low in

relation to their family commitments in terms of dependent children,

for example?

The work ethic these days is often scoffed at, I notice, when you

talk with people. Maybe the Conservative gets accused of this more than

anybody else, but I still happen to believe in the work ethic myself.

It's one of the interesting things I find when I visit the inmates of

William Head prison. We talked about many things, but I said to them,

"What is the biggest continuing discomfort you have in jail?" They said

it was the lack of work. They are absolutely bored; they have very

little to do. We needn't go off in another debate because there is all

kinds of scope to deal with that problem, but I thought it was very

interesting.

Whether the work ethic is an old-fashioned approach or not, it seems

to me that it is far better for society. It is certainly far better for

the individual to have some useful, productive function to perform,

even if it has to be done in a subsidized way.

In that regard, the work being done by sheltered workshops is a good

example of this. But when we look into that situation, the increasing

rate of the minimum wage has produced some difficulties in the

sheltered workshop. Certainly for any married person a conflict arises.

If he participates in a sheltered

[ Page 2179 ]

workshop at the rates they can pay, he would be better to be off it financially and on welfare.

Maybe the Minister would care to comment on the impact of the fairly

rapid rise in the minimum wage. I am not disputing that; I am just

saying it was well worth doing. But it is a fact of life now that it

creates problems for adequate remuneration for people in sheltered

workshops.

More specific points I would like to raise with the Minister relate

to the social assistance rates. They are very well documented in this

handbook, but I notice they were set in May of 1973. As I understand

it, there is no escalator clause or any allowance made for the

cost-of-living increases. I just looked up Statistics Canada for

December, 1973, and the national index rose by 13 points, an average of

9 per cent between December, 1972 and December, 1973.

Just dealing with the very basics — food, clothing and shelter — between December, 1972, and December, 1973, food rose by an average of

16 per cent. It would seem to me that over that period of time the

purchasing power of the social assistance allowances to deal with

something as fundamental as food is a very important problem.

I wonder if the Minister would tell the House what plans he has to

try and relate, perhaps quarterly or even semi-annually would be better

than nothing at all, but preferably quarterly, to somehow relate the

social assistance payments to the real need and the purchasing power of

the dollar.

That period of 16 per cent raise was from December 1972 to December

1973. As the Minister knows, the federal authorities have related the

basic old age pension to inflationary rises in the cost of living. I

think it is only recently that the federal government has recognized

that the only people who do gain from inflation are governments because

more and more revenue keeps coming into the coffers and they don't have

to be involved in changing tax structures because as the inflation

increases there is more and more money coming into the federal coffers.

I wonder if the Minister has given consideration to applying some

factor to social assistance. The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder)

touched on a point that I would certainly support, that, once again, as

inflation races ahead at somewhere around 10 to 12 per cent, it would

make a lot more sense to increase the amount that a person receiving

assistance can earn above the basic amount. In other words, the $50 for

a single person and $100 for a married person could very well be

increased.

Again, for those who are able and have the capacity to even

undertake part-time work, I would certainly prefer to see this being

increased rather than have the basic allowances increased. But

obviously for people who never will be able to undertake gainful

employment, the increase would have to be on the basic social

assistance allowance.

The Minister touched on intermediate care. I don't want to repeat

what I said during the debate on Health because the nursing home

situation was covered in some detail.

But the whole challenge of keeping elderly citizens in their homes

really has to be one of the priorities of this department. And it isn't

just a question of dollars and cents, important as that is. It's a

question of elderly people wishing to live as long as they possibly can

in the familiar environment they've been in for many years. If there

was one point above all that came out in our committee travels it was,

indeed, this very deep feeling by elderly citizens to stay in their own

home if they could. I wonder if the Minister will be able to give us

more information on where the homemaker situation is at the present

time.

I received the minutes of the meetings which the association has. I

gather they're very eager to develop standards — a standards committee

and a training committee somewhat along the same lines as the

Department of Health is developing for emergency services and paramedic

personnel. It would seem to me that this has been on the agenda for

quite some time. Certainly at the last annual meeting in April last

year, which I attended, the homemakers seemed to convey a sense of

frustration that thy weren't making more progress.

One of the central questions they wanted answered was, how close are

we to recognizing the homemaker as an integral part of social service?

One who is entitled at least to the minimum wage for the work they do

in the home. I wonder if the Minister, when I sit down, could perhaps

touch on that in regard to homemakers. How close are we to having a

coordinated programme across the province where those taking part will

at least receive the minimum wage?

I would just like to touch briefly on Mincome. The Minister

mentioned something about it last night before the House adjourned. He

did mention that those who are not resident in Canada for five years

could make application in the usual way to the department for social

assistance. I just wonder if the Minister could briefly tell us how

frequently does this situation arise, because as one listens to

statements from the federal Department of Immigration, recent changes

in the legislation seem to suggest that there has been a tightening up

of the regulations governing people coming into this country.

Admittedly the announcements I've heard relate mainly to people wishing to settle here and acquire an occupation in Canada.

I gather there has been a redistribution of the various points that

are awarded to the person depending on health, age, training, education

and so on, and the availability of employment. But what, if any,

investigation or screening occurs in relation to

[ Page 2180 ]

citizens over 65 coming into Canada? Whether they

stay five years and qualify for Mincome, or stay five weeks and have to

go on social assistance, really to me….

There may be a small dollar difference, but again we get back to

this principle of the taxpaying citizen in our society becoming

responsible for the financing of services to other people who may have

contributed very little or nothing to this country in terms of

contributing taxes or contributing social improvement or the

enhancement of society generally.

The Minister didn't touch on that last night. I'm sure it was just

that we were close to adjournment. On the same topic, how greatly does

the provincial department have access to the federal Department of

Immigration? Have there been a lot of discussions? Is it something

which is on a continuing basis or is it a hit-or-a-miss basis? Once we

run into problems we find that we have to deal with Ottawa.

It seems to me as more and more of the departments are debated in

this House it becomes very clear that federal-provincial cooperation is

of such extreme importance that I would like to think there was

consultation between the two levels before the problems arise, rather

than having sometimes bickering and public dispute between the two

levels in trying to solve the problem once it has happened.

On the question of Mincome and related Pharmacare, I wonder at what

point a person over 65 coming in to this country qualifies for

Pharmacare. I read the regulations in relation to Canadian citizens,

and it's 90-days residency in Canada. Once again, if an elderly citizen

over 65 comes to B.C. for a holiday and stays 91 days, does it mean

that again the taxpayer of British Columbia is paying for some visitor,

let us say, from the United Kingdom? I think that's a question I would

like the Minister to answer.

Certainly, in this party we support the concept of Pharmacare

without question. I've been in the practice of medicine long enough to

know that many people went with shortages of other kinds, even of food,

in order to finance medication. So, we're totally behind the concept of

Pharmacare. But once again I just ask the question: are we going into a

programme like this without some reasonable degree of responsibility

and supervision?

For example, I talked to one of my colleagues and there's a very

considerable upsurge by senior citizens asking doctors to provide them

with prescriptions for vitamin E. Without going into a long

dissertation about vitamin E, which could last a day or two, the basic

thing is that vitamin E in many quarters has been stated to be a very

useful agent in preventing certain diseases and so on, which more

particularly afflicts the elderly person. So it isn't unexpected, and

I'm not blaming the senior citizen.

I'm just saying that the senior citizen reads in the newspapers that

some people believe in the tremendous value of vitamin E. They go to

their doctor. The doctor is placed in the position of, whether he

believes in it or not, perhaps creating a situation — and this is

happening — where the patient feels that the doctor is being stubborn

or unreasonable or something else by not providing a prescription for

vitamin E.

In this particular instance this medication is very expensive.

Again, differing authorities talk about different doses. Some

authorities recommend pretty high doses of vitamin E.

I'm just making these comments as a general warning that while the

basic philosophy behind the Pharmacare programme is sound, do we open

the door wide and make any medication available provided it's on a

written prescription?

I might say in passing that because, of course, every prescription

now has to be in writing under Pharmacare, it certainly creates a great

deal more paper work for the pharmacist and the physician. Not that it

could be otherwise since there has to be documentation to prove that

the patient is eligible and that the pharmacist provided the drug that

was asked for.

These are small points, but I think before we widen our social

programmes of this nature that some of these pitfalls and some of the

areas of expenditure where the Minister's department might be getting

into, in such areas as vitamins, are worth considering. I don't know

whether the Minister has had any actual complaints or contact with

pharmacists or physicians but I can tell him that I think if he hasn't

already heard he will be hearing in the future. It is creating some

problem. I foresee the day when some other medication comes along which

is said to create longevity or good health or prevent heart attacks and

it will be a legitimate attitude on behalf of the senior citizen to go

to the physician, whether or not it is really of proven value.

The other small point about Pharmacare is the fact that there is a

much greater increase in requests to the physician to provide very

simple medications which normally would be purchased over the counter — such things as aspirins and simple remedies for the common cold and all

the simpler medications which normally would not involve the physician.

Again, I just make the point that the physician has his hands full.

With all the increasing demands of modern medicine and technology,

there are more serious problems that he is capable of assisting, if not

curing. If there is one thing that the physician doesn't need, it's

more paperwork and more people in his office with very simple problems

where the patient has to be in the office because they have to get a

piece of paper in order to get the prescription paid for at the

pharmacy.

The Minister made a statement last night about

[ Page 2181 ]

adoptions which I would like to pursue just for a

moment. The changing society and the ready availability of abortion has

certainly created the problem that there is a shortage of babies for

adoption. I certainly agreed with the Minister when he called a halt to

the ever-increasing list of waiting parents who really would be waiting

with a sense of futility in that they might never obtain a child for

adoption. He mentioned last night that he was again receiving

applications. I wonder if the Minister could elaborate a little bit on

this because I am not aware of any particular increase in the birth

rate, but there is an increase in the total population of 3 per cent a

year. To what degree is the Minister controlling or trying to select

parents who should adopt the very relatively small number of children

available for adoption?

Before I left the practice I can remember a young mother who was

just in exactly that waiting list position. Every month or two she

would phone the department to find out what was happening and they

would say it would just be another two months or three months. Then

finally one day, like a thundercloud out of the blue, she was just told

that there was no hope that she would ever get a child because the

department had made certain selective conditions. It is understandable,

since she already had two children, and there were people who had no

children who wanted to adopt, that in terms of priority she would not

be able to adopt a child just because of the shortage of supply of

children for adoption. The point was, Mr. Chairman, that she was kept

in a state of expectation for quite a long time and then finally told

that the wait was futile.

If the Minister is receiving applications again, I hope we are not

going to get into the situation again where perhaps six months from now

we will have an enormous waiting list that can never possibly be

satisfied. I suspect the Minister will be much more practical than

that, but it causes tremendous mental suffering to parents who are

living from week to week and month to month in the expectation that

they are going to be able to adopt a child and then they suddenly find

out there's just no way that the child will be available.

The matter of the Minister's responsibility for Indian affairs is

something that this party is very interested in. In fact, it's a

subject in itself, Mr. Chairman. Briefly, I certainly support entirely

the concept that the Indian should be treated the same as any other

citizen. Of course, the corollary to that is that he or she should be

entitled to everything the rest of us are entitled to.

I still find that when we read press reports and statements by

Indian citizens there does seem to be discrimination, whether we like

it or not. Maybe we are aiming at equality but…won't repeat all the

figures I repeated in the Health debate but they certainly have a high

rate of disease. They have a high rate of suicide. They have a high

rate of general ill health. Hospital admissions are higher than normal.

You could go on and on repeating these figures, but the fact remains

that we are saying they are equal and we are saying that they are

entitled to everything that I am entitled to but they just aren't

getting it.

Possibly one can't solve all these problems overnight but I wonder

if the Minister could at least give us some information as to whether

the research and the investigation that was being carried on by the

former Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Calder) is presently being put

together for a formal report or if the study is continuing in order to

complete the study and provide all the information that he wants.

There is little doubt, in terms of their social needs and their

social standards, that they are far behind other Canadians. I would

hope that the Minister could probably outline some of the immediate

plans that he has to try and help them to catch up.

I have just a little hesitation in fully agreeing that they should

just be looked upon as the same as any other Canadian citizen in this

regard: they certainly have a different heritage, they have a different

culture, they have a different attitude in many ways and I think that

in some ways the Indian people themselves would be very uneasy about

being equated with the North American white man.

In fact, one of the clippings that I read the other day expressed

the apprehension that the Indian people have about having their

children adopted by non-Indians. They are not so sure they want their

children subjected to the so-called social standards and value

judgments which we have in North America. When the Minister prepares

plans in the area of health and education and social services, while

the Indian is entitled to equal treatment, I hope that we will always

remember that he has a different culture and a different history and

has had some painful events of history which he is now busy trying to

rectify. In that regard it takes us into the area of land claims.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The problem is one which certainly could take up the whole

afternoon, but I wonder if the Minister would give us a little more

information than we presently have regarding the involvement of the

government in various meetings. As the Minister knows, the federal

government back in August of last year recognized the legitimate nature

of the Indian land claims. Jean Chretien has taken

part in various

meetings. But we get some disturbing statements in the press which

maybe the Minister could either confirm or modify.

Certainly in the Sun on March 20, which isn't too long ago, a meeting was called by Jean Chrétien. It is

[ Page 2182 ]

mentioned in the report that the problem at the meeting was that Chrétien

was present, the Nishgas were present, a committee from the Union of

B.C. Chiefs were present, but neither Premier Dave Barrett nor Human

Resources Minister, Norm Levi, responsible for Indian Affairs, was

present. Instead, there were two other official representatives

identified by Chief Victor Adolph, chairman of the UBCIC executive

committee, as Mrs. Bernice Barber of the Human Resources department and

Norman Prelypchan of the Attorney-General's department.

It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that if we pay lip service to the

rights of the Indian in our society, then we have to face up to the

fact that they have legitimate land claims — claims regarding their

aboriginal rights, claims regarding the cut-off lands, a measure which

certainly goes back to 1912, I think it was, through the decisions of

the McKenna-McBride commission.

I think it will be a great mark of the sincerity of this government

in its commitment to the Indian people to take an active

part in

discussions which must be undertaken to settle these land claims.

We have a newspaper heading on March 23, entitled: "Explosive

Situation Seen Unless the Nishgas Get a Role." This was a report from

Terrace. It was a little different from the land claim situation, but

again it's….

Is this in order, Mr. Chairman, or is this straying from the Indian affairs?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I haven't ruled you out of order

yet. I was just going to caution the Hon. Member to be sure to relate

it to the Minister's responsibilities and I think they're fairly broad.

MR. WALLACE: I'll leave the particular aspect of this to a

later debate, but the question is very serious inasmuch that the Indian

people, while they're not threatening violence, have blocked a highway

in the Interior on one occasion. If they didn't block the highway, they

threatened to do it. It's an unhappy atmosphere which the Indians are

expressing.

If we have the federal acceptance of responsibility by both levels

of government, I wonder if the Minister would tell us when the next

meeting will take place and whether he personally has been delegated by

the cabinet to deal with this matter, or who has been delegated. I

think it is only fair to the Indian people that if the provincial

government is to take part, the representatives at the meeting should

be someone of cabinet rank. I would expect that the Minister is the

most automatic choice.

To return more specifically to some of the needs of the Indian

people, I wonder if the Minister could tell us to what degree the

programme to increase the availability of court workers is progressing.

Here again, I read that the prison population has something of the

order of 18 per cent, although the Indian population is only 5 per cent

of the total population of this province. There is often no

representation in court. The accused is not clear as to what the charge

is. He frequently pleads guilty out of ignorance and, of course, lands

up in jail and receives nothing but incarceration and no attempt at

rehabilitation and, in fact, tends to be simply on a treadmill. I

wonder, since the programme has already proven to be very successful,

and because of the numbers that have been brought into the Indian court

workers programme, whether the Minister could tell us to what degree it

has expanded and what he sees for the programme in the future.

We have had a visit today from senior citizens in the province. I

very much appreciated the Minister's remarks when he spoke in the

Newcombe Auditorium about an hour or more ago. The Minister's statement

about Mincome was certainly welcome, as indeed was his explaining to

the audience on Pharmacare, but he didn't, as far as I'm aware, deal

with pre-retirement counselling which he mentioned last night. This

again, I think, is an enormous area for potentially minimizing sickness

in the elderly — emotional sickness, depression and apathy.

Furthermore, many of these people, if counselled before retirement,

could be brought in in a voluntary capacity to provide volunteer

assistance in many of the programmes which the Minister is developing.

Furthermore, I certainly pay credit to the Minister's open approach

on the appointment of counsellors. This certainly is not any political

patronage situation. I understand that the Minister asks the MLA in

each area of each riding if he knows of suitable people who will act as

counsellors to the elderly citizens. I think that's an excellent idea

and I appreciated the opportunity I had in Oak Bay to recommend certain

individuals who would do a tremendous job in advising the elderly.

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with the

Minister about the need to do more for the handicapped. I seem to

recall — I can't just lay my hands on the clipping — that there was for

the first time a conference last year at which the handicapped were

listened to and were given an opportunity to present some of the

problems. The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has

already talked about access to public buildings. The Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), I think, has also made a statement. So it's

encouraging to realize that things are being done.

I understand that an advisory committee was set up after that

conference. I've been trying to find out just exactly what the advisory

committee has brought out in terms of policy and recommendations, and

perhaps the Minister could touch upon that.

I would support I think it was the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who suggested that the

[ Page 2183 ]

handicapped, as any other recipient of social

assistance, should be allowed to earn a larger amount of money if it's

within their physical capacity to do so, for the very same reason that

they respond to incentives. There's nothing more important than for

handicapped persons to have some independence in being able to be

responsible for their own financial future and their budget and their

other economic requirements.

Lastly, on the question of foster homes, I don't know whether this

point was mentioned by anyone else, but I still would like to know if

the situation which existed recently still exists or has been altered

whereby a foster parent with a foster child can receive up to $130 a

month. But if the situation in the child's own home improves and the

parents are able to take the child back into the natural home, the

amount reverts to the equivalent of social assistance for one more

dependent which is about $50, as I recall. For example, a total family

size of four would receive $350. A total family size of three receives

$300. In other words, it's $50 if the child is being cared for in the

parents' home,

whereas….

It seems to me a very complicated formula as to how the money is

decided when it's a foster home, but what should be the difference? It

would seem to me that if a child is having difficulty in his or her own

home, for whatever reason, it makes no sense if the natural parents

have to get by on a much smaller sum of money than the foster parent

would have. I have corresponded with the Minister on this and I drew

his attention to one case and I received a grateful letter from the

natural mother saying that the affair had been improved — I think that

was the word she used — but I got the impression that she still wasn't

getting the same amount of money that was being provided for the foster

parent. I wonder if the Minister could give us some comment on that.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, I think I'd better reply because I'm going

to lose track. I'm going to start from the back to the front.

The particular question the Member refers to in terms of the rates

and the child living in the home will be subject to changes under the

new regulations. At the moment we have gone through a number of drafts

on the regulations. They're presently out in the field. We've asked for

a critique from the staff about them. One of them is covering that

particular question that you talked about. The other one is the child

in the home of a relative which we hope to change to make money

available in the normal way.

I will say something about the meeting with the Indians in respect

to the federal Minister. In February myself and the Attorney-General

and some staff met with the Nishgas, at which time they made

presentations to us and requested some action on this. At that time I

said to them that the total question that they were raising was indeed

a very important one and something that we would want to report back to

cabinet on and that we would also request of cabinet that sufficient

time — and I don't mean something sneezed in the agenda of cabinet's

normal business — be allotted for the discussion of this total

question. We have not been able to do this at the moment because of

other pressing matters. However, this is fully our intention to have

this kind of discussion.

In respect to the meeting with the Minister, we felt at the time

that it was a preliminary meeting and that we had a representative

there. The woman from my department was actually the stenographer who

took the minutes for us so we had a full report on it. So the position

is that this is subject to a raw discussion in terms of cabinet and I

think that has to take place first, but we have to find an appropriate

amount of time to do this.

We are in discussion with Indians on other matters. I know this

issue constantly comes up, but it is something that has to be the

subject of full cabinet discussion. That request, I'm sure, will be

achieved once we have the time in which to do it. We are not going to

squeeze it in as another matter.

I want to just go to the handicapped. In respect to the conference,

there was an advisory committee set up. The committee meets every two

weeks and has made a number of recommendations to me which I've passed

on to other Ministers.

The committee has submitted to me an agenda to travel around the

province and I've approved the travelling. I have some questions about

where they are going; I've suggested to them that they should be going

to other centres than the usual centres where we tend to go for these

things. I'm interested in finding out how the handicapped people make

out in the more remote areas. I'm not suggesting that Prince George

isn't a long way from here, but I'd like to see us look at Prince

Rupert and Dawson Creek or Fort St. John and see what kind of problems

exist there for the handicapped, as well as Cranbrook and into the

Kootenays and Revelstoke. The principle of travelling is agreed to;

where they go is something we still have to discuss. I'm hoping we can

arrive at an itinerary and that they can be doing this within the next

couple of months. They will travel. Half of the committee, of course,

are handicapped, and special arrangements will be made and staff will

have to travel with them.

You asked me about the Indian court worker programmes. That, as you

may know, is under the Attorney-General and has been expanded. I am now

looking at a request from the Indian court workers in respect to the

provision of counsellors to do a particular role in the drug-abuse

area. We have agreed to the grant of $80,000 to them. I'm announcing

that now, as they're aware of it. We have to work out

[ Page 2184 ]

some of the details of where this will take place,

but the principle of the submission has been agreed to. We will deal

with them as to where it will take place because, again, they were

looking at major centres and, frankly, my thrust is very much in the

centres that we tend to overlook. So again, that thing is agreed to.

On the time in counselling, the Member is quite right. I did not

mention that at the meeting in the Newcombe Auditorium. I'm hoping to

get a response from the various councils of churches. I did speak to

the council of churches here in Victoria and we will be contacting a

number of groups. I expect to be meeting with some of the senior

members of the church within the very near future to discuss this

particular programme and another role that the church groups can play

in some of the programmes we're doing.

Now on the Pharmacare programme. I met twice with the B.C. Medical

Association. The question was raised of senior citizens bringing

pressure to bear on individual doctors for particular prescriptions,

saying, "My friend goes down the road and can get it."

We agreed at that time to assist the doctors by putting together an

education programme, in which we would involve as many senior citizens

as possible in doing this kind of

interpretation to other seniors,

about what the role of Pharmacare is and the whole question of drugs.

We have the first stage of that completed. We have a workup on it in

terms of how we will present it and it's being done in cooperation with

the B.C. Medical Association's PR people.

At the beginning of May there will be a conference in Victoria. Last

year there was a conference on seniors and we brought down a number of

people. I made a commitment in March of last year that we would bring

back the same group to see whether we had been able to deliver any of

the recommendations they made. We will be bringing other people in; we

will be involving senior citizens in a broader way. Then we will

present to them the kind of presentation we want to do and see how they

react to it. If there's agreement, we will then do it right across the

province.

It is important that we assist the doctors in getting some of this

pressure off them. We're quite aware of it and we said we would do this

programme. It's now in the works. We hope that in May the public will

be more aware of it because that's when we'll make the presentation.

The vitamin programme. As you know, only by prescription. I really

can't comment on vitamin E; that's right out of my ability to comment

on. Certainly I have had very few letters in which we've had requests

for broad programmes in respect to vitamins. It has not been the case,

but if it's prescription, then, of course, it's part of that that is

agreed to.

Terms of the qualifications. Of course, the qualifications for

Pharmacare are those of the B.C. Medical Plan: landed immigrant; 90

days residence in the province. It's not in any way desirable to have

any restrictions in that area. People who come here, of course, can

only take advantage of it if they are landed immigrants so I don't

think we have an issue in terms of people coming in from out of the

country. We are not subject, I don't think, to the same kind of abuse

that the British medical scheme went through in the first couple of

years.

On the question of Mincome and immigrants. I just want to say

something about this. Atchoo! You better send me out for some vitamin

E, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vitamin C.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, it's vitamin C, is it?

MR. WALLACE: He needs a little brandy, actually.

HON. MR. LEVI: You may know that the Minister of Manpower and

Immigration (Hon. Mr. Andras) is putting out a green paper — I don't

what the difference in the colour is — in which he is looking at some

amendments to the Immigration Act. While he did tighten up the

immigration regulations — and we did meet with the immigration people

just before Christmas — there are two ways in which people can come to

Canada. One is under the sponsored immigration programme. This usually

refers to relatives and grandparents and this kind of thing. There's

the nominated way of coming in, and that generally does not apply to

people over the age of 60 unless they're handicapped. The other people

come in as sponsored immigrants. Now, through the nominated immigration

route, you have an obligation to look after people for five years.

That's a commitment which apparently you can't get out of.

The sponsored immigration is a problem because in certain cases

sponsored immigration plans break down — the financial situation of the

person doing the sponsoring becomes difficult. These people have been

previously going on social assistance. I think one can have some

concern about this. For instance, the average British immigrant brings

with him $60 a month, which is the pension they get. A lot of other

people who come in from other countries are not in receipt of pensions.

Some countries will not pay pensions to people who are living overseas.

I did have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Andras when I saw him in

Ottawa about this problem. However, I think now that we've stated very

clearly that we will not accept applications from people who have not

been here five consecutive years, the problem will not become quite so

apparent. We did know this. One of the reasons we decided to confirm

[ Page 2185 ]

the decision I made in December was because there was a noticeable trend in people coming here for the very specific reason.

We are reviewing the social assistance rates at the moment. Last

year one of the basic things we accomplished was to set a flat-rate

payment. We got out of that whole hassle about overages and that was

very important. We improved the rent overage to 75 per cent. That's the

only overage we do have in respect to the general payments. Of course,

we have a special needs programme in which we can provide up to $500.

These decisions can be made by people on the line.

On the indexing, we are looking now at indexing for social

assistance rates. I'm not sure whether we're going to go the quarterly

or the yearly system, whether we will use the consumer price index or

whether we will use the industrial composite, which is what is being

applied to the Canada pension. The industrial composite reflects in a

much more direct fashion what gains are being made by the labour force

and tends to reflect some of the basic needs. But we are still looking

at this.

I hope we will be announcing that we will not go past June 1 on new

rates. We obviously have to increase them; we realize this. However, in

answer to the increasing problems that have taken place in the last

year on the cost of living, it should be recognized that we did undergo

in Canada a change in the family allowances. In October, $12; in

January, $70. This puts income into people's families, and that's what

we look at when we are trying to calculate people's income. Our welfare

rates in the future will reflect the children's allowance. It won't be

something that will not even be talked about, because it's part of the

income situation of that family.

In a small way, we did announce in December, 1972, that there are

certain periods of the year when people have an opportunity to earn

extra income in terms of working in the post office at Christmas or

participating in elections.

We classify that as windfall income and we do not deduct it. It's

worked out that it is far more expensive to work out the deductions

than it is to let them keep the money.

On the general question of earnings exemptions, this is something,

of course, we have to do in concert with the federal government,

because we have agreements with them about what is reasonable income,

what can be exempted. We have to make a decision, perhaps in relation

to the handicapped people, whether we want to go it alone on the

earnings exemption. They have at the moment a $50 earnings exemption on

top of the $218.

These are questions that we do have to deal with with the federal government and we have had some discussions with them.

On the sheltered workshops, I have suggested to some operators of

sheltered workshops that they should seriously look at the possibility

of making sheltered workshops into cooperatives, where people can have

a feeling of being part of that operation. They are not operations that

are going to make any money, in that sense. You know, there is always

the question around about that these people are working for low income.

Of course, all handicapped people are entitled to receive the

handicapped person's income allowance.

Now we will be discussing with the advisory committee and we will be

broadening the programme in terms of the sheltered workshops and the

activity centres. We have quite a broad programme and it will become

broader. We work on a formula basis in terms of the number of people

there, plus the number of hours the people put in, and we are paying

some of the staff costs.

I want to just say something about the homemaker programme. That

will be a very significant thrust of the department in this coming

year. It will broaden the homemaker programme.

Most homemakers are making at least $2.75 an hour. We are paying

something like $3.10 to the various agencies and I think that they take

off 25 to 30 cents in terms of their administration costs.

We are looking at a number of ways to go in providing personnel to

work in it. We are looking as to whether it would be desirable for the

department or particular groups of people to fund it on a permanent

staff basis. That is that homemakers would be available in certain

areas on a full-time basis and they would be able to work at a regular

schedule.

Now this, of course, is a cost factor and we are now looking at

this. We are now undertaking a complete review, and I expect to have a

report within less than a month on the total picture of homemaking in

the province. It will be not only the costs of the number of operations

— there are some 35 that we are funding at the moment in 35 areas — but

also training, how people may be trained. There is some discussion and

some argumentation going on whether people should be trained three

months or one month, and what kind of training.

But we are going to give it a particularly large thrust. It may be

that we will decide that for women who are supporting families and who

are on social assistance, we will, in this particular programme, say

that the earning exemption will be considerably higher than the $100.

We would take it up so that the pay and the welfare are commensurate

with what someone can make in the community without being on welfare.

I think we will move into that kind of direction in any case, because this is a very special kind of programme.

Interjection.

[ Page 2186 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, you are quite right. It allows

people to get that experience and eventually, as we move towards more

permanent employment or homemakers, there's also the whole question of

saying to people that there is career potential in the homemaking

field. This is very important.

You raised the question of the work ethic. The only thing I want to

say about it — because the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is

sitting here, and I don't want to get too deeply into it — is that one

of the things we did discuss at a recent federal-provincial Ministers'

conference was the work ethic — also the question of the large number

of jobs that are still not filled.

Speaking personally, I feel that sooner or later we are going to

have to look at why those jobs are not filled. I am not now talking

about the skilled jobs, because that is an issue in terms of training.

But there are many jobs in our community that are low paying and are

essential jobs.

Now we have at the moment young people who see the work ethic in a

somewhat different way than we do. I see the work ethic somewhat

differently than my father saw it. But one of the things they have

showed us — the young people — particularly in the fields I am

responsible for, is that they are capable of making tremendous

contributions in terms of the whole social service people business.

I mean, one has to look at some of the very worthwhile programmes

they have been involved in. They tell me that while it is important to

make reasonable pay — that is, more than $110 a week or the $100 a week

that they get on the LIP programmes, they are prepared, in some way — and these are young people — to trade job satisfaction in part and not

argue the case for very high pay. Now that's the point of view they

have expressed to me.

In dealing with those jobs we cannot fill, those hard, dirty jobs,

it could very well be that those people may become something of the

aristocracy of the wage earners, because we will have to pay people to

do those jobs where there is very little satisfaction in doing the job

— you know, the hard, drudge work.

But generally speaking there are great expectations from the way our

young people are looking at the total question of services to people

and in the environmental area. Certainly there is going to be a change

in the work ethic; there is no question of that. And I don't think that

it is a particularly bad thing.

In terms of the young people that are on welfare, and as I said last

night, those people on welfare roll over at the rate of almost 3,000 a

month. They are on for a couple of months; we have very few single

people that are on permanently. If they are, we take a look at them. It

is mostly when they are between jobs and situations are bad — they

don't have unemployment insurance — they are on and they are off again.

Of course, who is going to stay on welfare at 70 cents an hour when you

can go out and get a job for $2.20 or $3.00 or get into some other

worthwhile kind of work?

AN HON. MEMBER: Adoptions.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, adoption, yes. Let me just cover the

adoption programme relating to the moratorium that we put on on July 1

last year. One of the reasons we put it on is because there were over

1,000 studied adoption homes that were waiting for children. It

appeared, certainly, that it would be two or three — and in some cases,

four — years before we would ever be able to fill those homes in terms

of children. So I announced a moratorium.

What has happened since then is that we have adopted some 375

children. Many couples wishing to create a family through adoption have

found it possible to broaden their request from a new-born baby with no

problems.... In one instance, we had one couple that took a family

group of six — six children — from the same family. This is certainly

one of the very interesting cases that the Child Welfare Department has

dealt with. Six children, who were apprehended because they were

abandoned, are with one couple in one house, all together. That's a

phenomenal kind of thing, to be able to hold children together that way.

But then we have had other people who, because the children simply

aren't available, newborn children, have looked at the children who

have problems. We have been able to place some children with handicaps;

we have been able to place children who are somewhat older than what is

considered an adoptable age — say two and under.

What we have now is 500 approved homes available for placement. And

it is in order now for us to lift the moratorium because we don't have

such a long waiting list. We are not going to get that tremendous

pressure we got previously from people who were at the far end of the

waiting list, constantly asking us when they are going to get the

children, asking us what possibilities there are of getting children

from overseas, and this kind of thing.

It was putting a great deal of pressure on the community and a great

deal of pressure on the parents. So as of July 1 this year, 1974, we

will again accept applications for new-born children.

In respect to the Indian children, once we have gone past the 60-day

period for appeal through the supreme court, we will then lift that

moratorium and that should take place around June l. But that situation

will be freed up.

We have no great expectations for the availability of children to be

adopted. The situation internationally, in terms of overseas adoptions,

is also not very clear. In B.C. as a government in April,

[ Page 2187 ]

1973, we presented a paper to the working party

that is attempting, first of all, to rationalize the system in Canada.

Then we will take a look at what is going on overseas, as to whether

there is, in fact, a possible source for getting children, or if there

isn't. We are now looking at this in a very real fashion.

I think I covered all of it, didn't I?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

I would like to interrupt you for a moment. When I first came here in

1950, there was a man sitting in the House who was here from 1920, Mr.

Tom Uphill, who I thought a great deal of. Sitting in the gallery is

his son, Mayor Vern Uphill from Fernie. I would like you to give him a

hand.

MR. WALLACE: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

follow up on this adoption thing. If, at the time of the moratorium,

370 parents obtained a child, that leaves 630 who didn't.

You've now opened the waiting list again, as it were, and I don't

really see, with respect, how we can fail within a very short time to

repeat pretty well the situation that caused the Minister to introduce

the moratorium. I don't think this problem can be solved, but I feel

very strongly for the parents who in the next few months may be putting

their name on that waiting list, expecting that it has some meaning and

that they're going to get a child. I presume that some of the 630 who

came off the waiting list and disappeared into limbo and who still want

a child will be the first ones to get their names back on the list.

Just before I sit down, there was another point on adoption that

caused a great deal of distress last session. The Minister mentioned

that adopted children should learn as to who their real parents were. I

remember at that time the Minister said there would be a great deal of

discussion and investigation before any official policy was adopted.

Could the Minister tell us whether that discussion has led to any

positive conclusion or has he abandoned the idea? As he knows, it's

fraught with some difficulty. Many adopting parents wrote to us after

that discussion expressing their great concern.

HON. MR. LEVI: As you will recall, Mr. Member, last year I

made a second statement in which I attempted to clarify very carefully.

We answered everybody in terms of the mail on this.

We have had some discussion on this but it is something that is

fading from view. We still have a number of letters from people who are

asking for information. You will recall that in my second statement I

reiterated what I actually said in the first statement: this would not

apply in any case to anyone under the age of 19. In any case, it is not

one of the foremost priorities in the department and it is not

something that has been discussed, certainly over the last few months,

but I still get mail.

On the question of the number of adoption homes, when we meet, when

we accept applications again, we hope to be able to say to parents in a

very realistic way what their expectations can be. We were not able to

do this before because we inherited a large group. This way, we will

have to very carefully interpret to people realistically what the

chances are if they are past that 300 or 400 mark, which is about what

we are able to come up with at the moment. That's one of the things we

will have to do in a very careful way; that's one of the reasons we put

on the moratorium. We had to stop the pressure and the anxiety. Now we

have to be very careful how we interpret it in the future.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would like to leave the

matter of adopted children and go back to senior citizens for a few

minutes, if the Minister wouldn't mind.

There are a number of concerns I am sure the Minister is aware of.

But we don't seem to have talked, certainly not this afternoon, about

those who have worked hard in their lives and who have been prudent and

who have put a little bit of money aside but are finding this money

absolutely zapped out from under their feet right now with inflation.

As the Minister knows, one of the major problems for helping senior

citizens of any group is the federal Income Tax Act. It seems every

time you reach out to help these people in a way that's compatible with

them, it affects their income tax status.

The former administration, very much directed and spearheaded by

Mrs. Dawson, was embarking on a number of programmes in consultation

with senior citizens and counsellors who were in Victoria for their

meetings and whom she met around the province to undertake some

programmes that would assist them but would not affect their tax

situation.

One was a programme right through the province whereby senior

citizens at certain hours of the day and certain times of the year

could, if they belonged to the senior citizens' club — and that wasn't

on the basis of a means test or supplementary allowance — buy meals at

certain restaurants for half-price.

There was another programme she was entering into which would have

got together with the motels and hotels and resort operators in British

Columbia, and hopefully spread from there right across Canada, whereby,

at certain times of the year, senior citizens travelling would be

presented with a reduction in rates. This had quite a compatible effect

to it because there are many motels that were open anyway and, at

certain times of the year, they were very glad to even

[ Page 2188 ]

have a half fee in order to cover their operating

costs. There was the same in terms of train travel and bus travel right

across Canada and, in cooperation with Greyhound, to the American

states. I know some of these are coming to pass, but I haven't seen

much evidence of these others I was talking about in relation to motel

and hotel accommodation. I certainly can't seem to find any senior

citizens who have. I would like to know from the Minister if that

programme was carried on and if there is in British Columbia today a

card for any person over 60 and anyone who is handicapped who is

travelling in accord with these regulations so they could take

advantage of this benefit.

I would also like to know what the Minister's feeling is in regard

to assisting with transportation for senior citizens in

non-metropolitan areas. The former administration did have an allowance

of $3 initially in the supplementary allowances for transportation but

this has long been eaten up by inflation. There is some help for those

on Mincome in the metropolitan areas, and, as you know, Hydro has a

reduction for them.

But transportation is becoming a major problem of almost

catastrophic proportions in the non-metropolitan area. Because of

redeveloping downtown cores, downtown senior citizen living areas are

being moved out either through inspiration of social housing programmes

or because there are not the options for them except to move further

out. In all these areas from Penticton to Cranbrook to Fort St. John

there are not municipal bus services that extend beyond the city

limits. Also, there is the problem that, where there is a small

municipal bus service, the hours are most limited.

We have growing in the province a serious problem. Many activity

centres are developing, many programmes are going on for senior

citizens in the core of communities, but the senior citizens simply

cannot get to these meetings. I have long recommended to the Minister

and I would like to recommend to him again an assistance for these

people forthwith so they can take advantage of many of the programmes

and so they can be independent. They might like to see "The Exorcist"

or something. I wouldn't, but they might. There are concerts that are

nothing to do with senior citizens. There are carnival programmes;

there are picture shows; there are dances. Certainly we know the senior

citizens in British Columbia are just about the most dancing bees there

are in any area, and they just can't take advantage. How can an elderly

gentleman on Mincome take an elderly lady to a dance when he lives in

the south of town and she lives in the north of town and never the

transportation shall meet?

There is a very serious need in this area. I would urge the Minister

to make this available to the people in the non-metropolitan areas. I

have proposed many programmes, many bills. I won't go over them all now

but I hope he has taken this to heart. Perhaps today he will announce

something.

I would like to know what the Minister's programme is in relation to

the removal of the funds that came through the New Horizons programme

from the federal government. In many areas programmes have got started

but they are now in the position where their funds have run out or are

running out. They might have an activity programme going but they have

no funds for equipment. If it is a craft programme they haven't got

funds even for the paint and clay. With inflation the way it is today,

it's very difficult for those with limited incomes to be able to

provide much of this on their own.

Perhaps the Minister would enjoy a comment about the elderly

gentleman who wants to court the elderly lady: "He lives on the morning

side of the mountain and she lives on the twilight side of the hill."

Perhaps if my words don't move the Minister, that lovely poem will.

Some of these centres have been stimulated by having people in there

paid for under the New Horizons programme. I certainly don't advocate

that we should continually pay people to go in and stimulate elderly

people or older programmes because I think these senior citizens are

quite capable of carrying on this type of administration and initiation

on their own. But there frequently does come a problem in the area of

factual administration, bookkeeping and accounting. Sometimes these

programmes are cut off so quickly that there is no transitional stage.

I wonder if the Minister will make available some funds for elderly

groups who are in this transitional stage in order that they might be

able to hire some of their own or have some type of assistance to carry

on their programmes so that they don't just fall flat on their face.

I think there should be a spearheading through the department,

frankly, and the people in the field encouraging more and more

community people to become involved with senior citizens. There's a

tremendous tendency for these programmes to become stereotyped and for

small groups to develop. There needs to be a spark of life in there to

initiate new programmes, even swimming programmes that I saw done,

which everybody thought would never work, but in fact did work, and new

ideas to help them overcome the problem of coping with arrangements. We

have to remember that many of the senior citizens in the old age

pension groups are people who've had to cope with limited budgets all

their lives, and have not had a great opportunity to travel and who

find themselves in a position where simple overcoming of red tape and

overcoming of organizational plans is quite difficult. This spark needs

to come, I think, in some communities from

[ Page 2189 ]

the department itself in a manner of just making various organizations aware of this need.

We're fortunate in many of these senior citizens' groups that there

are real spark plugs there, but they don't want to stay in charge all

the time and they want to move on. I think that because at times they

do get tired, we have to recognize that there is a time when they need

a reliable hand to come in and give them a boost. I certainly saw this

in the area that I have the honour to represent, where I was most

anxious to get a senior citizens' recreation centre going. We just

couldn't. Much as everybody wanted it, there were a few barriers to

break down. There was the need to get over it and I couldn't be at all

the meetings. We finally got a council woman who was just ideal. She

was there at all the meetings to support and she was there with a great

deal of diplomacy to put in the little bits of guidance that were

needed to get the lawyers that they needed to donate their time in

drawing up their societies act. I feel this is something the department

itself is sensitive to and should be encouraged to do more of. They do

know what's going on and they can judge where this assistance is needed.

I'd also like to ask the Minister how many new senior citizen

counsellors he has hired. He circulated a letter very kindly some

year-and-a-half ago. Our group sent in three names and to my knowledge

no one else has been hired. I would like to know how many new ones he

has taken on and in what parts of the province.

Again, I must go back to the area of those who are not eligible for

Mincome but in fact find themselves in a very restricted financial

position today because of inflation. I've always made it clear to the

Minister, and I guess I will today, that I feel that his government

should have initiated this. It should have increased the homeowner

grant to those over 65, over and above what the rest of us get, and I'm

not going into detail, Mr. Chairman. We must do everything possible to

give senior citizens the right and the option to stay in their own

homes.

Widows. This is a very serious problem today because through the

estate tax, a lot of their cash is wiped out. They find themselves

squeezed in by lawyers' fees, accountants' fees and death duties. In

fact, what assets they had are diminished. I know the Minister knows,

if he studied the case, that these are not rich rip-offs; these are

very hard-working people who may seem all right at the time of the

death and within three or four or five years with inflation are in a

position where they have to go on Mincome.

A matter that should be of concern to the Minister is in relation to

repair and assistance to elderly people living in their own homes. I'll

discuss that more under my bill, but this is something that the

Minister should be aware of. It shouldn't apply just to those on

Mincome; it should apply to those people in the grey area who have

worked hard, who have saved their money. Really, it wasn't the

Minister's comment but the Premier's comment when he said they want to

err on generosity. All he said was: "spend you assets and go on

Mincome." I'm sure the Minister agrees that this is a very stupid

attitude and I'm sure he wouldn't advocate it.

These people are having more problems, Mr. Minister, in terms of

diet. I would bring specifically to your attention diet foods for

diabetics and people with extreme allergies who are not on Mincome.

These foods are not covered by any type of a drug programme.

I would urge the Minister to make available during high inflationary

periods food coupons for people on special diets in order that they can

meet these needs. Special dietetic foods are most expensive. A can the

third of the size of an ordinary can of raspberries, for example, costs

almost three times as much, and yet they're just water packed.

People on special diets are having an extremely difficult time

because inflationary pressure, particularly in British Columbia, is on

our staple foods. We have a milk income subsidy programme in British

Columbia, and it's designed to help the producer and hopefully help the

consumer. It's all right for all of us to stand up and say the consumer

has to pay, but the cost of milk to a senior citizen today is getting

too high. Their diets tends to be milk and eggs if they're not on the

tea and toast diet. Vegetables they have to buy in small quantities.

I have looked around the stores and I'm darned if I can find 2 per

cent skim milk in a half pint carton. Maybe the Minister would look

into that. I think a lot of elderly people drink 2 per cent milk

because they're aware of the cholesterol situation. A lot of them are

prescribed to use 2 per cent milk because of high blood pressure. To my

knowledge, nowhere in British Columbia can you get 2 per cent milk in

the half pint carton. If they're on a diet, the use of a whole quart of

2 per cent milk takes four or five days. It's expensive and by this

time the milk has absorbed the flavour from the refrigerator and isn't

really as palatable.

So I'd urge the Minister to encourage a programme in British

Columbia where foods would be packaged in smaller quantities for senior

citizens. Some stores carry half-pound and quarter-pound packages of

butter, but it's not as common as it was. The matter of eggs, for

example, is extremely difficult. You can go into any supermarket and

you look at eggs and you see that the dozen is perforated so you can

take it apart, but if you ever tried to take it apart, you've got

nothing but an omelette on your hands. You have to go and find a clerk

and then he looks at you and says: "What do you want half a dozen eggs

for?" You have to go through this explanation. I would urge the

Minister to — I don't think it needs to be legislated —

[ Page 2190 ]

get in touch with the major supermarkets in British

Columbia and urge them to have available at all times very obvious half

dozen quantities of eggs. Some of them do put a knife out and this

would be fine, but there should really be a sign saying: "Feel free to

purchase a half dozen eggs." As the Minister knows, I'm sure, many

older people are very shy about asking for this sort of thing in stores

and at times the clerks are very unsympathetic.

The matter of assistance to special diets. Again, I bring up under

the Minister's vote this matter of certain necessities, and I'll use

diabetics as an example because it's so classic. Their insulin is

covered by the Pharmacare programme, but their test tapes aren't, I

don't believe their vitamin B12 is, and their needles and syringes are

not covered. So frequently their diet and these allied medical

assistances that they need outstrip the cost of the insulin by far.

This is where they're having problems.

I don't want to go into any bills, Mr. Minister, but I wish you had

added another $50 per year to the elderly renters' grant along with the

$30. This would have given them an edge over the rest of the people in

British Columbia who can work. I don't want to go into it in detail,

Mr. Chairman, but I wait patiently, breathlessly, for the Minister to

stand up and say that they would be eligible this year for $130 a year

in their renters' grant, which would be of great help to them.

Mr. Minister, this problem of urban redevelopment is hitting senior

citizens and older people and handicapped people much harder than the

public is aware and that I've ever heard the Minister express. I really

don't know what a lot of these people are going to do, some that own

their own homes and others who are renting. It's not only in the

metropolitan areas.

One of the things I would suggest to the Minister is that he discuss

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and in turn

with the municipalities — and I think specifically of the Greater

Vancouver region — to allow zoning changes in small shopping areas so

that living accommodations and quality accommodation can be developed

above stores.

Take Dunbar shopping centre, if the Minister is familiar with that,

and I believe he is, as an example. It's got blocks and blocks of shops

— little butcher shops and grocery shops and gift shops and hat shops

and everything — all one storey high. It seems to me that it would be

very practical — and I would qualify again that it should be quality

development — to allow these people to build at least another floor of

apartments for elderly people right in these shopping areas.

Certainly there is a large percentage of elderly people, in my

experience, who don't want to live in group homes. They don't want to

live in big apartments. They don't want to live out of the action. They

want to live right downtown where the action is, in the shopping area.

When you look at Dunbar, it's not a noisy area at night. There's a

theatre. There are often community concerts. There is a bus service. As

I say, there are possibilities of housing 1,000 senior citizens just

within that major shopping complex, if the city would relax its zoning

laws and if the government itself would put out an incentive to those

building owners and put it on a limited profit basis like the federal 5

per cent income programme, encourage them to do this, back their loans,

give low-cost loans and give them a grant, if you will. If you give

them a grant then you can limit the profitability and you can also have

a say in the quality of housing that they produce.

I would recommend that you look very closely at roof gardens in

these areas, so that there is an attractive area for people to sit,

which is not necessarily in the park area.

The next area I would like to discuss with the Minister is the

problem of alcoholism in elderly citizens in British Columbia. I'm not

aware of any major figures or really any major studies that have been

done about this in British Columbia, but I understand it is a

significant geriatric problem in many parts of North America.

It appears that the person who is an alcoholic in his elderly years

follows two patterns. One is that he always had a tendency to

alcoholism — and he's very difficult to deal with. The other is that it

is a developing symptom of loneliness, loss of family, and feelings of

isolation.

I wonder if the Minister has anything to report to us on this. If

not, I wonder if the Minister would undertake to have this matter

studied. It should be in other than the metropolitan area as well to

find out if this is a growing incidence and problem in British

Columbia. I would suspect that it is, which leads again to the reasons

why, and this is isolation and loneliness of elderly people.

In spite of the programmes that are and have been going on in

Vancouver, you can just meet a senior citizen every day who is lonely

and needs friends, and who would like to get out. I honestly don't know

exactly how you combat this, Mr. Minister. They are not people who are

on Mincome necessarily, but again this forgotten few, the people who

are being squeezed, who maybe have worked all their lives, are single,

and they don't know how to socialize. They are very shy about going to

any drop-in centres and they also are very nervous about going out at

night.

I would suggest that there needs to be a much broader expansion on a

volunteer basis of people finding these elderly people and encouraging

them or helping them to meet other people with a common interest. And

this doesn't necessarily mean going to a

[ Page 2191 ]

centre. There are lot